Case XLV: Pilferings of Provisions—a Case of Restitution

Caius, who for thirty years has staid away from the Sacraments, resolves on the occasion of a mission to go to confession. To the question why he had not been to confession so long, he gave the following answer: “I was employed in a large provision house which belonged to a rich Hebrew. Like all others there employed I took home provisions, such as flour, sugar, coffee, etc., without the knowledge, and, of course, against the will, of the employer. This has been going on for thirty years. Had I gone to confession I should have had to stop these pilferings, and so could not have cared for my household as abundantly as before. Now, however, I have been pensioned and do not need the help any longer, and therefore I come to confession.”

The missionary asks: “Is Caius obliged to make restitution? or are there excusing circumstances, as, for instance, great and to an extent unjustly acquired wealth of the employer; or the thought of additional compensation in view of unsufficient wages? Such excuses were not, however, present in the man’s mind, he was con- — scious of committing theft.”

To the first question, is Caius obliged to restitution, we must reply with an unconditional yes. In our case both conditions which create the obligation of restitution are present. For thirty years he has committed one theft after another, and thus caused his employer injury which it is his duty to make good. Even if the individual pilferings were not serious in themselves, yet his intention, as also the aggregate of the matter, puts beyond question the seriousness of the injury and of the guilt. The other condition, unjust acquisition of another’s property, is also present. For Caius possesses all the stolen goods in aequivalenti, i. e., in his property. During all these years he was enabled to lay aside that part of his salary which otherwise would have been employed in purchasing provisions, or he has used it for the good of his household, and thus has enriched himself at the expense of his employer. The surplus gained in this manner he can not call his own, it is the fruit of his pilferings and ought not to remain in his hands,

But the missionary asks, further, whether there are mitigating circumstances. Let us keep in mind the penitent’s confession: Caius was conscious of stealing. His only excuse is that the others did likewise. This, however, can not make an unjust act a just one, unless possibly the silent consent of the employer may be supposed. But he did not approve; the thefts took place without the knowledge, and against the will, of the owner, as Caius himself avows.

Could not the idea of secret compensation excuse? Of course’ Caius had no such idea; but that would make no difference. For if some one has been wronged there remains for him the claim for compensation, until he has received it, or voluntarily renounced it. But let us not forget that he who would thus secretly compensate himself, apart from other conditions, must be morally certain of the justice of his demands. Is this so with Caius? In the casus nothing’ points to an insufficient salary, indeed the pension granted by his former employer would demonstrate his liberality. To take refuge in a presumable condonation by the employer appears likewise to be excluded, as the proprietors of large commercial establishments are little inclined to such leniency.

To the missionary, in his proper desire to assist his penitent as much as possible, the idea occurs that the Hebrew had for the greater part unjustly acquired his wealth. Is this certain? And even if it is: the flour, sugar, etc., belonged to the Hebrew and therefore he is injured in his property. But let us suppose—and Caius probably can throw light upon this subject—dishonest transactions have taken place. Then the next question is, how is Caius concerned? Either he positively co-operated or he did not. In the former case he is obliged to restitution to the defrauded; in order, of course, after the employer in whose name he acted. Nevertheless this would open a way which at least will materially facilitate the performance of restitution. For Caius must make restitution to the injured, but has the right to claim indemnification from the Hebrew. Let him therefore give the unjustly acquired property to those that were cheated. The latter are, however, numerous and to a great extent unknown; besides, most of them were probably not seriously injured and therefore Caius in his difficulty may let the poor take their place. The confessor accordingly should impose upon Caius the obligation to give alms as generously as his circumstances permit; thus restitution will be made gradually as far as possible. If Caius has not positively co-operated in frauds, but knew positively of the injustice that took place, then he may regard the victims as creditors of his former employer and return to them that of which they were deprived in the manner above described, with the reasonable presumption that the employer had no intention of restitution.

W. Stentrup, S.J.