Restitution

Restitution.—Justice not only commands that one pay or give back what is due in voluntary transactions, but also that one repair injury which one has caused in involuntary transactions. But the four acts of payment, restoration, satisfaction, and restitution must not be confused.

(a) Thus, payment is the lawful bestowal by one person on another person of something of value in return for some other thing of value. It is clear that payment differs from satisfaction and restitution, since it supposes no act of injustice done.

(b) Restoration is the return to another of his property of which one had just possession, as when a borrower gives back to the lender, or a depositee to the depositor. This also differs from satisfaction and restitution, since it is a voluntary transaction (see 1792, 1796).

Differences between Satisfaction and Restitution.—(a) They differ as to their principle or cause, since satisfaction is due for injury to honor, restitution for injury to goods by unjust detention or unjust damage. Hence, a person who has dishonored another (e.g., by disrespect) is bound to satisfaction; a person who has injured another (e.g., by destroying his goods) is bound to restitution; a person who has both injured and dishonored another (e.g., by adding insults to robbery) is bound to restitution and satisfaction.

(b) Satisfaction and restitution differ as to their term or object, since satisfaction is chiefly concerned with the person to whom amends must be made (as by apology), while restitution is chiefly concerned with the thing which must be given back in itself or in its equivalent.

When Restitution Is Due.—Restitution is the act by which one places another in renewed possession or ownership or chance of ownership of that which is owed to him because it is his by reason of a strict right in re or ad rem; in other words, it restores the equality that existed before an injury was done to the goods of another.

(a) Thus, restitution is not due for violation of virtues other than justice, because these virtues are not concerned with strict obligations and rights. Repentance and satisfaction are due for all sins, but they are not the same thing as restitution. Hence, one is not bound to restitution if one refused to help with alms a person in extreme need, or if, not being obliged to it by office, one neglected to extinguish a fire or to prevent a robbery. These are sins against charity, not against justice.

(b) Restitution is not due for violations of virtues that pertain to justice but do not confer strict rights, and hence it is only a violation of commutative justice that entails the obligation of restitution. Thus, if one has been surly or ungrateful, no legal right has been violated and no restitution is due.

Does Distributive Injustice Oblige to Restitution?—(a) If only distributive injustice is committed (e. g., if a parent gives his children all necessaries but shows special favor to those that are less deserving), there is no duty of restitution, for there is no strict claim to special favors. (b) If commutative injustice accompanies the distributive injustice (e.g., if a ruler acts against his agreement to give the best position to the person who passes the best examination), there is a duty of restitution, for there is a strict claim to rights under contract.

Distributive Justice and the Violation of Strict Rights.—Injustice in distribution is frequently accompanied by injustice in transaction on account of some strict right violated, and hence by reason of the latter injustice there will be a duty of restitution (see 1708, 1808).

(a) Thus, distributive injustice is accompanied by violation of a strict right of society when an unfair distribution is contrary to agreement made with the community (e.g., when one is appointed or paid especially to make fair distributions, or the law or contract expressly imposes this obligation), or when it causes harm to the community which one is bound ex officio to prevent (e.g., when one appoints as public physician or surgeon a person who is entirely unfitted for the post).

(b) Distributive injustice is accompanied by violation of a strict right of an individual when it is against contract (e.g., when a person undertakes to select the best statue or portrait presented in a contest, but chooses one that is inferior), or when it inflicts loss on a private person (e.g., when a tax assessor requires more than is due from some persons, or an examiner admits to a school which receives only a limited number an unworthy candidate and thus excludes a worthy one, or a board rejects a worthy candidate as unworthy).

Commutative Justice and Unfair Awards of Prizes.—Unfair awards of prizes in competitions are not violations of commutative justice unless the following conditions are present:

(a) the promise of award must be given as a contract binding in justice, for if the promisor intends only to bind himself in fidelity, the promisee obtains no strict right. Hence, an unfair distribution is not against commutative justice if a competition has not the character of a real contest or of an onerous compact to reward the person who surpasses his rivals, but is rather an opportunity to compete for the free bounty of the promisor (e.g., if the organizer of an entertainment offers a prize for the prettiest baby), or an encouragement to useful industry (e.g., a first prize for the best garden in a neighborhood). On the contrary, if the promise is part of an onerous contract, the promisor is bound in justice and the promisee obtains a strict right. This is the case when the competition has the character of a real contest, in which the contestants must undergo special labor, preparation, expense or trouble, etc., in order that the award be given to the most meritorious;

(b) the thing promised as subject of award must be the prize, and not merely a claim or right to be considered for the prize. Hence, if an examination is held in order that a number of worthy persons may be listed for future vacancies in offices or dignities, the person who passes as most worthy has no strict right to be given an office or dignity, but only to be considered for it.

Has a person who passes as most worthy in an examination held in order to fill a vacant post a strict right to receive the post?

