Question IX: How restitution is to be made

The manner must be convenient, so that the thing returns to the Lord in a fitting way. Hence it does not matter whether the debtor restores by himself or through another, as is gathered from cap. Qui per alium, De reg. iur. in 6.

Hence it follows that he who, because of uncertainty about the creditors, must restore to the poor, can do so by himself, without the counsel of his confessor, or the intervention of the Bishop, as Nauar. gathers from the common opinion, man. cap. 17. num. 91. Valentia quaest. 6. puncto 9. who adds with others, that the Bishop cannot forbid him to do so by himself without his counsel, except in four cases, in which the Bishop has power over it, as the cited authors teach. The first is, when he who was bound to restore to the poor dies without heir and executor. Second, when such a man is unwilling to restore, so that proceedings can be taken against him. Third, when such a man does not distribute rightly to the poor. Fourth, when such a man is found to be a usurer, and makes a will, or is already dead, as appears in cap. Quamquam de usuris, in 6. The Bishop can also, for certain reasons, forbid the confessor to absolve such a man without his counsel.

It follows next that he who holds a thing from an unjust reception can restore through another, lest he incur infamy or loss of liberty, as I said above, and as the Doctors teach, gathered by Fagundez Lib. 7. cap. 28. and Bassaeum V. Restitut. 4. §. 5. Bonacinam de restit. disp. 1. quaest. 7. I counsel, however, that he take care to ascertain whether restitution has been made.

I add, with the cited Doctors, that public debts arising from wickedness, as usuries and robberies, ought to be paid publicly, so that the scandal to others may be removed.