Part 2 — Art. 4: THE VICES OPPOSED TO COMMUTATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE (continued 2)

1880. Illegal Contracts.—For reasons of public policy the positive law puts its disapproval on many of the above-mentioned contracts, at least in certain instances.

(a) Thus, sometimes the law makes a contract unenforceable in court, though the natural obligation is not affected. Hence, if a wager is only denied a hearing before a judge, the winner may keep his gains, and the loser should pay.

(b) If the law merely declares that a contract is illegal, the effect seems to be that the contract retains its natural validity unless the party who has suffered by it wishes to disavow it. As to the sinfulness of such a contract, that depends on whether or not the law is penal or preceptive in intent. Thus, many regard laws that make betting illegal as preceptive under venial sin, while others regard them as punitive only. Other examples of illegal contracts are: gifts made to a judge in connection with a trial; lottery, in Great Britain and the United States; certain games of chance, in some States; and in Canon Law, as regards the clergy, alcatory games for money, speculation and trading (Canons 138, 142).

(c) If the law makes a contract voidable, the effect is that the contract possesses its natural force until adverse decision is given by court. Hence, if a wager is voidable in law, the winner may keep his gains until obliged by a judge to give them up, but the loser is not bound to pay, unless he confirms the wager.

(d) If the law makes the contract ipso facto void, the agreement loses its natural force (see 558-560). In most of our States, wagering contracts are illegal and void whether by statute or by judicial decision. In many of these States the statute permits the recovery of the money from the winner or the stakeholder. Gifts offered as bribes are invalid, and those who give or take such gifts are guilty of serious sin and of a criminal offense. In some of our States, certain gaming contracts are also null.

1881. Qualities Necessary in the Parties Contractant.—The parties contractant must have the following qualities:

(a) from natural law it is necessary that they have the use of reason sufficient to understand what they are doing. Incompetent are babies and the insane, and also those who are totally drunk or otherwise temporarily deranged. Less competent are the half-witted and those who need a guardian in important matters;

(b) from positive law it is necessary that they be not legally excluded. In Canon Law administrators of church property and solemnly professed religious are unable to make certain contracts (Canons 1527, 536). In civil law there are restrictions on the contractual powers of minors, wives, aliens, guardians and corporations. Persons not yet conceived are not capable in civil law of receiving a donation, and there are many prohibitions against the tender or acceptance of gifts by those who can reasonably be suspected of exercising undue influence or of being subject to undue influence.

1882. Legal Privileges of Minors.—The law grants certain benefits to minors and the like; for example, in some cases they are not bound by a non-executed agreement, while the other party is bound, or in an executed contract they may recover property without restoring or offering to restore the consideration, if they have nothing with which to replace it.

(a) Minors and other persons who are legally incompetent to contract, may avail themselves of the benefits of the law with a good conscience, if they are in good faith; for it is just that the law should protect those who are unable to protect themselves, and those who make contracts with such persons should know that they (the competent parties) act at their own risk.

(b) Minors and other persons legally incompetent may not avail themselves of the benefit of the law if they have acted in bad faith (e.g., if a minor by deceit induced the other party to sell to him).

1883. Qualities Necessary for Valid Consent.—The agreement or consent of the contracting parties must have the following qualities:

(a) it must be internal, that is, one must accept in will and not merely in words the proposal or consideration offered by the other party. If one consents only to the form of the contract, the contract is null, and the same is probably true if one does not accept internally the obligations of the contract; if one consents to the obligations, but does not intend to fulfill them, the contract is valid, but unlawful. One who contracts invalidly sins, and is bound in the external forum to keep the contract seriously made, and in the internal forum to repair the damage to the other party by giving true consent or making restitution. One who contracts unlawfully also sins, and is bound to the engagement;

(b) it must be external, that is, one must manifest in some sensible way one’s agreement to the proposition contained in an offered contract. Silence gives consent only when the contract is favorable to the party who is silent, or when that party should and easily could manifest his lack of consent, if the proposal did not please him. In the case of contracts between parties who are not in each other’s presence, the intimation to the offerer of the offeree’s acceptance is not necessary for validity, if the contract is gratuitous; but the contrary seems to be true, at least _per se_, if the contract is onerous. We shall speak later (1885) on the legal formalities required in contracts;

(c) it must be mutual, that is, there must be a meeting of minds in the same sense, or agreement of both parties to the same thing. Mutuality requires that consent be contemporaneous, that is, that the acceptance of one be given while the offer of the other still holds good. But it does not require that the parties be in each other’s presence, or that they contract through direct personal communication, or (at least according to natural law) that the knowledge of the accomplishment of mutual agreement be known to the offerer. The law in the United States generally is that an offer may be withdrawn immediately or after a reasonable time, unless it was made on time for a consideration; and that a contract between the absent begins only on receipt by the offerer of the acceptance of the offeree, if the former stipulated for this, or if the offerer uses one means of communication as his agency and the offeree another. In other cases it begins the moment that acceptance is entrusted to the agent of the offerer;

(d) it must be free, that is, it must have the advertence and voluntariness necessary for a human act. If the contract is of grave import, there should be the same kind of deliberation as is necessary for commission of a mortal sin (see 173 sqq.); if it is of lesser import, the deliberation should correspond with the seriousness of the case. But some authors think there should be perfect deliberation in every contract, since the contractants are assuming obligations of justice.

1884. Defects that Invalidate Consent.—The defects that vitiate consent by taking away knowledge or choice render contracts either void or voidable (see 40-55). These impediments are the following:

(a) error, which is a judgment of fact or of law in reference to the contract, not in harmony with the truth, but not maliciously caused by other persons. If error is substantial (that is, about the nature of the contract or the nature of the subject-matter of the contract), the agreement is naturally void; if error is only accidental (that is, about features of the contract, subject-matter or co-contractant, that are only incidentally intended), an onerous agreement is naturally valid, but positive law in the interest of freedom will often grant the privilege of rescindment (see Canon 1684, n. 2). But if error cannot be proved, courts will stand for the validity of a contract;

(b) fraud, which is error or mistake about a contract caused in one of the parties by the dishonest representations of the other party or of a third person (e.g., when an insurance agent deceives about the benefits, or a policy-taker deceives about his age or health). Fraud exists, then, when there is intention, at least indirect, to mislead, and statements, acts or omissions calculated to mislead; but the usual boasts of vendors and advertisers about the wonderful excellence of their wares are not fraudulent, since the public understands that such talk must be taken _cum grano salis_. The effects of fraud on the value of contracts are the same as those produced by error; but it should be noted that the person guilty of the fraud is bound to make good the losses of the injured party, even though the contract be valid and not rescindable, or though the guilty person be not a party to the contract;

(c) fear, which is a disturbance of mind caused by the belief that some danger is impending on oneself or others (see 41 sqq.). It makes a contract invalid in natural law, when it takes away all consent (e.g., when it overpowers the reason, or makes one dissent internally from what is agreed to externally), and probably also when it takes away perfect freedom in a gratuitous contract, or makes one enter into a contract for immunity from an unjust vexation; it renders an act or engagement invalid according to positive law in many special cases (e.g., the Canons declare null elections, resignations, marriages, vows, etc., which are made under the influence of fear). Contracts are considered naturally voidable if one of the parties unjustly extorts the consent of the other by grave fear, or if a third party intimidates a person into bestowing something through gratuitous contract; and the positive law generally treats agreements entered into under grave fear as rescindible (see Canon 103, n. 2). Fear unjustly caused, even though it does not make a contract void or voidable, is at times a reason for the duty of restitution, as when a third party by his unjust threats forces an innocent person to make expensive contracts as a measure of protection, and probably also when a third party directly constrains one to make an onerous contract with a person who knows nothing about the coercion. Fear, no matter how great, does not in any way weaken a contract, if there is consent and the fear is induced by a natural cause (e.g., a storm), or by a human cause acting justly (e.g., an injured man threatening a lawsuit);

(d) violence or coercion, which is like to fear, the latter being moral force and the former physical force (see 52). According to natural law, violence invalidates a contract, unless we suppose that it is only concomitant, as when Sempronius uses coercion to make Balbus sign a contract which Balbus is really willing to sign. Positive law does not recognize, or will set aside, agreements made under overpowering constraint (see Canon 103, n. 1).

1885. Form of Contract.—The form of a contract is the external manner in which, according to the positive law, the internal consent of the parties must be expressed and manifested.

(a) Thus, Canon Law in certain contracts (e.g., engagement of marriage, marriage, alienation of church property) requires specified solemnities under pain of nullity of act.