(a) According to the common opinion he has a strict right, because there is at least an implicit contract to the effect that the position will be given to the most worthy, since the examination is competitive.

(b) According to some authorities he has no strict right, because public positions are not to be regarded as rewards of merit, and the examination is not part of a contract but is only a means used by a superior to assist him in acting according to distributive justice. Nevertheless, even in this opinion an unjust award is a sin, and at times a grave sin, against distributive justice, and may accidentally be joined with commutative injustice (see 1755).

(c) Under the civil service method, or merit system, of appointment, the appointing official is bound by law to observe the rules of the civil service commission. The usual procedure is for the commission to submit the names of the three persons highest on the examination list. Position on the list is determined by competitive examination plus preferential points for veterans, experience in jobs, etc. (On the whole the preferential system does not seem to involve any injustice to those who do not receive the preference.) One of the three must be chosen for the first vacancy; for the second vacancy the remaining two, together with the next highest eligible, are proposed. Grave injustice against distributive justice would be done in not proceeding according to the legal method, and some degree of injustice might be done to an eligible who is illegally removed from a list, passed over, etc. Of the three highest eligibles no one has a strict right to the vacant post, but solely the right to be seriously considered.

What should be said of a superior who would promote undeserving persons to ecclesiastical benefices?

(a) As regards guilt, it is a mortal sin to confer a benefice on one who is unworthy, or even (when there is question of a benefice to which the care of souls is attached) on one who is less worthy (see Canon 459, Sec. 1).

(b) As regards restitution, there is an obligation of reparation to the community, when it is made to suffer loss, and of compensation to an individual who is passed over in spite of his strict right (see three preceding paragraphs).

The Obligation of Restitution.—(a) The obligation is both of natural and divine law. Reason itself dictates that everyone should receive his due, and revelation expressly commands restitution, as when it declares that he who has injured his neighbor’s field or vineyard must restore according to the damage done (Exod., xxii. 5).

(b) The obligation is both of means and of precept, for without restitution the offender does not obtain pardon from God (Ezech., xxxiii. 13 sqq,; Tob., ii. 20 sqq.). Hence, one who has seriously injured his neighbor cannot be saved unless he actually makes restitution, if he is able, or intends to make restitution when possible, if here and now he is not able to do so. A debtor who makes no effort to make restitution (e.g., one who refuses to deny himself luxuries, to curtail his expenses, to leave restitution money in his will), cannot be said to have a sincere intention of fulfilling his duty. But it is not true that a person who dies in venial sin on account of restitution neglected must remain in Purgatory till all the restitution is made; for this would make the punishment depend on the negligence of the heirs or on accident.

(c) The obligation is grave if the damage (absolute or relative) and the fault were both grave, for restitution is an obligation of strict justice (see 1753); the obligation is light if both the damage and the fault were light, for the injury then is light.

Duties of Confessors about the Obligation of Restitution.—(a) As to confession, the penitent is obliged to mention the number of sins committed against the duty of restitution, if there have been many acts of intention not to pay (see 202 sqq.); but as a rule those who have for a long time continued in sinful neglect of the duty of restitution have committed only one sin thereby, or else they do not apprehend their duty of mentioning the distinct internal acts, and hence confessors are advised not to question overmuch about this.

(b) As to absolution, the penitent lacks true contrition if he is under a serious obligation to make restitution and is wilfully opposed to the performance of this duty at all or at the proper time. Such a one may not be absolved. But the confessor should not admonish a penitent of the duty of restitution, if the penitent is in good faith and the admonition would only do harm. If the obligation of restitution is only light, absolution may not be refused, and prudence will often advise that no admonition about the obligation be given.

There are a number of situations possible when damage done is grave and culpability slight.

(a) Thus, the damage may be entirely involuntary, as when the offender could not foresee it and did not wish it (e.g., Sempronius commits a venial sin by speaking harshly to Claudius, whom he likes, but the latter is so depressed at this that he commits suicide). In this case there is clearly no obligation of restitution.

(b) The damage may be voluntary only interpretatively, as when the offender could not foresee it, but would have willed it had he foreseen it (e.g., Sempronius is glad when he learns that Claudius committed suicide, but would be much surprised if he knew that a harsh word of his caused it). In this case according to some there is a grave duty of restitution, because internal guilt and external damage are present; but others, with greater probability, deny the duty of restitution, for the damage was not caused by the internal sin of hate, which is not effective of itself, nor by the external harsh word, which was an occasion rather than a cause (see 1447, 1763).

(c) The damage may be voluntary directly, as when the offender wills it in itself (e.g., Titus steals a considerable sum from Balbus, but he is invincibly ignorant and thinks that the wealth of Balbus makes the sin only venial), or the damage done is voluntary indirectly (e.g., Caius is guilty of slight carelessness in guarding his cattle, and they get into a neighbor’s garden and cause great damage to crops; Caius foresaw some damage, but he could not have foreseen the actual grave damage that was done). About these cases there are various opinions, which will be given in 1765.