Case 2. Dishonest Servants

Titius, who was a servant to a certain noble family, confessed that he had discovered a fellow servant who had committed many thefts of the goods of their common master, and that he had not disclosed them to the master; indeed, that he had received a sum of money from the thief in order to preserve deep silence about the thefts. The confessor, however, is uncertain whether Titius sinned or not, and whether he is bound to restitution. Hence:

1. Are servants bound to prevent thefts of their master’s goods?

2. What is a base contract, and is it lawful to retain a benefit obtained from it?

3. To what extent is there an obligation of restitution by reason of participation in the thefts of another?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. Are servants bound to prevent thefts of their master's property?

Yes; they are so bound at least in charity, and they are bound in justice also if the goods of their master that are stolen were specially entrusted to their charge and keeping.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 290.

2. What is an immoral contract, and is it allowable to retain the consideration which has been paid on account of it?

See this question answered above, p. 290.

3. How far does partaking in another’s theft impose an obligation to make restitution?

A partner in another's theft is bound to restore any stolen goods that he received, and if he took part in the acts of theft, or by his conduct encouraged the thief in his thieving, he will also be bound jointly and severally with the thief to make good all the damage done.

4. The case. Titius was bound at least in charity to inform his master about the thefts of his fellow servant at least if this was necessary to prevent future thefts. He was bound also in justice if the care of his master’s property was specially entrusted to him, and he will be bound to make restitution for failing in this duty of justice imposed on him by the nature of his office. Titius, moreover, took money from the thief and promised not to inform on him. If we suppose that Titius had no special charge of the stolen property, and the only question is of his obligation concerning past thefts of his fellow servant, the contract made with the thief was indeed immoral and made him guilty of an indictable offence called misprision of felony. However, it is not certain that he is bound to restore the money which he received as consideration for his silence. If according to what was said above, informing his master is necessary to prevent future thefts, or his duty imposes on him the obligation in justice of informing about the thief, he should be told to do his duty and return the money which he received from the thief to his master as partial restitution for the thefts.