(b) Civil law in the United States designates various formalities to be used in transfers of property (e.g., that a deed for real estate be written, signed, sealed and attested; that a gift be made by delivery or equivalent act; that certain contracts be in writing; that no contract be of worth unless it be for a consideration, or else be on paper with seal attached). The law has the right to annul informal contracts _ipso facto_, but whether this is the intention in modern codes is a matter of dispute. The practical rule to be followed, then, is that the possessor is to be favored, unless there has been a court decision against his claim. It should be noted, too, that some legal conditions, such as valuable consideration in simple contracts, are required for enforceability, not for validity, and hence a good contract wanting some such condition, though indefensible before the courts, is obligatory in conscience.

1886. The Accidentals of a Contract.—(a) Bond is the agreement by the obligor of a contract to pay a certain forfeit to the obligee, if the former does not perform his contract or does not perform it before a certain date. This agreement obliges in conscience, if the promise was seriously made, if the penalty is not excessive, and if the breach of agreement is culpable.

(b) Oaths added to contracts have moral effects on the contracts themselves and also on acts contrary to them. As regards the contract, an oath adds the obligation of religion to that of justice, if the contract is valid and irrescindable; and the common opinion is that it strengthens a contract extrinsically, that is, it induces an obligation of religion to keep the promise, if the oath is invalid or rescindable by positive law only and in favor of a private privilege; but an oath in no way strengthens a contract that is naturally invalid or rescindable positively on account of the public good. As regards acts that are contrary to an invalid or rescindable contract that was confirmed by a valid oath, they are sinful, as being irreligious, but not invalid nor unjust (see 2260).

(c) Conditions are accidents or circumstances so added to a contract that the consent or dissent is made dependent upon their existence or fulfillment. An immoral condition, if unfulfilled, takes from the contract all obligation, exception being made for separable parts that are not affected by the immoral clause; but if it has been fulfilled, it seems that there is a moral obligation to pay the consideration promised (see 1878 d).

(d) Modes are accidents or circumstances so added to a contract as to qualify the rights or duties of the contractants, or the purpose, matter or time of the contract, but not so as to make the consent dependent on the fulfillment of the thing designated. Thus, if Titus leaves money to Balbus, chiefly because Balbus is his nephew, and secondarily because he imposes on Balbus the obligation of using the money for his education, Balbus in accepting the money accepts also the obligation, but the gift does not lapse if the obligation is not complied with. If a donor adds an immoral mode to his gift (e.g., that the donee use in immoral ways the money left him), this purpose is regarded as non-existent and the gift stands in spite of it. If an agent violates a mode (e.g., he pays $1001 when he was directed to pay $1000) but not a condition (e.g., that he purchase land and not a house), the contract stands.

1887. The Moral Obligation of Entering into a Contract.—(a) There is a duty of justice when one is under public or private engagement to make a contract. Examples are a merchant who opens a store for public patronage, or an auctioneer who holds a sale before invited patrons, or an owner who makes with another person a contract to sell, or a man and woman who make solemn espousals.

(b) There is a duty of charity when a neighbor is in such need that he deserves to be helped, for example, by a loan or by assistance to make a loan: “From him that would borrow of thee turn not away” (Matt., v. 42); “A good man is surety for his neighbor” (Ecclus., xxix. 18).

1888. Every valid contract obliges to faithful performance as a duty of conscience, even though it be unenforceable and without civil obligation. We shall discuss the properties of this obligation.

(a) Quality of the Obligation.—Onerous contracts oblige in virtue of commutative justice and under pain of restitution; gratuitous contracts oblige according to some from justice, according to others from fidelity, according to others from fidelity or justice as the obligor intends (see 1692, 1753). In practice one may follow the rule that a liberal promise or wager or other gratuitous contract obliges only from fidelity with no duty of restitution, unless it be certain that the promisor intended to bind himself in justice. One is responsible, however, for damages resultant on breach of promise. The obligation seems to be one of legal justice only when the thing promised is something on which a pecuniary value cannot be set and consists in compliance with law (e.g., in suretyship or bail for keeping the peace or appearing in court).

(b) Quantity of Obligation.—In onerous contracts the degree of obligation depends on the importance of the subject matter, and hence it is a mortal sin to violate a contract in which a grave right is concerned; in gratuitous contracts the degree of obligation depends entirely, according to some, on the will of the person who liberally binds himself, but others hold that it depends on the importance of the subject-matter.

(c) Subjects of Obligation.—The parties to the contracts and those who take their place (e.g., heirs, executors) or who are responsible for the contract (e.g., those who commanded the agreement) are morally bound to fulfill the agreement, while others are bound not to interfere with the fulfillment.

(d) Objects of Obligation.—Directly, there is the duty of observing what is contained explicitly or implicitly in the agreement, and indirectly of making good any losses caused by breach of contract. A rescindable contract obliges until it is lawfully disaffirmed by the party who has the right to break it; a quasi-contract imposes on the party who has benefited by the services or expenses of another a moral obligation of making compensation. If a contract transfers ownership (e.g., contract of sale passing title to buyer, _mutuum_), the transferee must bear the risks and expenses of the thing transferred; but if it does not transfer ownership (e.g., contract to sell, _commodatum_) or has not yet done so (e.g., contract of sale in which title will pass later, on delivery or payment), the transferer has the risk and expense (see 1796).

1889. Cessation of Obligation.—The obligation of a contract ceases in various ways: (a) by action of the contractants, as when a promisee renounces his right, or each of the parties to a promise has made a gratuitous promise in favor of the other and one refuses to keep his word; (b) by action of law, for example, by prescription, by annulment; (c) by impossibility, as when a thing freely promised has become unlawful or useless, or when the donee of a gift _mortis causae_ dies before the donor.

1890. Theft.—Theft is the secret taking of what belongs to another, with the intention of appropriating it to oneself, against the reasonable wishes of the owner.

(a) It is a taking, that is, a carrying away of goods. But theft also includes the receiving or keeping of property, since the harm done is the same as when the goods are carried away. Hence, he who does not restore borrowed or deposited or found objects, or who does not pay back a loan, when he could and should, is a thief.

(b) It is a secret taking, that is, the property is taken away without the knowledge of the owner or lawful possessor, even though he be present. In this respect theft differs from robbery.

(c) It is the taking of property. This includes not only corporeal things (e.g., books, money, jewelry, clothing), but also incorporeal things (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights), and even persons if they are looked on as possessions. Hence, plagiarism or infringement of copyright or man-stealing or kidnapping (i.e., the carrying off of another’s slave or child) are forms of theft.

(d) It is the taking of property that belongs to another, that is, of goods of which another person is the owner, or lawful possessor as usufructuary, guardian, depositary, etc. Hence, one can steal from oneself by taking one’s goods by stealth from the bailee with the design of charging him for their value or of depriving him of their use to which he has a right.

(e) It is the taking away of goods with the intention of appropriating them to one’s own possession, use or enjoyment to the exclusion of the rightful owner. Hence, strictly speaking, it is not theft to carry away property with the intention of borrowing it for a time or of destroying it; but these are acts of unlawful possession or of unlawful damage. It is obligatory to take an object from another, if this is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime (e.g., to take away and hide the gun with which another intends to kill).

(f) It is against the wishes of the owner. This refers to the substance (that is, the conversion of the property to one’s use), not to the mode (that is, secrecy with which it is done). Hence, if the owner is unwilling that the property be taken, he who takes it is guilty of theft; if the owner is not unwilling that it be taken, but is unwilling that it be taken without his knowledge, he who takes it in this way sins at least venially, but is not guilty of theft in the strict sense.

(g) It is against the reasonable wishes of the owner or possessor; for no injury is done if he does or should consent to the loss. The owner does consent if the person who takes the goods is acting according to a general and recognized custom (e.g., when a servant takes things left over from her employer’s table, which it is certain the latter does not wish to keep); the owner should consent, if justice forbids that he prevent the taking (e.g., when a starving man is taking food from one who has plenty), or if domestic duty commands that he should give the thing taken (e.g., when a wife takes from her husband’s pockets the needed money he denies his family, for a wife and family have the right to receive from the head of the house support according to their station and means). But the owner is not bound to consent to the loss of his goods from the mere fact that he misuses them to his own spiritual disadvantage, or owes them in charity to the taker. Hence, it is theft to take a flask from the pocket of one who drinks too much, or to steal a book from one who is harmed by reading it, or to filch money from a rich man because one is poor and he will not give an alms.

1891. Unauthorized Use of Another’s Funds.—What is the guilt of one who uses for his own purposes the money of another entrusted to him for other purposes?

(a) There is no theft, for it is supposed that the purpose of the user is to make only a temporary loan of the money.

(b) There is an act of injustice, if the permission of the owner cannot be presumed; for the rights of an owner are violated when one converts his property to uses displeasing to him. Thus, if the prospect is that the owner may never get his money back or that he will lose profits by the use made of it, the guilt of unjust damage is incurred, at least in intention (e.g., a depositary uses a deposit to buy stocks on margin, or a company official makes an unauthorized loan instead of investing the amount for the company’s benefit).

