Case XIV: A Will Case

A man died recently and left a will, disposing of a small estate. The bulk of the estate was left to his children, but a bequest of one thousand dollars was left to a certain charity. The will was offered for probate, but was declared void by the court, because it was not drawn according to the requirements of the law, and the man was adjudged to have died intestate and his estate was ordered distributed according to law, as if he had died without making a will. The decree of the court, of course, canceled the thousand dollar bequest to the charity. Are the children, nevertheless, bound in conscience to comply with the known will of their father and donate one thousand dollars to the said charity? Or may they accept the decision of the court as discharging their conscience from any further obligation to pay this thousand dollars? These people are in poor circumstances, but they are conscientious Catholics, and desire to know what their strict duty is in this matter.

Answer.—This case comes under the general question of how far the civil law binds or discharges a man’s conscience in the matter of justice..There can be no doubt that the laws of the state may and do bind in conscience, independently of the fact whether the thing it commands or forbids is already commanded or prohibited by the divine or natural law. Laws made by competent authority for the common welfare are binding in conscience.

This is true of the state as well as of the Church. The state is a competent legislative authority in civil affairs. If its laws did not bind in conscience, the citizens would be always at liberty to transgress its laws, made for the common good, whenever their transgression did not involve a transgression of the divine or natural law, and thus defeat the common welfare and circumvent the ends of civil society. Especially is this true of state laws concerning property rights. The civil law, creating or transferring or extinguishing property rights, aims at promoting the common welfare, and nothing affects the security of the citizens or the perma- -nence of the state more than laws regarding property. For the order and security of a community it becomes necessary at times for the civil law to create or extinguish or transfer claims and titles to property.

If the civil law, in accomplishment of this, might not bind the citizen’s conscience, its purpose would be largely, if not wholly, frustrated. Just as the Church, for the promotion of the common good in religious matters, may make laws that bind in conscience, since the Church is a competent legislative authority in religion, so may the state, being a competent legislative authority in civil matters, make laws, that bind in conscience, for the promotion of the political and social welfare of the citizens.

Now the common weal demands sometimes that certain juridical acts be declared void of any legal value whatever, because they work harm to society, and if the purpose of the laws can not be secured unless they place a burden on the conscience, then, since the common welfare demands that they be enforced, they become binding in conscience. Thus a husband is not permitted by law to deprive his wife of her legal share of his property. If he makes a will or a conveyance of property, thus injuring her, the law nullifies or voids his act, as being inimical to the best interests of the community.

Now, if the voiding of the husband’s act did not hold in conscience, the wife would not be allowed to vindicate her rights, and the law of dower would become inoperative, to the great detriment of society. There is no doubt, therefore, that the civil law may wholly annul and make void, not only for courts of law, but for the court of conscience also, juridical acts of citizens, such as the conveying of property, for instance, if the common welfare demands it. In any particular case the intention of the lawmaker or legislature must be examined as to the value or force of formalities required by the law.

It is generally admitted, however, by the moralists that laws of the state voiding certain acts and performances of private citizens only void them civilly, or as far as the civil courts are concerned, unless it can be shown that it was within the contemplation of the law to void the act even in the court of conscience. State laws that transfer or extinguish property rights demand a strict and narrow interpretation, because being in restraint of the citizen’s liberty they are aliquid odiosum, and, therefore, strictae interpretationis. Moreover, an act or a contract that is, by its nature, valid, must not be judged invalidated by the civil law, unless it is clearly the purpose of the civil law thus to invalidate it. But when a court does declare certain acts and performances of individuals null and void, then such acts and performances are void also in conscience, because otherwise the declaration of the court would be vain and idle, and public order and security would be put in jeopardy.

When contracts, therefore, as for instance last wills and testaments, are declared null and void by the civil law unless certain legal formalities are complied with, it is a probable opinion among theologians, and therefore a safe opinion to follow in practise, that the purpose of the law is to void such last wills and testaments only as far as the civil courts are concerned. Therefore, the heirs to an estate are not bound either in law or in conscience to observe the provisions of a will that has been declared void by the court; and they may demand legally the return of any property that was conveyed under the will, because by so doing they are only enforcing their rights that they enjoy under the law. But on the other hand a beneficiary under a will that has been declared void by the law need not return the bequest until the court has declared the bequest to have been null and void and ordered him to return it.

In the case before us, therefore, the children of this man, whose will was thrown out by the court of probate, are not bound in conscience to give the thousand dollars to the charity designated by their father, because they may avail themselves of a law that is just and sound in principle, and made for the protection of society, but whose value would be destroyed if it did not bind in conscience. If, however, any part of the bequest had been already paid over to the charity, the charity could in conscience retain it until compelled by a decree of the court to return it.