Case LXIX: A Hasty Decision

Case.—Paul admits in his confession that he has defrauded Serafino, in a business transaction, of the sum of five hundred dollars. He intended to make the proper restitution, but has learned that Serafino was lost in the Titanic disaster. He asks the confessor what to do about the money. Without reflecting, the priest advises him to give the-money to charitable works. Upon his promise to do so, Paul receives absolution and goes his way.

Question.—Was the decision of the priest wrong, and is he, therefore, himself bound to restitution?

Solution.—In the first place, we must note that the confessor gave no positive decision, He merely advised the penitent. Had he commanded, or obliged, Paul to give the money to the poor, his action would have to be judged in the light of stern theological principles. It is clear that the decision was given hastily and without due reflection. A little thought given to the facts would have resulted in an advice, or even a command, quite at variance with the suggestion made to the penitent. Without any doubt the money does not belong to the poor, but to the heirs of Serafino. Hence it is Paul’s duty to do his best to find the heirs, and to restore to them his ill-gotten goods. It may be claimed that he has made restitution, since upon the advice of the confessor he has deprived himself of the stated amount for the benefit of the poor. But such erroneous advice, even when followed to the detriment of the one who seeks it, does not satisfy the obligation existing by reason of the original fraudulent action. As a result, Paul remains indebted to the heirs of Serafino, provided he can find them. His putative restitution was his misfortune: but he can console himself by the thought of the good he has done and the Lord may graciously take his loss as an act of atonement. In the event of his refusal to restore a second time, is the confessor obliged to do so for him? The priest when he realized his mistake should have sought out the penitent, and with his permission spoken of the matter and corrected his mal-advice. If he could have done so without grave inconvenience, and yet did not do so, then he is-bound to make restitution in case Paul refuses. This is not because of the wrong decision, but because of the neglect to prevent the grave detriment to Paul when he could easily have done so. There is reason to think, however, that there was no grave theological fault in this particular case, and hence no sin upon the part of the priest; and in that case no duty of restitution. Wherefore, if he could not find Paul in time to prevent the distribution of the money among the poor, he would not be bound to make good in the name of Paul. If he has good reason to believe that his penitent would not agree to the second restitution, and would feel inimical because of the erroneous decision, he could leave Paul in good faith, either for a time or for good. Hasty decisions of the confessor are full of danger and are prone to work evil.