Question IV: To whom restitution is to be made

ALL agree that restitution is owed by him from whom the thing was accepted: Four conditions, however, being laid down.

The FIRST is that he from whom it was accepted have a right to the thing, either as Owner, or as steward, or keeper.

The SECOND, provided that no loss is going to accrue from it to him from whom it was accepted, nor to another, for instance, that he is going to squander the thing, or that others are going to use it for crime.

The THIRD, if the giving was not of itself unjust, as in the case of a simoniac; yet if it was joined from the origin with an external sin, for instance, because it is the price of fornication, it is no obstacle. Yet even to a simoniac restitution can be made, Caspensis says sect. 1. before a sentence is delivered against him by the judge. So also Navarre Lib. 4. de restit. cap. 2.

The FOURTH, that the restitution be made to him from whom you received it, either by yourself, or through another. See Valencia puncto 4.

HERE a question occurs: Whether another's thing, accepted from a thief, ought always to be restored to the true Owner: The reason of the doubt is that it may have been accepted from him in good faith: Therefore it is to be given back to him, and the price paid is to be recovered; and so think Alens. 4. part. quaest. 86. memb. 3. art. 5. Summa angl. V. Restitutio, Gabriel 4. dist. 15. quaest. 3. dub. 5. Navarre Manuali, cap. 17. num. 9. Valencia at the place cited, provided it be given back to him to redeem his own price, not that the thief may retain it. This seems to me true, against some as reported by Valencia at the place cited and Fagundez in septimum praeceptum, Lib. 7. cap. 20. My reason is that I am bound to look first to my own innocence, rather than to another's; and to my own family property, rather than to another's; why, therefore, should I lose my own price without profit, so that another's thing may be restored?

Yet Peter Eligius Bassaeus says V. Restit. 4. §. 2. num. 7. if he does not find the thief, or the thief, when found, is unwilling to give back the price, the thing is to be restored to the Owner. So Peter of Navarre lib. 3. cap. 4. num. 191. Filliucius tract. 32. num. 85. Sayrus lib. 10. tract. 2. num. 17. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 14. dub 3.

But why should I without profit deprive myself of my own price, when the debt is in the thief? I know this can be done in the external forum. Let him act meanwhile; the thief can be found and compelled.

Meanwhile I am not bound to give it back in conscience, as Filliucius says tract. 32. num. 84. and others, although others disagree.

UNCERTAIN debts arising from a lawful contract, with the creditor unknown, or too remote, you may retain; for since by Canon Law alone uncertain debts, unjustly contracted and from a wicked acquisition, for instance from usury, devolve upon the poor, I do not see why these should be paid. See Peter of Navarre lib. 4. cap. 1. num. 46. Layman lib. 3. sect. 3. tract. 2. cap. 9. Lessius lib. 2. cap. 14. num. 58. Bassaeus num. 4.

THE Sainted Doctor indicates these rules in the Confessionale, cap. 4. part. 2. concluding with that epiphonema of the Apostle 13. Reddite omnibus debita, etc.