Chapter VII: On Offices

Notion and Division of Offices. 1. By a general and rather confused notion, any office designates certain parts to be carried out for the utility of others. These parts can be undertaken accidentally or permanently: office is more properly understood concerning parts stably undertaken; they can be of private character, which are undertaken and abandoned by those willing, as if someone offers himself for curing diseases, and be entrusted by public authority; i. e. there are private and public offices.

2. On public offices. In order that a perfect society may attain its end, the Church and the various states have many things to be done, both for their own immediate good and for the good of the citizens of whom they consist. To perform these things well society at once inviolably (or by right) can and ought. But a moral person, of itself altogether powerless, is compelled to do all things through legitimately deputed physical persons. Thus it happens that the immense province by which the Church and states are administered is divided into many partial procurations or ministries, to which rights and duties are attached. These are public offices. Therefore a public office expresses a certain sum of rights and duties committed to a physical person for exercising some part of public action; and it can be defined briefly: public procuration or administration.

The conferral of these offices, or the deputation of a physical person to exercise an office, can be made in various ways, concerning which there is not to be treated in this place. We know that, in the Church, the first deputation was made authoritatively by Christ, and then, from the power communicated through Christ to Peter and the Apostles, the erection and conferral of offices was ordered; while, in the state, the first possession of supreme jurisdiction has a much less definite origin. For our purpose it will be enough to have noted this: that public offices are for the most part undertaken voluntarily, and only when affairs are desperate are they committed to be carried out by the unwilling. Yet the faculty of enjoining the very undertaking of an office cannot be denied to the supreme public power; and by canon 128 itself there is sanctioned the obligation by which clerics are held to undertake and faithfully carry out the office which, in the necessity of the Church, the bishop has imposed on them.

II. Obligation. The general office of managing an office well follows the very undertaking of the office. When there is question of a private office, this obligation of justice is easily explained by an express or tacit contract. But from the very nature of the matter, he who undertakes a public office to be managed is held by justice toward society. For society has a strict right that it be well administered. To this right there corresponds an obligation of justice which has its seat in the deputed official: for no other seat can be thought up. When an office is undertaken voluntarily, there is added the character of a contract with the Superior who conferred the office.

Moreover, however, there is commonly affirmed an obligation of commutative justice also toward individual citizens to whom the proper action of the office is destined. Thus citizens can demand from justice that magistrates be willing to judge their causes. What proximate source shall we assign to that debt of justice?

Since no agreement has intervened between magistrates and individual citizens, the proximate source is the law itself, which imposed that office to be exercised from justice toward individuals.

III. Certain Sins to Be Avoided in the Undertaking, Exercise, and Resignation of Office.

1. He who does not know himself to be capable cannot, without injustice, undertake an office, whether private or public. He is a harmful deceiver who, without sufficient expertise, offers himself for exercising an art. Therefore parents sin who, with all consideration of capacity neglected, destine for a public office a son whom they have found less fit for private affairs; those sin who, though unskilled, have sought popular votes. Yet here account must be taken of the greater faculty which the people possesses of electing deputies acceptable to itself. He who has known how to catch the popular breeze, provided that afterwards, in exercising the office, he can and wishes to conduct himself according to the counsels of prudent men, can even do something useful for society, if by his election he has impeded the election of a worse person. All things at last fall back here: that nothing harmful to the republic be done, and that its utility be sufficiently provided for.

You should also observe that the notion of capacity is relative, so that here he must be judged most skilled who elsewhere would have to be rejected as unfit.

But what remains to be done by him who, not being suitable, has been affected with an honor? If he can, he ought to render himself capable, and meanwhile, with the help of advisers, perform his offices well; otherwise he ought to lay down the office.

2. An office once undertaken cannot be neglected without injustice, but it must be fulfilled with that diligence which the common or private good requires and which was expressly or tacitly promised. In vain you will allege private inconveniences. For not only, if there is question of a public office, must public utility be placed before private utility, but also by a tacit promise in the undertaking of the office the one managing the office is held to suffer all inconveniences, to enter into all dangers which are of themselves connected with the office.

These things hold also concerning the lowest administrators. Contrary to what is often thought, greater diligence is owed to public persons, such as the Church and the state, than to private persons.

3. To those who have long and well conducted themselves or have become incapable by sickness, pensions are customarily offered from the public treasury or from a constituted pension fund. Justice forbids that, by feigning sickness or incapacity for the matter, someone should obtain for himself a pension of this kind.

But today the minds of many must be healed from that harmful error by which public utility is made almost of no value, so that even public officials, especially civil ones, do not know how to serve the community itself, and, without scruple, squander public monies, while they carry moderate solicitude concerning true public utility.

I. Notions. 1. On the order of judgments. a) In canon law, although by force of c. 1573 every Bishop ought to constitute an official with ordinary power of judging, nevertheless the same person of the Bishop is legislator, judge, and administrator; while today, in temporal society, a perfect distinction flourishes between legislative, administrative, and judicial power. b) Both in the canonical and civil forum, there are distinguished civil causes, in which a lawsuit arisen between parties is extinguished by a definition of right, while no penalty is established, and criminal causes, in which coercion of delicts for the common good is principally intended through fitting penalties; principally, I say, because, both in the canonical and civil forum, in a criminal cause it is lawful accessorily to move a private complaint, for example to obtain repair of damages.

c) In the canonical forum, the tribunal of first instance for causes of seculars and non-exempt religious, and also for controversies between seculars and regulars or between regulars of different religions, is the Bishop, from whom appeal is made to the tribunal of the Metropolitan. But if the Metropolitan himself was judge of first instance, the tribunal of a suffragan Bishop, once chosen with the approval of the Holy See, is the court of appeal for him. The third grade of jurisdiction, which, with the Supreme Pontiff permitting, can also be the first, is the Roman Rota. But since there are twelve auditors of the Rota, who judge by a turn of three auditors, appeal from a sentence of the Rota is devolved to another turn of the Rota. Over all tribunals in some way presides the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura, consisting of some Cardinals, which judges concerning a complaint of nullity against a rotal sentence, concerning conflict of competence between inferior tribunals, etc. (cf. c. 1603, 1604). When the nullity of a sentence has been declared, or restitution has been conceded, or recourse admitted, it remits the cause to the Sacred Rota, unless the Most Holy otherwise provides (c. 1604).

