Case LIX: Favoring Poor Relatives in the Disposition of Restitution Money

Julian owes his friend Xavier for the last ten years the amount of forty dollars, as a share from the proceeds of a successful speculation in which both had joined. He had lost all trace of his friend before the profit was realized, and as he has now no reasonable prospect of ever ascertaining Xavier’s whereabouts, he hands the amount to his confessor with the request to employ it for charitable purposes. The priest takes the amount and gives of it (without the knowledge of Julian or any one else) fifteen dollars to a needy brother of his, and the other twenty-five dollars to his parents, who, although not in want, still on account of advanced age require special care, and on that account are in need of support. This support the priest otherwise provides out of his own income; upon this occasion, however, he employs these twenty-five dollars for the same purpose parcendo suis rebus. The questions are: 1. May Julian devote the forty dollars for charitable purposes; and 2. may his confessor employ the money in the way stated above?

Answer to the first question: That Julian could apply the money in this way is the opinion of Sayrus, who writes: When the owner is unknown (this was Xavier in the sense of the following words) and it is not known where he lives, ... the property is to be given to the poor when it is probable that the owner will not appear. (Clavis regia lib. 10. tract. 5. cap. 2. n. 24.) That he even did more than was required appears from Friedhoff’s opinion that: If the possessor is unknown, or though known, is directly or indirectly beyond reach, and the holder is a possessor in good conscience, he may (in the opinion of Sayrus and of others etiam si dives esset) retain the matter as his property; if a possessor in bad conscience he must make restitution for charitable purpose. (Special Moral Theology, § 138 n. 4; comp. also Sayrus I. c. n. 28 and 21.)

Answer to the second question: If the priest was well-to-do, or perhaps even wealthy, it was not praiseworthy for him to prefer his own relations to other persons in needy circumstances just to save his own money. If he, however, was not blessed with any considerable superfluity, then I do not see (unless scandal was given) why it should be improper for him to prefer his brother and parents, as long as they were needy: it must be noted that relatives also are included under the name of the poor if they are truly so needy that they cannot live according to the condition of their state. (Liguori, Homo Apostol tract. 13. n. 48.) If the priest was convinced of the need of these relatives, he cannot be obliged to make restitution, even if he be wealthy. If in doubt about their need, he should have sought the advice of his confessor, or of other proper authority. Agreeing with this view, and in further discussion of this subject, Sayrus writes: If his necessity and poverty are certain, he may bestow those goods upon himself or upon his relatives as truly poor persons, provided he does so without fraud or deceit. Because, since the law expressly states that they must be given to the poor, but not to these or those poor persons, he can consequently restore them to himself without anyone’s counsel. And this is confirmed: because if someone else were obliged to restore them, it would be a pious act to give them to this man who now retains them; therefore he himself will be able to retain them for himself. But when the necessity is not so certain, lest someone permit himself to be deceived by his own affection and judgment in his own cause, the aforesaid authors admonish (here are eleven of them enumerated, at their head Sts. Thomas and Cajetan) that he not retain them for himself or distribute them to his friends and parents without the authority of the parish priest or a prudent confessor, especially if the amount is large (in our case the same is not large).

But once he has distributed it to himself or to his blood relatives with the aforesaid authority and counsel, he is no longer bound to restitution, even if afterward he comes into more abundant fortune. (Ubi supra n. 21, cfr. etiam Aertnys, Theol. moral. I. lib. 3. tract. 7. n. 266.)

What is to be done if, after the money has thus been disposed of, Xavier should unexpectedly reappear, or in some way become accessible? St. Alphonsus instructs us in this matter in the following words: When, all the circumstances having been considered, it is no longer possible—that is, is no longer judged possible, as in our case—that the owner be found, then the poor person acquires absolute ownership of the property without any burden of restitution if the owner should afterward happen to appear. (Tom. 3. n. 590.)

BERNARD Deppe.