§ III. On the One Consenting

I say. The one consenting is held to restitution as often as knowingly and freely he issues a vote or sentence, upon which the violation of another's strict right directly depends, that is, as often as he gives efficacious consent to the damage or injury of the neighbor. The reason is that then he himself is the true, efficacious, and unjust cause of another's damage.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. He is not held to restitution who by his vote impedes another from obtaining a good to which he had no right, yet with fraud or special pact excluded; because in this case, but not in the other, a strict right would be violated.

2nd. He is not held for damage who authentically revokes a vote previously given, before the wickedness is consummated; nor the one voting in good faith, although this latter, when the error has been detected, is held from justice to revoke his vote. The reason is that the former does not exert influence efficaciously and the latter does not exert influence unjustly.

3rd. He is held for damage who abstains from casting a vote which from office would have to be given, and whose omission would be the efficacious cause of unjust damage; but not he who abstains from giving a vote from mere benevolence and concerning a thing not owed to another.

Question. Whether the one consenting, who gives an unjust vote, is held to restitution if there are not lacking other votes already sufficient for the damage?

Resp. It is certain, 1st, that all those consenting are equally held to restitution if by agreement they gave votes; since, when a conspiracy has been entered upon, there is one moral action of all. - It is certain, 2nd, that all those consenting contract the obligation of restoring when they have cast the vote at the same time; because, since no one then was prior or posterior, the sentence resulting from the sum of the votes is deservedly attributed to each of those voting. It is certain, 3rd, that those are not to be excused from restitution who first give a vote before the number is completed, even if they foresee that others who consent will not be lacking, because they truly exert influence on the damage; for although without them it would have been inflicted, nevertheless through them it is partially inflicted in fact.

But whether, conspiracy and simultaneous casting of votes being excluded, the last voters can be excused from the obligation of restoring when the number of votes required for the determination of the matter has already been completed, is controverted. Several grave theologians affirm, because voters of this sort are in no way the cause of the damage, since it was already sufficiently prepared and determined by others. Others deny, because since a sentence is never judged perfect unless it is concluded through the casting of all votes, the last no less than the first exert influence on the unjust sentence. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 566. - Lugo, disp. 19, n. 17. - Vogler, n. 302.