(c) There is no sin, if the permission of the owner can be reasonably presumed; for to him who willingly consents no injury is done. Thus, if one who is managing the funds of another has the chance to make a large amount of money today by using those funds for himself but cannot get in touch with the owner, the latter’s consent can be presumed, if he will suffer no present loss and it is absolutely certain that his funds will be returned tomorrow. But on account of the risk that is ordinarily present, this case would be rare.

1892. Comparison of Theft and Robbery.—(a) They differ in species, for theft contains injustice to an owner in his property, but robbery, which is an unjust and violent taking of what belongs to another, contains injustice both to property and to person. The unwillingness of the owner in the case of theft is due to his ignorance of his loss; in the case of robbery it is due to intimidation or force. (b) They differ in gravity, robbery being according to its nature the more serious kind of stealing; for the robber does a twofold injury, and the owner’s unwillingness to be robbed is greater.

1893. Kinds of Theft and Robbery.—(a) There are many varieties of theft, the differences arising from the circumstances in which the stealing is done. Thus, he who steals from the Church is guilty of sacrilegious theft; he who uses the public goods for his private ends commits peculation; he who takes from his parents practises domestic thievery.

(b) There are also many ways in which robbery or rapine is committed. The following persons are guilty of robbery: pirates, bandits, highwaymen, burglars, usurers, profiteers, venal judges, unmerciful creditors who deprive debtors of necessaries, debtors who escape payment by fraudulent bankruptcy, profiteers, laborers who extort unjust wages, those who force subordinates to contribute graft, and blackmailers. Two forms of robbery are described in Scripture as sins that cry to heaven for justice, namely, defrauding laborers of their wages (James, v. 4) and oppression of the poor, which happens especially when one denies their rights to those who are unable to defend them. The following persons are also classed as thieves: pickpockets, spongers, smugglers, forgers, counterfeiters, embezzlers, and those who misappropriate funds entrusted to them.

In the civil law theft is also known as larceny, and is defined as the unlawful severance of personal property from the possession of its owner. The following kinds of larceny are distinguished:

(a) in respect to the manner of perpetration, a theft is larceny when the property is taken from the possession of the owner by one who had no possession, whether the latter be a stranger or a custodian; it is embezzlement when committed by one upon whom the owner had conferred temporary possession on account of a fiduciary relationship between them; it is false pretence when committed by one who procures permanent possession or ownership through fraudulent representations;

(b) In respect to the matter or quantity stolen, theft is called petit larceny when it falls below a certain sum fixed by the law, grand larceny when it exceeds that sum.

1894. The Sinfulness of Theft.—(a) From its nature theft—and, much more, robbery—is a grave sin; for it is opposed to the virtues of charity and justice, it is expressly forbidden in the Seventh Commandment (“Thou shalt not steal,” Exod., xx. 15), and it excludes from eternal life (“Neither thieves nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God,” I Cor., vi. 10). The thief attacks the sacred right of the individual to his property, and imperils the peace and stability of society itself. Theft is a grave sin, even when it is committed by little and little, as happens when a merchant gives underweight habitually: “A deceitful balance is an abomination to the Lord” (Prov., xi. 1). The proposition that restitution for a large sum taken in parts at different times is not a grave duty was condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger, 1188). Canonical penalties for theft include exclusion from acts and offices, censures, and deposition (Canon 2354).

(b) From the imperfection of the act theft may be only a venial sin, for example, when the thief is a kleptomaniac and steals without advertence, or when he is invincibly ignorant that the thing taken is not his own or is of great value, or from the smallness of the matter involved (e.g., when the thing taken has little value, or the owner is opposed rather to the stealthy manner of taking than to the taking, or is only slightly unwilling to lose the goods).

1895. Theft of a small amount may be a mortal sin (see 187). This may happen: (a) on account of the internal or subjective circumstances, as when the thief intends to steal as much as he can or a large amount here and now, or when he intends to steal a small amount here and new but to keep this up every day until he has stolen a considerable amount, or when a child steals a small sum from its parents and falsely thinks that the theft is gravely sinful in itself; (b) on account of external or objective circumstances, as when the amount taken today is small but constitutes, with amounts previously taken, a large sum, or when the thief foresees serious consequences from his act (e.g., that the person from whom the goods are taken will fall under suspicion and be discharged or arrested). It should be noted, however, that the consequences of the theft do not necessarily make the sin grave precisely as it is a sin of theft (e.g., in the case just given the theft was a venial sin, but the unjust damage was a mortal sin), or even precisely as it is a sin of injustice (e.g., if one steals a picture of small value, foreseeing that the owner will be afflicted beyond measure at the loss, the sin against justice is small, but the sin against charity is mortal).

1896. The determination of the amount that constitutes grave matter in theft or robbery (or in unjust damage) is a very difficult task, because the factors upon which the injury depends are to some extent doubtful and vary in particular cases. Hence, there is a great diversity of opinion among moralists on this subject, and it will frequently be uncertain in an individual case whether a theft is mortally or only venially sinful in itself. But on account of the spiritual and temporal interests that are concerned it is necessary to give at least general rules for direction that will enable one to distinguish between grave and venial theft, and to know when the duty of restitution is serious, when light.

1897. Moralists are in agreement on the following points:

(a) the standard for measuring gravity of matter is not an invariable one, but will differ according to circumstances of times and places. Thus, money has much less purchasing power today than it had before the Civil War, and the same amount will not go so far nor last so long in the United States as in some countries of Europe. Hence, other things being equal, it is less harmful to steal the sum of $10 in 1958 than it was to steal the same sum in 1858, less harmful to steal that amount from an American than to steal its equivalent from a European;

(b) the standard for a particular country and period is to be interpreted morally, not mathematically; for it depends on the opinions or estimates of the prudent, which after all are only approximations and subject to revisions. Hence, it would be absurd to draw such a hard and fast distinction between grave and venial theft—for example, to decide from the amounts alone that he who stole $50 is certainly guilty of mortal sin and fit for hell, while he who stole $49.99 is guilty of venial sin only and not fit for hell. The figures given by moralists for grave matter are averages, and hence they cannot be expected to suit each individual locality or moment or injured person. But, being based on actual conditions, they are serviceable. If a sum stolen is much above or below them, they indicate truly the theological species of the sin; if it is only a little above or below them, they afford a basis for probability, or at least show that there is room for doubt.

1898. Moralists are also at one in measuring the injury of theft by the following considerations:

(a) it should be estimated by the property loss, that is, that theft should be deemed a grave sin which in view of all the circumstances and the common opinion indicts a notable loss on the owner in his property rights. This is a matter of common sense, for every one can see that it is a very different thing to steal a cent and to steal $100.

(b) it should be estimated by the personal injury, that is, by the unwillingness of the proprietor to suffer the loss. This is also clear, since the unwillingness of the proprietor is one of the ingredients of theft, as was explained above in the definition, and everyone will readily grant that an amount which would be notable if stolen from a stranger, would not be notable if stolen from an indulgent parent.

1899. There are two opinions about the estimation of the property loss.

(a) Thus, an older opinion held that the standard should be an absolute one, that is, that the loss should be determined independently of the wealth or poverty of the person injured, since the financial situation of this person is a purely extrinsic circumstance of the theft. The rich man has just as much right to his $10 as the poor man has to his $10, and it is therefore just as injurious to deprive the former of the sum as it is to deprive the latter. What is a mortal theft in one case is a mortal theft in every case.

(b) A later opinion, which seems to be the common one today, distinguishes two standards: an absolute one, which fixes one highest amount that is always grave matter on account of its magnitude, however wealthy the loser may be, and a relative one, which proposes a scale of lower amounts that are grave matter on account of the economic condition of the persons stolen from. It is argued that a relative standard should be set up, since the injury of theft is certainly felt more by those who have less means to fall back on; and that an absolute standard is also necessary, since without it the property of the rich would not be sufficiently safeguarded and the peace and order of society would be endangered.

1900. Opinions on the Amounts that Are Grave Matter.—(a) The older opinion, according to which there is only one invariable standard for all classes and conditions, regards as grave matter the amount necessary to support for a day, according to his state and obligations, a man whose financial condition is midway between wealth and poverty; for the loss of a day’s support is usually looked on as a serious loss, and a standard for all should be taken from the average. This daily support amount may be reckoned from the amount of daily wages or income. In the United States in 1955 the average daily wage was between $14 and $15, but, if only skilled laborers or those who are in moderately prosperous circumstances are considered, the average would be considerable higher. Perhaps it would range between $25 and $30. Or if we strike a medium between the highest and the lowest figures given by the advocates of two standards, we should arrive at approximately $30 or $35.

