Doubt IV: On the restitution of goods of the soul

*I ASSERT first that one who has driven a man mad by a crime or by a wicked drug is held to make restitution of the damages. This is clear from Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 6. punct 3; Tannerum disp. 4. quaest. 6. dubio 3.

I ASSERT second that one who, without guile, violence, or fraud, merely by persuasion induced another to sin is not held in justice to restore him, as far as in him lies, to his former state, but only out of Charity. Thus Soto lib. 4. de Iust. quaest. 6. art. 3; Nauar. in Manual. cap. 14. num. 45; Bass. 21; Valentia quaest. 6. punct. 5; Tanner. disp. 4. quaest. 6. num. 90; Caspens. disp. 9. sect. 1, against Scotum 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3, Richardum eadem dist. art. 5. quaest. 2, Paludanum ibi, et Adrianum de Restitutione.

The RATIONALE is that no wrong is done to the willing against Justice, and therefore, since he does not offend against Justice, he is not held to restitution, as Valentia notes. Nor let them say that the loss of the grace of God is a greater damage than that of one's whole estate; for since this damage is inflicted upon one who wills it, no wrong against Justice is inflicted.

AND further, I think, this is what the Saintly Doctor in speculo animae, cap. 1 means, where he reckons only the damaging of temporal goods under the heading of restitution, because spiritual goods are not lost except by the will of the one losing them. And of these the old saying is that no one is harmed except by himself. For no force can compel the will to sin; while deceit and guile, which place an obstacle of invincible ignorance, do not induce sin. He indeed who applies force, or brings guile or fraud, will be held to remove them out of justice, and to leave the man constituted in his liberty. Indeed he must exhort him to penance, because he is considered to take away against the man's will. But if the man, now knowingly in his own state, does not repent, he is considered to have condoned the force, as Bass. num. 21 says with Petr. Nauarro.

A difficulty, however, ARISES concerning one who turns someone away from entering Religion by dissuading him. They commonly concede that it is a grave sin to do this without just cause, as may be seen in Fagundez in septimum praeceptum, lib. 7. cap. 31. But whether he is held to restitution.

It is MORE PROBABLE that he is not held to restitution, because he violated no right of religion, since the man is still free; and accordingly he owes nothing to Religion. And for the same reason he is not held to the man dissuaded, both because the man acts freely, and because he has no right to the goods of religion. See Sayrum lib. 11. cap. 1. num. 35; Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 62. art. 2; Nauar. summa Latina, cap. 22. num. 44 — and this even if it be done by violence or fraud.

Yet the OPPOSITE is asserted by Vasquez de restit. cap. 8. dub. 2. num. 38; Less. lib. 2. cap. 8. dub. 3; Rebell. p. 1. lib. 4. quaest. 15; Turrianus 2. 2. disp. 15. dub. 2; Molina Tom. 4. de Iustitia, tract. 4. disp. 51; Fagundez loc. cit. num. 6; Bannes quaest. 62. art. 2. disp. 3; Aragon. diffic. cit. ad 4; Tanner. disput. 4. quaest. 6. dub. 3, while Bass. num. 22 doubts if it is done by violence, fraud, etc.

WHETHER, then, one who removes a Novice, yet not by force, fear, or fraud, is held to restitution. The Doctors commonly deny it, as in Fagundez num. 15, against Rebellium p. 1. lib. 4. quaest. 15. num. 5. To remove the unfit is not an evil. For thus Christ also in Matth. 8 rejected such a man, as S. Bonau. in cap. 2. Regula Fratrum minorum notes.

But IF he extracts a professed man without force, yet with fraud: first it is certain that he owes nothing to the religious man himself, because no wrong is done to the willing. The question is whether he is held to the religion; and they define that he is held: Molina Tom. 4. tract. 4. disp. 51; Vasquez de restit. cap. 8. dub. 2; Turrianus 2. 2. disp. 15. dub. 2; Azorius Tom. 3. lib. 5. cap. 2; Valentia disp. 5. quaest. 6. punct. 5. §. 1. cap. 2; Reginald. Tom. 1. lib. 10. tract. 4. cap. 21. num. 309; Tanner. num. 99, and others. But they deny it: Sotus lib. 4. de Iust. quaest. 6. art. 3; Sayrus lib. 11. cap. 1; Bassaeus num. 22; Lessius lib. 2. cap. 8. dub. 5; Malder. tract. 8. dub. 3; Filliuc. Tom. 2. tract. 32. cap. 7. quaest. 8, and others among these. Fagundez says both are probable, but inclines to the former. See him.