Case 1. A Judge's Duty

Titius, a good Catholic, recently deceased, had left in his will one hundred pounds to be expended on Masses to be celebrated for his soul; Caius, the executor, intended to pay this legacy according to the will of the deceased. Julius, however, a Catholic and the residuary legatee of Titius’s goods, opposed this and brought the case before Marcus, a judge who was also a Catholic. Marcus, however, in accordance with English laws, declared the legacy of one hundred pounds invalid as having been assigned to superstitious uses, whence the whole sum accrued to Julius’s residue. Finally Philip, the priest upon whom devolved the spiritual care of all those who have been mentioned, asks about their obligations that have been violated or perhaps still remain to be fulfilled. Hence it is asked:

1. What is a will for pious causes, and what is required for its validity?

2. Can a Catholic judge render judgment according to the unjust laws of his country?

3. What is to be said of the case?

1. What is a will in favor of pious causes and what is required for its validity?

Pious causes, or objects, are such as belong to the service of God and religion. Alms left for the support of religion or for charitable purposes, if the main object was the honor of God, are considered as left for pious causes. Such pious causes are subject to the legislation of the Church, which lays down that no special formalities are required for the validity of wills and legacies to pious objects; all that is requisite is that there should be moral certainty resting on the evidence of two or more witnesses about the intention of the testator.¹

1 Ballerini-Palmieri, Opus Morale, tract, viii, pt. iii, c. iii, n. 703.

2. May a Catholic judge give sentence according to an unjust law?

If the law commands what is contrary to the law of God, no Catholic judge may pass sentence according to it. If the unjust law only affects the liberty of the subject or property rights, many theologians hold that a Catholic judge, like any other, may pass sentence according to such a law. His refusal to do so would not ordinarily benefit the accused, and the only effect would be to compel the judge to resign his office, and make it impossible for Catholics to hold such offices. Hence the accused may reasonably be presumed to submit to the action of the judge as long as the unjust law remains in force.²

2 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 587.

3. The case. The legacy was void according to English law. Julius, however, was not justified in invoking the law to get the legacy declared void. He is a Catholic and is bound by the law of the Church, and for him, subjectively as well as objectively, the legacy is valid. Mark could not help doing as he did and so he may be excused. Philip, the parish priest, should admonish

Julius, if the admonition will do any good, and tell him that he is bound in conscience to pay over the £100 for Masses to be said for the soul of the testator according to the testator’s intention. It is a case where he can not have the benefit of the law.¹

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 506.