(b) The common opinion today fixes the absolute amount, which is grave matter even when theft is from the wealthiest person or society as the equivalent of a week’s wages for the head of a family living in fairly good circumstances but dependent upon his work for its support. As to the actual amount, authors differ. Thus, Father Francis Connell, C.SS.R., wrote in 1945 in _American Ecclesiastical Review_ (p. 69): “To lay down a general norm in view of actual conditions and value of money, it would seem that the actual sum for grave theft would be about $40.” In 1946, writing in the _Homiletic and Pastoral Review_ (p. 694), Father Joseph Donovan, C.M., stated: “It is hard to see how less than $100 could be absolutely grave with the chances of a higher amount being probably so.”[*] This sum was criticized as being excessive and did not meet with ready acceptance by all moral theologians. On page 127 of the third printing of his _Outlines of Moral Theology_ (1955), Father Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., suggested $75 as a reasonable absolute sum considering the value of money at the time, and, as a practical norm, the sum has been acceptable to most confessors and authors. Relatively grave matter corresponds with the amount needed to support a worker and his family for a day or, according to some, the amount required for the support of the worker alone. Relatively grave matter would range from about $5 from a poor person on relief, through $20-$35 from skilled laborers and persons in comfortable circumstances, to $75 from the wealthy. The latter sum constitutes the absolute standard. For a general norm to establish relatively grave matter, then, an acceptable procedure is to take the daily earning power or expenses of those who do not belong to the wealthiest classes, but who just barely make a living by reason of their work or charity.

[*] This is not to suggest that the authors cited hold to the “week’s pay norm” as the standard. Father Connell, for example, defines the absolute as “a sum which is so large that society would suffer much if it could be stolen without grave sin even from the richest or from a wealthy corporation” (op. cit., pp. 127-128). The interest in citing the authors is to show the precise sums suggested by them at various times regardless of the norm used in arriving at the particular amount suggested.

1901. What is grave matter in theft of sacred objects? (a) If these objects have a value that may be measured by money (e.g., the gold or jewels that enter into a reliquary), grave matter is estimated by the material value, just as in profane objects. (b) If these objects have no monetary value (e.g., sacred relics), grave matter is judged from the dignity or rarity of the object. Thus, it would be a serious sin to steal even the smallest splinter from the True Cross.

1902. It was said above (1898) that the gravity of theft is estimated, not only by the property loss, but also by the personal loss, that is, the reluctance, unwillingness or sorrow of the owner at the deprivation of his goods. This does not mean that a greater unwillingness on the part of the owner increases the gravity of the theft, if the owner’s unwillingness is excessive or unreasonable (e.g., it is not a mortal sin of theft to steal a dollar from a miser, if the miser on account of his love of money feels the loss as keenly as another person in his place would feel the loss of $40). But a less unwillingness of the owner diminishes the injury, and hence increases the amount necessary for grave matter. There are three reasons especially that diminish the unwillingess of the owner at the loss of his property.

(a) Thus, by reason of the persons who steal, the owner is less unwilling when these persons have a greater claim on his affection (e.g., his children or wife), or when custom permits them to some extent a greater freedom than is granted to others (e.g., servants, employees).

(b) By reason of the things stolen, the owner is less unwilling when these are things of less value, like crops, that are produced mostly by nature and are left exposed, such as fruits growing by the wayside, branches and pieces of fallen timber lying on uncultivated land.

(c) By reason of the manner of the theft, the owner is usually less unwilling when goods are taken gradually and on several occasions, or piecemeal, than when they are taken all at once.

1903. The Common Opinion on Domestic Thefts and Grave Matter.—(a) In theft from one’s parents about double the usual quantity is required. But in an individual case the parents may be just as unwilling, and with good reason, to be despoiled by members of the family as by outsiders, and in such a case the rule would not apply. Hence, in considering thefts by children one must bear in mind the ability of the family to suffer the loss, the number of the children, the uses to which the stolen goods are put, the liberality or thrift of the parents, the affection or dislike which the parents have for the child who steals, etc. Thus, if poor parents are denying themselves in every way in order to rear and educate a large family, thefts from them are a serious matter.

(b) In theft from one’s husband even a greater amount is required. But there are exceptions, as when the husband is especially unwilling to have his property stolen by his wife, for example, when the money she takes is devoted, not to the benefit of the family or other useful purposes, but to vanity or sin, or to the great detriment of the husband or family (see 1799).

1904. Theft from One’s Wife or Minor Child.—(a) According to the law in the United States, a wife cannot steal from her husband nor the husband from the wife, but this principle has reference to the common property of which husband and wife are joint tenants (Robinson, _Elementary Law_, Sec. 563). Both husband and wife may have also their own separate property, and in that case either of them is guilty of injustice if he or she damages or takes without leave the goods of the other.

(b) According to American law, the father has the right to the earnings of his minor children who live with him and receive their maintenance from him; but the law gives the father no right over the separate real or personal estate of these children. Hence, a parent would be guilty of theft if he unlawfully took or used the individual property of his child.

1905. The Common Opinion on Thefts Committed by Employees.—(a) If the things stolen are small articles which the employer customarily supplies for his help (e.g., food and drink for domestic servants, pencils and paper for his clerks), the theft is not serious as a rule. But there are exceptions, as when the employee gives or sells to others these articles, or when he uses or wastes them to such a degree that the employer suffers a considerable loss. And one should also consider such circumstances as the great or small value of the services given by the employee, his good or bad standing with the employer, etc.

(b) If the thing stolen is not meant for consumption (e.g., furnishings of the home or office, merchandise of the store, tools or machinery of the factory) or is of a very precious kind (e.g., rare wines or expensive brands of tobacco), grave matter is of the same amount as when an outside person does the stealing. In fact, the guilt of the employee is more serious on account of his abuse of confidence or violation of contract. The property of employers would be subject to constant risk, if employees were permitted greater liberties than outsiders.

1906. Theft of Things about Whose Loss the Owner Is Less Concerned.—(a) Vegetation that Belongs to the Public and Is Left Unprotected.—If these things are of minor importance (e.g., wild fruits or berries, broken twigs, branches, etc., in public lands), it seems that it is not theft to take them, at least when one is poor and a member of the community; for laws against such acts are generally regarded as penal. But one sins, and may even sin gravely, when extensive damage is done to public property (e.g., by cutting down trees, carrying away flowers and plants, injuring shrubs, etc.).

(b) Vegetation that Belongs to Private Parties and Is Left Unprotected.—If only a small quantity is taken (e.g., an apple or a bunch of grapes hanging over a public highway taken by a passerby), it seems no theft is done, unless the owner or law expressly forbids. But it seems to be a venial sin to take more (e.g., as much as a hungry person can eat), and a mortal sin to take a quantity whose market value is equal to grave matter.

1907. Travelling Without Paying Fare.—Is it theft to ride in public conveyances without paying the fare?

(a) If one rides without payment or ticket, it seems that theft is committed, unless the company is willing to give a free ride. It may be said that the company suffers no loss on account of one passenger who has not paid for his transportation, since the same number of cars and the same expenses would be required even without that passenger. But since the owners are unwilling to furnish their service gratis, he who takes it without pay is guilty of theft.

(b) If one rides without payment, but uses the ticket of another, there is no injustice if the rules of the company permit this (e.g., A buys a round-trip ticket, but gives the return ticket to B), but there is fraud if the rules of the company and the agreement of the purchaser make the ticket non-transferable (e.g., B uses the half-rate ticket which A had received as a personal privilege from the railroad company).

1908. Small Thefts Which Amount to a Large Sum.—Small amounts stolen may accumulate into a large amount. This happens in the following ways: (a) the thief takes small sums on different occasions from the same person or from different persons, and continues at this until he has stolen a considerable amount; (b) the thief conspires with other thieves to steal on the same occasion from one person or several persons, and, though the sum he steals is small, the sum taken by the whole group is considerable. Similarly, petty damages or vexations may accumulate into a mortal injustice. Thus, if Claudius, aiming to break down the health, sanity, success, reputation, business, etc., of Balbus, plans and carries out a systematic campaign of small injuries daily repeated for years, Claudius is guilty at least in purpose of serious damage.

1909. Small thefts that grow into a large theft are mortally sinful in the following cases:

(a) they are mortally sinful by reason of the previous intention when one steals a little now and a little again, but has it in mind from the outset to steal a total sum that will be grave matter, or when one conspires with others to steal a notable sum although one’s own share will not be a notable amount. In these cases the purpose is to commit a grave injustice, either against an individual (if all is taken from one person) or against society (if portions are taken from various persons), and hence one is internally guilty of grave sin, even though one has not yet performed it externally. Examples are merchants who use false weights and measures, or who adulterate their commodities with small portions of water, etc., and thus make large profits by minute cheating;

(b) they are mortally sinful by reason of the subsequent intention when one had no purpose to steal a large amount, but adverts to the fact that a small theft here and now committed will constitute grave matter if added to previous petty thefts, or that the amount of stolen goods now possessed is large, and nevertheless resolves to go ahead with the theft or to retain the stolen goods. This does not mean that a number of venial sins coalesce into a mortal sin (see 189), but only that the object of a sin which is slight in itself becomes serious on account of the circumstance that it is morally connected with previous sins. The last act in a connected series must not be taken singly, but in connection with the acts that precede, as is seen in the violation of a fast or in omission of parts of an hour. In the cases now considered, therefore, grave injustice is actually and purposely done, and mortal sin is committed, even though there was no thought of this in advance.

