Article First. On Condonation

515. What condonation is and when it excuses. That condonation frees from restitution to be made either at once or simply is manifest: for the creditor can renounce his right.

1. Not only express and tacit condonation, but also presumed condonation excuses from making restitution.

a. Express condonation has place when the creditor, asked either by the debtor himself or by another in his name, remits the debt. The confessor can especially undertake this office of asking condonation in the name of the penitent when the dying man cannot furnish the restitution to be made to a rich person, so that, once condonation has been received, the debtor may die more tranquilly.

b. The creditor is considered tacitly to condone the debt if, for example, he tears up the note of debt or restores it to the debtor; but he is not considered to condone the debt if he restores the pledge.

c. Presumed condonation is had when it can prudently be judged that the creditor, if asked either by the debtor himself or by another, for example, by the confessor in his name, would liberally remit the debt.

d. To condonation is also referred the agreement by which the creditor concedes to the debtor that by restitution of a small part he be freed from the whole debt. Namely creditors who detect the unstable fortune of debtors are not unwillingly driven to making some composition, by which they may receive at least part of the goods which are owed to them. By this composition the debts are considered extinguished; wherefore a debtor who afterward comes to better fortune is bound to nothing further.

2. In order that condonation excuse from restitution: a. it must be made by the owner himself of the thing taken away or destroyed; for he who does not have ownership has no right of giving. Hence condonation concerning family goods made by wife or children is not valid of itself, since they do not have ownership in those goods. b. It must be free: for it is a donation, and it belongs to the nature of donation that it be free. Therefore condonation extorted by force, fraud, or grave fear, or made from error, is invalid.

Condonation is not undeservedly presumed:

a. In thefts even of greater moment which have been made at home by children under family power if the things taken away no longer exist: for parents ordinarily are not so unwilling because of the thing taken away as because of the mode (secretly) of taking it away, and because of the sin committed by the taking away; therefore they rarely urge restitution. The same holds for thefts of wives.

b. In thefts of lesser moment which are perpetrated by servants in foodstuffs or in other things committed to their custody, unless they are carried outside the house or sold. If thefts, whether of money or of other things, occur in grave matter, condonation can be presumed when the servant, once the matter has been detected, is corrected by the master or dismissed from service without the master demanding restitution; otherwise it cannot easily be presumed.

c. In small thefts which are committed by workers concerning the things of the master with whom they work; thus workers laboring in forests, vineyards, or factories sometimes carry away something with themselves which the owner does not greatly care about, and therefore is supposed not to urge its restitution.

d. In small thefts of the poor which are made from diverse owners. If thefts have been made from the same owner, it must be demanded that the poor too, if it can be done, restore at least some part. Once this restitution has been made, if they conceive the intention of stealing no more, condonation can more easily be supposed as to the remaining part.