Section — Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis
§ 2. On Negative Cooperation
109. Notions. Negative cooperators are those who do not impede damage to the neighbor, although they are held to this from justice. Three modes of this cooperation are assigned, which indeed are materially, but not formally, diverse, namely "mute, not hindering, not manifesting."
a) He is called mute who does not speak before the damaging, and does not forewarn the person to be damaged, when he is held to this from office or contract; e.g., a guard who, when a thief is coming, does not shout and does not warn the owner.67
b) He is not hindering who, while damage is being inflicted, does not oppose it, although he is held to this from justice; e.g., a forest guard who does not prevent wood from being cut unjustly.
c) He is called not manifesting who, after damage has been inflicted, does not denounce the damager either to the injured owner or to a superior, although from office he is held to this; e.g., the same forest guard, who indeed knows well the thieves of the wood, but does not denounce them to the public authority.
Principle. Those who from commutative justice are held to impede damage, and do not impede it when they can without grave inconvenience, are held to repair the damage inflicted.68
The reason is that in this culpable omission all the conditions of unjust damaging are had; for it is truly, efficaciously, and formally unjust. But it is said: "who from commutative justice are held to impede damage"; for if there is only an obligation of charity, obedience, or another virtue, there is indeed sin, but no obligation of reparation arises. Now those ought to impede damage from commutative justice who have obliged themselves to this by some explicit or implicit contract. An implicit contract is had in the free undertaking of any duty or office. Then it is said: "when they can without grave inconvenience"; for no one is judged to oblige himself to preventing the damage of another with great inconvenience of his own, unless this is contained explicitly in the contract.
67 Billuart, l. c. § 7, explains the three negative modes otherwise, saying: "The mute omits verbal labor toward the damager; the one not hindering, bodily labor toward the same; the one not manifesting, verbal labor toward magistrates or toward owners damaged or to be damaged."
68 Cf. St. Thomas, S. theol. 2, 2, q. 62, a. 7; IV dist. 15, q. 1, a. 5, solut. 3.
110. Corollaries. 1. A confessor who, even from culpable negligence, omits to warn a penitent concerning restitution to be made, of himself is not held to reparation of the damage which arises from this silence for the legitimate owner. The reason is that the confessor by force of his office is not constituted for protecting the temporal goods either of his penitent or of others. Nevertheless such a confessor administers the sacrament badly and therefore sins; indeed, if his silence is equivalent to positive approval, and especially if the penitent expressly asked concerning the obligation of restitution, then the confessor is the efficacious cause of the damage and is bound to restitution.69
A servant who does not avert damage from the master's goods specially committed to him is bound to restitution. But when it is a question of other goods of the master not specially committed to his care, many think that servants from justice ought to impede damage which is inflicted by outsiders, but not damage which is inflicted by a domestic person, e.g., by sons of the family or by a fellow servant.70 Others, however, probably deny both and acknowledge only an obligation of charity. Yet this obligation of charity can easily be grave both toward the master and toward the evildoer; servants maintaining deep silence concerning the thefts of sons of families should be mindful of this obligation.
Parents or superiors who freely permit sons or subjects to inflict damage upon a neighbor indeed sin, but are not bound to reparation of the damage. The reason is that the quality of parent or superior of itself is not sufficient that someone be constituted as a kind of sponsor for the damages of subjects. Nevertheless parents and superiors ought to repair damage of this kind, 1) if the sentence of a civil judge has condemned them on account of juridical fault committed, for such a sentence is just; 2) if that silence is rather to be compared to positive influence and is held as counsel or excitation; 3) if the damage inflicted was by a child before the use of reason, i.e., before the first seven-year period was completed, because if parents or superiors culpably do not impede such damage, they injure commutative justice.
Guards of customs, forests, fields, etc., are bound to reparation of notable damage inflicted, if they permit the damagers to go away unpunished; but if it is a question of damages of lesser moment, they ought not to exercise the greatest rigor toward the damagers, both because otherwise they would procure greater inconveniences for themselves and others, and because this is the reasonably presumed will of the injured owner.
He who has accepted money from a thief or other damager for desisting from denunciation71 is certainly bound to reparation, if from office he ought to denounce; he is also certainly bound to return money perhaps coming from the theft itself. But outside these cases it is controverted. Some deny,72 because then justice is not injured, but only charity; others affirm,73 because to accept money and be silent in this case is nothing other than to provide help and security to the thief. The second opinion seems truer, if the money is provided before the theft or damage is to be committed; on the other hand, the first opinion is truer and safe in practice, if the money is provided to him who, after the theft or damage has been perpetrated, learned this by chance. But always (although he does not sin against justice) he who receives money for concealing the theft or damage caused acts badly, because it is a disgraceful contract, and because he exposes himself to great infamy and dangers, if his foul mode of acting is discovered.
69 St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 528.
70 St. Alphonsus, l. c. n. 344.
71 Commonly Schweigegeld, hush-money, pot de vin.
72 Lugo, De iust. et iure disp. 19, n. 102; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1208; Génicot, Theol. mor. I, n. 574, Quaer. V.
73 Tanquerey, De virt. iust. n. 541; Crolly, De iure et iust. III, n. 703.