1910. The case of young men who are educated free of charge in the expectation that they will go on to the priesthood and who do not persevere.—(a) If they act in bad faith (i.e., if they enter the college or seminary merely to get their education, or to avoid work, or if they remain after they have abandoned thought of the clerical state), they are guilty of theft and bound to restitution.

(b) If they are not in bad faith (i.e., if they wish to try out their vocation, or if they begin with the intention to persevere), they are not guilty of injustice. This is true, even though they are rejected on account of idleness or other faults, provided there was no intention to defraud.

1911. In the following cases small thefts which added to others make a large sum seem not to be the cause of grave loss, and hence not mortally sinful:

(a) the small theft of one person following on the small thefts of others, when there is no bond of example, advice, conspiracy, etc., to unite the various thefts; for none of the thieves can be held responsible for the part of the loss caused by the others. Example: Titus, knowing that Balbus has been cheated by various persons to the amount of $9 and that $10 will be a serious loss to Balbus, proceeds to steal $1 from Balbus:

(b) the small thefts of several persons who steal together, and who influence one another only by example; for example is an occasion, not a true cause of the imitator’s act (see 1447, 1763). Example: Sempronius and Claudius go into a store together and find that there is no one around. Sempronius thereupon steals a number of articles and leaves. Claudius notices this and steals other things, which will make the total loss serious.

1912. Moral Connection between Repeated Acts of Theft.—The moral connection between repeated acts of theft by one person is necessary, as was said, in order that these acts unite into one grave sin. This moral connection does not exist, however, if the series is broken by interruption or revocation.

(a) Thus, the connection is broken by interruption when there is a long interval between small thefts, because thefts that are small and infrequent do not inflict severe loss on individuals or society. This supposes, of course, that there is no intention to practise small thievery habitually in order to become enriched by it, but that one steals now and then as opportunity or necessity occurs, or (according to some) that one intends to steal only small amounts and at long intervals.

(b) The connection is also broken by restitution or revocation. It is clear that, if the thief has given back his former thefts, they should not be computed with later thefts; and it seems also—though some do not admit this—that, if he has sincerely resolved to give back things taken before (e.g., things which are useless for him), there is no moral connection between the past thefts and a theft he is committing now.

1913. Interval of Time between Acts of Theft.—The interval of time that breaks the connection between small thefts cannot be determined with mathematical exactness, but the following rule seems to be accurate enough: thefts combine to form a great theft only when considerable property is taken by degrees, but within such a brief period of time as to be of notable advantage to the thief and of notable disadvantage to the loser. Some moralists think that six months is a long space, sufficient to prevent union between thefts, but that two months is too short a space to prevent the union; others, on the contrary, believe that the amounts stolen should be taken into consideration; and hence that the following intervals between thefts separate them into distinct venial sins without coalescence:

(a) a period of one year between thefts, each of which almost amounts to grave matter, when the property is kept (e.g., when a dressmaker who has kept not a little of her patron’s material of a twelvemonth ago does the same thing again this year);

(b) a period of two months, when the matters are almost grave, but the property is not kept (e.g., when a thief who beat a restaurant out of the price of a very elaborate meal at the beginning of January does the same thing at the beginning of March). But it is hard to see how one could have the habit of stealing in this way and not have the intention of stealing a large amount, for a person who steals what is almost grave matter every two months or so must realize that he will shortly be enriched to a considerable extent by his dishonesty. Moreover, the interval of two months might be needed by the thief for avoiding suspicion;

(c) a period of one month, when the thing stolen falls far short of grave matter (e.g., a meal of simple fare plainly cooked and served);

(d) a period of about two weeks, when the matters are very small (e.g., when a thief takes a few secret sips from a wine bottle on each of his fortnightly visits to a certain house, or carries away some trifling object as a souvenir). These thefts would not surpass five or ten cents a month;

(e) some authors think that one week or perhaps even one day will prevent coalescence between extremely small thefts; and surely there are some paltry objects (e.g., a pin or needle, a match, a small lump of coal, a piece of string) which would not total a large value even after many years have passed.

1914. Species and Number of Petty Thefts that Coalesce into Grave Matter.—(a) If the thefts proceed from a previously formed purpose of stealing by installments a large sum, each of them is a mortal sin, but they do not form numerically distinct sins, unless there was a revocation of the intent (see 214, 215).

(b) If the thefts did not proceed from a previously formed plan, those that preceded the culminating theft (i.e., the one whose addition makes the quantity grave) are so many separate venial sins of theft. The culminating theft is a mortal sin, if the thief adverts to the fact that he has now stolen a notable sum; otherwise it is a venial sin. The act, after the gravity of the matter has been noticed, is the initial mortal sin, if it means consent to the grave injustice done (e.g., retention of the ill-gotten goods, intention not to make restitution); it is an additional mortal sin, if it means a renewal of consent to the grave injustice previously done (e.g., the theft of a new small amount with the purpose of keeping it as well as the rest).

1915. Sum Required for Grave Matter in Petty Thefts that Coalesce.—(a) According to one opinion, it is always larger than the sum required for grave matter in a theft of the same amount on a single occasion; for the owner does not feel the loss so much when his goods are stolen in small amounts and at different times. Thus, a man is less unwilling to have $100 stolen from him through pilferings of cents and dollars over a period of a year or two than to have it all stolen from him on one day.

(b) According to another opinion, grave matter for petty thefts is not larger than grave matter for large thefts of the same amount, if the petty thief had the intention all along to accumulate a notable sum. But some who are of this opinion make an exception for the case when the petty thief steals not from one but from several owners, for in this way the loss is distributed and less harm done. Grave matter in this case, they say, is the same as absolutely grave matter.

1916. There are various opinions on the amounts required for grave matter in the case of petty thefts that coalesce. (a) If all the thefts are against the same person, the usual opinion fixes grave matter at one and one-half times or twice the amount fixed for large thefts. Some authors limit this to cases wherein the thief had not the purpose from the beginning to steal a great amount (see 1915), and some state that the amount for large thefts which is considered is the relative, not the absolute sum. (b) If the thefts are against different persons, some think that grave matter is the same as the absolute matter of one large theft, while others make it one and one-half times or twice that amount. Here again some moralists limit these increases in the sum for grave matter to cases wherein there was no purpose from the beginning to steal a notable amount.

1917. Theft from Joint Owners.—Is it a grave sin to steal a considerable amount of property that belongs to joint owners? (a) If the amount taken is absolutely grave, the sin is serious for the reasons given in 1898 sqq.; (b) if the amount taken is relatively grave (e.g., because a community is very poor, or because the owners are only two or three and the individual loss is heavy), the sin is serious; (c) if the amount taken is not relatively grave, as happens when an organization is not poor and has many members or when the loss will be so distributed among the joint owners as to be little felt by them individually, the sin is not serious.

1918. Restitution in Cases of Theft.—(a) Restitution is owed for the property stolen. He who stole a serious amount but gave back part, retaining only what is light matter, is bound under venial sin to restore the rest. Confessors should urge restitution even of small amounts, when possible, in order to deter men from theft, and it may sometimes be useful to require children to seek a condonation from their parents for a similar reason. (b) Restitution is owed also for damage caused by the theft (see 1895). Thus, if one steals the tool of a poor farmer, which is of little value in itself but which brings on him a serious loss, one is responsible for the loss as well as for the tool.

1919. Cases of Doubt.—(a) Doubts of Law.—The rules given by moralists on grave matter in thefts are not to be regarded as certain and authentic, since they are only the opinions of theologians, and have no obligatory sanction from the Church. They are reasonable and well founded, indeed, but in spite of them there will occur cases wherein it is doubtful whether a theft is mortal or venial (see 1896). It is no disgrace to be ignorant in such difficult cases, for St. Augustine himself admitted that he did not always know where to draw the line. Hence, confessors should not feel obliged to decide with finality in every instance whether the sin committed was in itself grave or light; on the contrary, it will sometimes be necessary to avoid a definite answer, while calling attention to the sinfulness of all theft and the duty of restitution. But the obligation of restitution should not be imposed as certain, where the doctors disagree.

