Case 4. Restitution in Another Species of Goods

Caius was assistant priest to Titius, another priest who was parish priest and who asked his counsel about his obligations in these circumstances. Six years ago, compelled by necessity, Titius borrowed one hundred pounds from Patrick, at that time indeed a most friendly man, but recently made a most hostile enemy. Patrick gravely and rather often calumniated Titius, so that among the faithful and fellow citizens his reputation suffered grave damage, which, as he sincerely estimates, would not be compensated by a sum of one hundred pounds. Therefore it is in his mind to retain for himself £100 as some compensation for his reputation unjustly injured, since he knows well that Patrick will invoke the civil law in vain in order to recover the debt. Hence it is asked:

1. What is restitution, and whence does the obligation of restoring arise?

2. Given the impossibility of restoring in goods of the same order, is there an obligation of restoring in goods of a different order?

3. What is the effect of our laws—the Statutes of Limitation?

4. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is restitution and whence arises the obligation of making restitution ? Restitution is reparation for an injury that has been done to another. Such reparation is required by the very nature of the virtue of justice, which prescribes that each should have his own, and consequently that, when one has been deprived of what belongs to him, the same thing, or its equivalent, shall be restored to him.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 398.

2. When it is impossible to make restitution in goods of the same species, is there an obligation to make it in goods of another species?

This is a disputed point among theologians, but according to St. Alphonsus (III, no. 627) the more common and more probable opinion denies any such obligation.

3. What is the effect of our Statutes of Limitation ?

This question is answered above, p. 261.

4. The case. If Titius is certain that he has suffered loss in money to the extent of £100 on account of the calumnies of Patrick, he may keep the £100 which he borrowed from him. If his reputation alone has suffered, he should not in practice constitute himself his own judge in his own case, as he would do if he kept the money as compensation for Patrick's calumnies. He has, indeed, a probable opinion in his favor, but he should not appropriate to himself what belongs to another on the strength of a merely probable opinion. The Statutes of Limitation bar Patrick's remedy, it is true, but do not extinguish the debt. Titius then should pay back the £100, and if that does not bring about a reconciliation, he may threaten Patrick with an action for slander, unless he desists from his calumnies.