Article — Koch–Preuss
Article 6: Restitution for Spiritual Damage
- He who intentionally, or in a manner which he could have foreseen, injures his neighbor mentally, for instance, by giving alcohol to a child, or habit-forming drugs to an adult, or by fraud, deception, lying, or other unjust means, or deprives him of some knowledge or skill which he needs in his profession or occupation, is bound in justice to make restitution. This applies particularly to those who, ex officio or ex contractu, are obliged to instruct others, but neglect to secure the necessary qualifications or fail to offer their pupils sufficient opportunities to acquire the knowledge or skill which they need. If the injury thus inflicted extends into the future, this circumstance must be taken into account in making restitution.1
1 Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 694: 1. “He who has deprived another of memory, reason, etc., by poison or a potion, is bound in justice to repair everything that is reparable in the damage unjustly and efficaciously caused. 2. He who by fraud prevented another from learning knowledge, an art, . . . or from teaching others, is bound to remove the fraud and repair the temporal damages which arose from it. 3. He who by office must teach an art or science is bound to correct errors if he has admitted any and they are of some importance. The same obligation also rests upon him if through carelessness or levity he has mixed probable things with improbable ones. 4. If someone, gratuitously and without an obligation of contract or office, taught badly through negligence or ignorance, fraud and deceit being excluded, he would not be bound to reparation.”—Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., II, 4th ed., n. 455: “He who deprives another of the use of reason is not bound to restitution for this spiritual damage inflicted in itself, because it cannot be repaired in the same order; he is, however, bound to repair temporal damage, if any was suffered by the one who was deprived of the use of reason.”
- He who unjustly injures another in his supernatural possessions (bona supernaturalia), for instance, by purposely leading him into error in matters of faith or morals, or by seducing him to sin, or, what is still worse, robbing him of his most precious gifts, faith and hope, or who otherwise gives grave scandal, is obliged under pain of mortal sin to repair the damage thus inflicted so far as lies in his power. Means to this end are: recantation of the lies told, refutation of the errors inculcated, admonition and exhortation, good example, prayer, and, if scandal has been given (e. g., through offensive writings), public reparation.
It is furthermore necessary to repair any temporal damage that may have been caused to others by the spreading of false reports, the commission of a sin, or the giving of scandal. This duty of restitution binds even in cases where the offender had no direct intention of causing spiritual damage to others by word, deed or omission, and extends to all the evil consequences of the offence committed,—both those that were directly intended and those that might have been foreseen under the circumstances of the case.2
2 Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 693: “1. He who by force, a lie, fraud, or unjust fear induced another into mortal sin is bound under pain of mortal sin, in justice, to reparation of the damage by removing the force or seduction and disclosing the error. But he who, without force or fraud, induced someone to sin mortally merely by counsel is indeed bound by charity to retract that counsel, but not by justice, because no injury is done to one who knows and wills. 2. He who by deceit induced another into error, especially practical error, from which grave damage could arise for him in the matter of morals, is bound in justice to repair the damages which result therefrom and to remove him from the error by every effort. The same must be held concerning speculative error about the principal articles of faith.”
If spiritual damage has been caused without the employment of means per se unjust,—for instance, by request, admonition or counsel,—the seducer is bound, at least ex caritate, under pain of mortal sin, to repair the damage inflicted and to undo its consequences to the best of his ability.
He who, by force or fraud, restrains another from entering a religious institute (order or congregation), or causes him to leave the same, is bound in strict justice to desist and make restitution of the damage inflicted, both to the misguided individual and to the monastery which he deserted. He who, without a just cause, deters another from joining a religious order or congregation, even though he employ no unjust means, commits a grievous sin against charity, but is not bound to make restitution because no offence against justice is involved.
A religious who at an election refuses to vote for the admission of a novice, sins and is obliged to make restitution, unless a sufficient cause existed for rejecting the novice, e. g., disease or lack of talent, and there was consequently reason to fear that the candidate might become a burden to the order.3
3 Cfr. F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, 6th ed., 301.—Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., I, n. 693, 3: “For everyone has a right not to be unjustly hindered or withdrawn from the attainment or possession of so great a good.”
Priests or teachers who are bound by their office to instruct others in the truth, must carefully correct any false instruction which they may have given, for, as Fr. Slater says, it is better to leave people in ignorance than to imbue their minds with falsehood.4
4 Slater, A Manual of Moral Theology, I, 414 (notes to Part II, Ch. I).