(b) Doubts of Fact.—The application of the rules for grave matter will also be at times very difficult on account of uncertainties about circumstances of time, person, etc. In such cases one must have recourse to the systems for decision in the presence of a doubtful conscience. If a thief does not know from whom he stole, it may be doubtful whether the matter is relatively grave or only light; but the presumption then will be that the loser was a person of average means. Again, when there is a strong likelihood that an owner was not greatly unwilling, one must insist that the thefts cease for the future, but one cannot always impose restitution. If a petty thief does not know how much he stole, or whether all the thefts were from the same person, or whether the intervals between the thefts were great or small, or whether he had the intention from the outset to take a large sum, the confessor will have to form an opinion by questioning the penitent on the time of his last confession, the amounts he generally took, the general frequency of the thefts, etc.

1920. Conversion of Others’ Property.—The conversion of property owned by others or held by them may be permitted, or at least tolerated, when the owner or possessor would be unreasonable if he objected as in the following cases:

(a) in extreme necessity, for according to natural law each one has the right to preserve his life by using the temporal things of the earth (see 1571). In danger of death things necessary for escaping the danger become common property, and no injury is done by the person in danger if he uses the goods of another person to save his own life;

(b) in certain cases when occult compensation is the only way in which one can defend or secure one’s right to property, for it is not wrong to take what is one’s due, if this is done without harm to the rights of others.

1921. Conditions for Lawful Occupation of the Goods of Others in Extreme Need.—(a) The occupation must be necessary for securing one’s own or another’s natural right to some supreme good, such as life or what is almost the equivalent of life (e.g., freedom from cruel restraint, escape from fearful disease). A supreme good is at stake, then, when one is in extreme, quasi-extreme, or most grave need (see 1236), that is, exposed to the certain or very probable peril of losing life, limbs, liberty, sight, chastity, etc.; occupation is necessary when there is no other way (e.g., by begging) to avert the danger.

(b) The occupation must be made without detriment to the rights of others. Hence, one may not occupy more than is really necessary to escape the danger; one may not occupy at all if the owner is situated in an equal danger (e.g., one may not take the plank from a man in danger of drowning in order to save oneself); one may not retain the thing taken, if the danger has passed (e.g., one who commandeered his neighbor’s car in order to escape from a thug must return the car). The neglect to ask permission, however, does not exceed a venial sin and does not impose the duty of restitution, if there is a real reason for occupation. One may not take the goods without permission, if this can be obtained without too much difficulty; nor forcibly, if possession can be had peaceably.

1922. Restitution for Occupied Goods.—Is the occupier bound to restitution for occupied goods that were consumed (e.g., food and drink), if he afterwards becomes able to pay for them?

(a) If the occupier had no prospect at the time of ever being able to pay for what he took, he is not bound to restitution—not because of possession, since the thing has perished, nor because of the taking, since there was no onerous contract, nor because of injury, since he acted within his rights. The owner cannot complain at this, since charity obliges him to give of his own free will to one who is in supreme need and not to expect that the alms be paid back, while justice forbids that he impede the appropriation of what is needed by the person in distress. It seems, however, that a case of this character would rarely happen, and, if it did happen, the more decent thing would be to pay for what was used. Some moralists think that more probably there would be an obligation of justice to do this, since occupation is lawful only in so far as it is necessary.

(b) If the occupier had the prospect at the time of being able to pay for what he took, he is bound to restitution; for one should not occupy more than is necessary, and, if a loan suffices to tide one over a difficulty, it is not right to expect a gift. Hence, men who raid bakery shops in times of food shortage, are bound to make restitution to the bakers when able.

1923. Occupation in the Case of Merely Grave Necessity.—Is it lawful to occupy in merely grave or ordinary necessity?

(a) This is not lawful, for otherwise the doors would be opened to thefts without number, and both the security of property and the peace of the public would be at an end. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that it is permissible to steal in great need (Denzinger, n. 1186). (b) Such occupation is less sinful than to occupy without necessity, and indeed the theft may be only venial if one is in grave need and has vainly sought work or charity to relieve the difficulty, as when a poor man who is not able to give his children all the food they need steals provisions now and then.

1924. Occupation of a Large Sum by One in Dire Need.—(a) One opinion holds that even for the sake of avoiding death this is not permissible, for one has no right to extraordinary means for the protection of one’s life.

(b) A second opinion maintains that this occupation is lawful, under the conditions given in 1921; for life is more precious than even a large sum of money, and in such extreme need property right yields to the right to life.

(c) A third opinion distinguishes between the case in which extreme necessity is proximate or urgent (e.g., an unarmed Watchman is threatened with instant death if he does not hand over at once the money he has in charge) and the case in which it is only remote (e.g., the doctor tells a poor man that he will die shortly from tuberculosis unless he goes to a more healthy altitude, but the patient is too poor to follow these instructions). In the former case the person in need may take what is necessary (on account of the reasons for the second opinion and also because the civil laws allow this), but he is not bound to do so (on account of the reasons for the first opinion); in the latter case, more probably he has no right to occupation, for this would be prejudicial to the public welfare and is moreover strictly forbidden by civil laws (see 1571, 1253).

1925. Duty of the Owner towards One in Dire Need.—(a) In charity the owner is bound to come to the aid of the needy person; but, if he neglects this duty, he does not offend justice and is not held to restitution (see 1240, 1753). (b) In justice the owner is bound not to prevent the needy person from taking or using what he is entitled to; but should the owner do this and the necessity cease, there is no duty of restitution, for the right of the needy person ends with the necessity.

1926. Lawfulness of Receiving Support from a Thief.—Is it lawful for the wife and family to receive support from the head of the family, when he is a thief?

(a) It is lawful when the persons stolen from are not thus deprived of their goods or of the prospect of restitution. This happens when the actual support does not come from the stolen property, and the thief is able to make restitution from other property that belongs to him, or the wife and children earn as much for the family by their work as they receive in support. In this case the family may take from the thief even things that are not necessary for their support.

(b) It is lawful when the persons stolen from are deprived of restitution, but the obligation of restitution has ceased on account of grave necessity (see 1797). This happens when the support does not actually come from the stolen property, but the thief is unable to make restitution from his own property without depriving his own family who are in grave need. In this case the family may take from the thief only such things as are necessary for them according to their station in life.

(c) It is lawful when the persons stolen from are deprived of their goods, but the right to occupy these goods has arisen on account of the extreme necessity of the family (see 1920 sqq.). This happens when the support comes from the stolen property itself. But the family may use only what is really necessary for the relief of their dire distress.

1927. Compensation.-Compensation is of two kinds, strict or legal and wide or extra-legal.

(a) In a strict sense, compensation is counterclaim, or the comparison of the debts of two persons to one another with a view to the cancellation of one or of both debts. This method of extinction of debt is allowed by law in order to reduce the amount and expenses of litigation. It is known as recoupment or offset when a defendant brings a cross-action against a plaintiff for non-fulfillment by the latter of some part of the contract in controversy, and as set-off when the defendant introduces the debt owed to him over against the debts sued for by the plaintiff. Counterclaim is just when no injury is done to one party (e.g., it would be unjust to keep the horse of Titus which you had borrowed, simply because Titus owed you a debt equal to the value of the horse, for the horse might be worth more to Titus); it is legal when recognized by the law (cfr. 1797, 1798).

(b) In a wide sense, compensation is the summary recovery by a creditor of the thing or the debt owed him by the debtor. The recovery is summary in the sense that the creditor does not go to law, or proceed according to law, but takes from the debtor either openly (open compensation) or secretly (occult compensation) what is owed.

1928. Lawfulness of Occult Compensation.—(a) Ordinarily, or _per se_, it is not lawful; for it contains such evils as disregard of due process of law, scandal, infamy, public disturbance, the menace that the common good will be harmed by frequent abuse, the danger that the debtor will suffer loss through a second payment of the same debt, etc. Innocent XI condemned the proposition that domestic servants may practise occult compensation when they decide that their services are worth more than the salary they are receiving (Denzinger, n. 1187). (b) Exceptionally, or _per accidens_, it is lawful; for under certain conditions it offends neither public nor private welfare and it is necessary for the vindication of a right. Just as the natural law gives authority to occupy the goods of another in case of extreme need, so does it justify occult compensation in the special cases just mentioned.

1929. Unlawful Occult Compensation and Restitution.—Does unlawful occult compensation oblige one to restitution?

(a) If the compensation is not only unlawful but also injurious (e.g., a servant takes what is not due her under the pretext of compensation), it is not rightly called compensation, but is really theft, and restitution is due. (b) If the compensation is unlawful but not injurious (e.g., a servant takes what is really due her, but she could have obtained it by asking for it), there is no theft or duty of restitution, since the property of another was not stolen.

1930. Conditions Required by Commutative Justice for Occult Compensation.—(a) Before the Compensation.—There must be a strict right to the thing taken; for, if there is no such right, one takes what belongs to another against his will, or commits theft. Hence, if an employer has freely promised to make a gift to his servant and then fails to keep the promise, the servant has no right to take what was promised, since it is owed from liberality or fidelity or gratitude, but not from commutative justice. The same applies to a non-necessary heir who has been left nothing in a will, since he had no strict right. It is also unjust to take secret compensation for a debt that has not yet fallen due.

(b) During the Compensation.—No wrong must be done to the debtor (e.g., by taking more than is due, by taking an article which the debtor needs for earning his living) or to third parties (e.g., by taking goods deposited by them with the debtor). If possible, compensation should be made from goods of the same nature and kind as those that were taken or damaged, for the debtor should not be forced to part with things he wishes to retain and which are not necessary for the creditor’s satisfaction.

(c) After the Compensation.—One must avoid injury to the debtor (e.g., the keeping of a payment which is now not owed by him and which one can refuse or return to him) and to third parties (e.g., the casting of suspicion on a servant in order to divert attention from one’s act of occult compensation).

1931. Must the strictness of the right be morally certain, or, in other words, must reasonable doubt of fact and of law be excluded?

(a) As to doubt of fact, it must be excluded; for in such doubt the presumption is with the possessor, or at least it is certainly wrong to perform an act that will probably be injurious to another person (see 713). Moreover, everyone can see that the public good would suffer greatly, if occult compensation were permissible when the existence of a debt is uncertain. Hence, if it is only probable that one sold goods to another person or that another person has not yet paid for services received by him, occult compensation must be avoided.

(b) As to pure doubt of law, the question is controverted. Some think that it also must be excluded, since the possessor should not be deprived of possession unless it is certain that there is a right to do this. Others think that occult compensation may be used in spite of a mere doubt of law, if the doubt concerns only the mode of making the compensation, or if the probability in favor of the creditor is so strong that a judge could conscientiously decide for him against the possessor. Examples of doubts of law here are three cases that are in dispute among authors, namely, whether one may take money as compensation for defamation that will not be repaired by restoration of fame (see 1802, 1803), whether one may deny reparation for defamation when one has been defamed by the other party and has not received restitution, whether one has rights to a legacy of which one is deprived on account of a mere informality in the document. In these cases the right is held by some authorities to be probable, but the decision in a particular instance should be made only on the advice of a learned and conscientious person, since the matter is very complicated and there is great danger of self-deception.

1932. Some Cases in Which There Is a Strict Right to Compensation.—(a) Employees (i.e., servants, workingmen, artisans, officials, etc.) have a strict right when they are injured by the employer’s non-observance of the contract (e.g., the stipulated salary is not paid; unjust subtractions are made from the salary, as by fines for the inadvertent and infrequent breaking of tools, etc., about which there was no agreement in the contract; labors not contracted for are exacted), or when an unjust contract is imposed on them (e.g., they are induced by force or threats to accept less than a living wage; advantage is taken of their grave necessity to wring from them agreement to such a wage).

(b) Merchants have a strict right when a debt which they cannot collect is certainly owed them, or when they sold below the minimum just price, because forced to this unjustly, or because they made a mistake in charging. They may compensate themselves by diminishing weights or measurements.

(c) One has a right to compensation who has been condemned under a sentence manifestly unjust, because the law is certainly unjust or because the judge clearly gave a wrong decision in a matter of fact (e.g., he erroneously presumed that a debt had been contracted, or that it had not been paid).

1933. Some Cases in Which There Is No Right to Compensation.—(a) Employees have no right to compensation for subtractions from their salary, if they culpably injure the property of their employer, or if they agreed to such subtractions; nor for the smallness of their wage, if they freely accepted it (e.g., if they regarded it as a favor to be employed, and the employer did not really need them), or if it is made up for by presents, board or lodging, opportunity for good tips, etc.; nor for unusual labors, if they hired themselves out for general service (unless they are asked to perform work of an entirely unforeseen kind, such as a very perilous mission), or if they undertook these labors freely without the knowledge or wish (express or tacit) of the employer.

(b) Merchants have no right to compensation for goods sold by them below the minimum just price, if they freely agreed to sell at that price.

1934. Children and Employees and Compensation.—Some special questions arise for consideration in case of parents who employ their own children, and of employers who are forced to underpay on account of the dishonesty of their help.

(a) Children who work for their parents and who are entitled to a salary, by agreement or from the law, have the same rights as other employees, but injustice against them would be less frequent. In this country the father has a right to the services and wages of his unemancipated child, but the child becomes independent of the father when it reaches the age of majority or when the father relinquishes his right.

(b) Employees who are underpaid because the employer is cheated by his help have the right to occult compensation, if they are forced to take less than a living wage (1932); otherwise this is not permissible, unless it be certain that the employer is not unwilling that the honest employees receive more than their pay. In practice, on account of the great peril of injustice, it is advisable that such workers seek better pay through their organizations or else look for employment elsewhere.

1935. Conditions Required by Legal Justice for Occult Compensation.—(a) Occult compensation must not be used if payment can easily be obtained through suit at law or agreement; for the order of law and the public welfare require that one should not have recourse to the extraordinary means of occult compensation if ordinary means will suffice and not cause notable difficulties. But as a rule it seems this obliges only under venial sin, since ordinarily the departure from normal procedure in this matter is not seriously detrimental to public morals or order; and it does not impose a duty of restitution, since he who takes only what belongs to him does not offend against commutative justice. Indeed, if it is certain that other means will be futile (e.g., because one has not sufficient evidence to win or because the decision would he biased) or harmful (e.g., because great dissensions will be aroused, or heavy expenses incurred in litigation), occult compensation is not even venially unlawful.

(b) Occult compensation, according to law, should not be used by a bailee, for he has a lien for his services and proper expenditures in caring for the object bailed, but not for any other debt the bailor may owe him (Bolles, _Handy Law Book_). This is obligatory at least for the external forum.

1936. Some Conditions Required by Charity for Occult Compensation (see 1165, 1236, 1483).—(a) Charity towards the Debtor.—The creditor should see, when possible, that the debtor suffers no loss by occasion of the compensation. Hence, in order to spare the debtor the evils of a bad conscience in reference to the debt or of a second payment of the debt, the creditor should, if possible, inform the debtor that the debt is cancelled or that payment is not expected.

(b) Charity towards Third Parties.-The creditor should, if possible, prevent any trouble or loss to others that might be occasioned by the compensation, such as suspicion of theft that might fall on servants.

1937. The Lawfulness of Open Compensation.—(a) If one’s property is being stolen or carried away, it is lawful to protect or recover it by force; for this is only just defense.

(b) If one’s property has already been carried away but is still in being and in a safe place, legal justice requires that one seek redress from the courts. But it does not seem a serious fault if one recovers goods by using moderate force, since the property is one’s own and the public manner of seizing it enables the law to take cognizance of the case. American law recognizes with certain restrictions the rights of recaption and of entry whereby a person takes possession without legal process of goods unlawfully taken or withheld from him (Robinson, _Elementary Law_, Sec.239, 240).

(c) If a debt owed to one is denied by the debtor, it is not lawful to take payment from him by force, since this is against the law and productive of scandal and disturbance, and moreover one is not the owner of the goods which one thus takes by force.

1938. Notanda pro Confessariis.—(a) Ante factum, rarissime consulenda est occulta compensatio, tum quia ut plurimum illicita est (1928) utpote periculo injustitiae, scandali, perturbationis plena, tum quia lex civilis non solet eam ut remedium agnoscere sed potius ut furtum habet. Publice de occulta compensatione non expedit loqui, et praestat ut qui privatim de ea interrogentur, etiam datis conditionibus ad liceitatem necessariis, per modum tolerationis tantum annuant.

(b) Post factum, facilius in favorem utentis compensatione judicari potest, in ordine ad restitutionem, sed prudenter, et quasi evasive loquendum, ne praxis ita agendi ut per se et generaliter licita approbari videatur.

1939. Judicial Injustice.—We pass now from injustices committed by deed to those committed by words, and shall consider first unjust words spoken in courts of law and next unjust words spoken in private or outside of legal processes. Judicial injustice will be treated under the following heads: (a) injustice in judges; (b) injustice in plaintiffs or accusers; (c) injustice in defendants; (d) injustice in witnesses; (e) injustice in lawyers.

1940. The Office of Judge.—Judgment is the proper act of justice (1727) and therefore when exercised under due conditions it is not only lawful, but virtuous. The exercise of public judgment belongs to the judge, who is a person vested with authority to decide litigated questions in civil or criminal cases.

(a) Thus, in the strict sense, a judge is the official who has public authority to preside over tribunals of justice, in which major matters are tried and a formal procedure is followed, and whose function it is to direct the course of the proceedings and to settle questions of fact or of law that arise.

(b) In the wide sense, a judge is any person who has lawful authority to pass an obligatory sentence in criminal or civil matters. The name may be applied, then, to those who preside over a tribunal in which minor or urgent questions are considered and treated summarily (justices of the peace, police magistrates, etc.); to those who do not preside over a tribunal, but who are attorneys at law appointed as officers of a court to pass on some issue of a pending proceeding or suit (referees); to those who act as assistants of the presiding judge, by determining the truth of alleged facts in civil cases, or the innocence or guilt of an accused in criminal cases (trial jurymen); to those who are chosen, by the parties to the dispute or by a court, as substitutes for the ordinary courts provided by law, to hear and settle, without legal formalities, the matter in controversy (arbitrators).

1941. Classes of Courts.—There are various classes of courts and therefore various kinds of judges.

(a) Thus, according to their relative dignity and jurisdiction there are higher and lower courts, courts of the first, second and last instance.

(b) According to the cases they try, courts are either civil (in which redress of private injuries is sought) or criminal (in which the community prosecutes public wrongs).

(c) According to the law which they use courts are ecclesiastical or secular.

(d) According to the form of procedure used and the remedies applied, courts in the United States are divided into courts of common law, courts of equity, probate, admiralty, and military courts.

1942. Jurisdiction.—Authority is necessary in a judge, for judgment is a binding decision that may be executed by force, and this supposes that he who pronounces the judgment is the superior of the person on whom the judgment is passed, Hence, he who acts as judge when he lacks jurisdiction acts invalidly (unless jurisdiction is supplied, as in common error for an ecclesiastical judge, in Canon 209), and offends against the rights of another judge and of the person on whom he passes sentence. Examples would be secular judges acting in ecclesiastical cases or ecclesiastical judges acting in temporal cases.

1943. The Qualifications of a Judge.—(a) Mentally, he must be endowed with knowledge of the law and with prudence, so as to be competent to pronounce correctly on the questions that are brought to him for decision; for, as being the authorized interpreter and custodian of the law, he is bound by quasi-contract with the community and with those who appear before him to be competent for these offices. If a judge realizes that he is incompetent in these ways, he must either resign his office, or make up for his deficiency by study or consultation with those who are more learned than himself. A juryman, being a layman to the law, is not expected to have the mental equipment of a lawyer; but it is his duty to give his attention to the statements, arguments and testimony and to the instructions of the judge.

(b) Morally, the judge must be a lover of justice, whether commutative, distributive or legal; for the proper office of the judge is to apply the law to particular cases and to declare officially the mutual rights and obligations of litigants who are before him. He must not be a respecter of persons, one who is moved for or against a man on account of rank, position or wealth, nor one who is swayed by fear or favor, by popular outcry or personal ambition. Not only legal but also commutative justice obliges him to perform his duties conscientiously; for in taking his office he enters into a quasi-contract with the community to execute his functions faithfully and well, and similarly by trying a case he engages that those before him will receive evenhanded justice. A juror should be a conscientious person who is openminded and free from prejudice for or against those on whom he has to vote.

1944. Conduct of a Judge.—A judge must be above suspicion, since respect for the courts is the very life of the State. But there is good reason to suspect a judge who judges in his own case, or in a case in which he will be naturally inclined to favor one side. Hence the duty of abstaining from certain things.

(a) Thus, he should avoid business, social and political activities that will give ground for belief that he uses his office for the promotion of private interests.

(b) He should not act in a case in which his own advantage or the advantage of his friends might appear to conflict with the duty of strict impartiality, as when he has personal litigation in the court, or when a near relative of his is party in a controversy, or when one of the contestants is his personal or political friend or enemy, etc. Canon 1613 of the Code forbids a church judge to act in the case of a person related by blood or marriage in the direct line or in the first and second degrees of the collateral line, or of a person for whom he is guardian or administrator, or in cases in which he had previously acted as advocate or proxy, or from which he stands to profit or lose.

(c) He should refrain from conduct that would tend to arouse doubts of his impartial attitude, such as incivility to counsel or witnesses, unexplained rulings that have the appearance of arbitrariness, private interviews or dealings with one of the parties before him in ways calculated to influence his action.

1945. Accepting Gifts from Litigants or Others.—May a judge take money or other goods from those whose interests are submitted to him, such as litigants or lawyers in his court or their friends?

(a) If the goods are extorted by threats or pressure or unjust vexation, the judge is guilty of robbery, since he forcibly takes that to which he has no right.

(b) If the goods are given as payment for the judge’s services during the trial, the judge sins against commutative justice in receiving payment for services already due, since his salary comes from the community and obliges him to administer justice without charge to those who seek it. Neither is it lawful to take money as compensation for trying one case before another, or for hastening a case, or for giving unusual diligence to a complicated case, or for deciding for one side when the evidence is equal on both sides. But the law could permit a judge to collect his expenses from both parties if the trial necessitated a personal outlay of money (e.g., for travel or hire of assistants) and there was no public fund to defray these costs.

(c) If the goods are offered as bribes, in order that the judge may be influenced to act against justice, it is clear that grave injustice is done both to the community and to the party who is injured.

(d) If the goods are given as free gifts, with no condition attached, some think they may be lawfully accepted, if there is little probability that they will influence the judge (e.g., because they are small or given after the trial has ended). But others hold, and it seems more correctly, that both natural and positive law forbids this. Natural law forbids because of the danger (“Presents and gifts blind the eyes of judges, and make them dumb in the mouth, so that they cannot correct,” Ecclus., xx. 31), and because of the mistrust and scandal that will result. It is incorrect to suppose that small gifts and gifts offered after sentence would not have influence, for the contending parties would soon come to vie with one another in making gifts, while judges would begin to think about the gratuities that might be looked for at the conclusion of a trial. Canon Law forbids all ecclesiastical judges and all who assist in court to accept any gifts whatever that are offered in connection with the trial (Canon 1624), and the civil law provides severe penalties for bribes offered as gifts.

(e) If goods are given as a mere alms or from civility or hospitality (e.g., food and drink such as is usually offered to a guest or visitor), it does not seem unlawful in itself to accept them, but, since there is a danger of suspicion and scandal, even this should be avoided.

1946. Obligation of a Judge to Restore Goods Received in the Above-Mentioned Ways.—(a) If retention of the goods is contrary to the reasonable wishes of the person who gave them, restitution is necessary. Hence, the judge must give back money that was extorted and the payments made by private parties for the exercise of his official duties.

(b) If retention of the goods is contrary to law, restitution is also necessary. Hence, if a judge has taken a bribe, he must give it back, because the agreement is null, and he cannot lawfully keep his part of the compact by acting contrary to justice. The same is true when the law voids the contract whereby he received the goods, or when a court decree obliges him to return a free gift bestowed upon him.

(c) If retention of the goods is not contrary to the will of the giver nor to the law, restitution is not necessary. Hence, if a judge has received a pure gift and no corruption was intended or practised, he sinned in taking it, but the donation was valid and there is no obligation to return it. And even though he has taken a bribe, and in consideration of it has acted against justice, it seems there is no natural obligation to make restitution to the party who gave the bribe, since the latter has received a consideration for his payment, but the judge is held to indemnify the injured party.

1947. Duties of a Judge in the Course of a Trial.—(a) The purpose of the investigation is to discover the truth in the matter before the court, and consequently it is the duty of a judge to give a case the study and attention it deserves.

(b) The method of procedure is intended to secure a fair hearing for both parties and so to expedite business that the litigants will not be harmed by needless delays. The judge should therefore observe the necessary and customary forms of law, while avoiding waste of time and unnecessary interruptions. “It is not the custom of the Romans,” said Festus to the Jews who asked him to condemn Paul, “to condemn any man, before that he who is accused have his accusers present, and have liberty to make his answer, to clear himself of the things laid to his charge” (Acts, xxv. 15).

1948. Duties of a Judge at the Conclusion of a Trial.—(a) The sentence must be just, that is, it must be based on the law and the evidence. Even though a judge does not personally approve of a law, thinking it unwise or unnecessary or over-severe, he should nevertheless enforce it; for he is appointed, not to change or reform, but to apply the law, yet so, however, that the spirit is not sacrificed.

(b) Sentence must not be relaxed as a rule, for otherwise the rights of the State or of the party winning the case will be harmed. But there are times when the public good or some other sufficient reason calls for relaxation, and in such cases judges have the power to refrain from passing sentence or to suspend or respite a sentence already announced. The defeated party should be allowed the opportunity which the law grants him for seeking a reversal of the judgment.

1949. Sentence Passed under a Law Manifestly Unjust.—(a) If the law is manifestly opposed to divine or natural law and sentence under it would command the commission of an act intrinsically evil (e.g., cohabitation of those who are not really married, “mercy killing” of the physically or mentally incapacitated, eugenic sterilization of defectives or criminals), the judge should resign rather than give such a sentence.