In the civil forum there is distinguished, for lesser controversies and delicts, the conciliating judge (pretore, juge de paix); then, for civil causes, the ordinary tribunal, which among us is called of first instance, which at the same time is the tribunal of appeal from the sentences of the conciliating judge. Often special tribunals exist, such as the tribunal of commerce for controversies among merchants, of upright men (prud'hommes) for controversies between masters of works and workmen, of guardianships, which in some regions supplies the family council. From the tribunal appeal is given to the Court of Appeal. By a like reason a double grade is had in causes of delicts. But here, for graver delicts, and also, not rarely, for delicts of the political order and of the press, there is customarily an assize court in which citizens, designated by lot among the foremost, with oath omitted (whence they are called jurors), answer affirmatively or negatively to questions posed by the magistrates who are present at the same time, and thus judge the accused guilty or innocent. Having heard these responses, the magistrates who compose the assize court establish the penalty according to law, if the accused has been judged guilty, and pronounce the sentence. If, however, some part of the votes dissents from the other, the magistrates themselves ought to declare what they think concerning the accused, and join their vote with either part.

Above the tribunals and Courts of Appeal or of assizes there exists a Court (one or multiple) of Cassation, which judges concerning defects of form and concerning a violated law of judgments; but it is not accustomed to examine the intrinsic merit of the cause, but remits it to a different court to be judged.

In Roman law the magistrate (praetor) spoke the law and wrote the formula according to which the judge, after examination of the fact, had to give sentence, whence procedure was distinguished in iure and in iudicio. If you except what we just said concerning the Supreme Tribunal of the Signatura and concerning the Court of Cassation, in both canonical and civil forum the same judge pronounces concerning fact and concerning law.

In the canonical forum, besides the judge or judges (if the tribunal is collegial), auditors can be designated, who, abstaining from sentence, cite and hear witnesses, and instruct judicial acts; an actuary ought to be present to draw up the acts or at least to subscribe them. There is also a promoter of justice, to whom now the criminal action or accusation is reserved (c. 1934), and who also, in contentious causes, where the public good requires it, carries a part; and the defender of the bond, for protecting the bond of sacred ordination or marriage.

In the civil forum there are distinguished judges properly so called, who, sitting, bring sentence, and officials (the royal or republican procurator or his substitute, or the advocate general or procurator general) who, standing, in certain civil causes express what they think, or in criminal causes carry the parts of accuser.

But, while in the canonical forum the beginning of action and inquiry also pertains to the judge, in the civil forum the judge cannot legitimately bring sentence unless asked, either by the parties in a civil matter, or by the public procurator in a criminal matter.

In the canonical forum, parties can act by themselves or choose for themselves a procurator (avoué) by whom they are represented, and an advocate by whom they are defended. This latter, moreover, is given from office in criminal causes. In the civil forum, when the cause is not criminal, sometimes the parties cannot appear by themselves but must choose some procurator.

In the canonical forum, the defense must be made in writings; "nevertheless a moderate disputation before the judge sitting for the tribunal is admitted for illustrating something, if, either party or both parties requesting it, the judge judges it useful and admits it." Cf. c. 1863 and 1866, § 2. On the contrary, in the civil forum, the defense is made orally and causes are of themselves conducted publicly.

In both forums, canonical and civil, there are declaratory sentences and decisory or decretory sentences. A declaratory sentence authentically promulgates either the nullity of a juridical act or (this in the canonical forum alone) a contracted penalty; a decisory or decretory sentence, as a particular law, contains the proximate title by which the right of the parties is constituted or the penalty is to be sustained by the accused. And, while the cause is deliberated, the judge issues several mandates and orders as a true Superior.

II. The requisites for a legitimate judgment are these three: jurisdiction, right process, and right intention. It is necessary that the cause be duly introduced and ended. In the present-day civil forum, the judge must always observe the solemnities required by law, nor is he accustomed to have the faculty of bringing an arbitrary penalty, but only within certain limits, according to the variety of cases, can he increase or diminish the penalty. He enjoys an unequal power of composing controversies in various laws.

Defect of right intention is opposed to charity but not to justice.

A secular judge does not have jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons or causes; for settling these he can validly be delegated by the Supreme Pontiff alone.

Wherefore he who uses lay jurisdiction against ecclesiastical persons or in ecclesiastical causes violates justice toward ecclesiastical society and toward the person whom he compels without right; he sins besides against religion, from whose motive the privilege of forum was introduced. This is of itself grave. Yet derogation from this privilege is made through Concordats and also through custom, at least centenary; which custom the Secretariat of State, in the year 1911, recognized for Belgium, Germany, and Holland (cf. Per. VI, 190).

By this recognition, which seems to savor of some toleration rather than a formal abdication of right, sacrilege and injury toward ecclesiastical society seem to be removed. But has penal jurisdiction over ecclesiastical persons also therefore been conceded; has a lay magistrate been made truly competent in a criminal matter? We doubt it. Wherefore, at least where a graver cause is being conducted and an express concordat or indult is lacking, we judge it should be advised that the formal faculty, concerning which c. 120, § 2, if it can be done, be sought where the privileged forum has merely become obsolete. And also by persons who draw priests and prelates before a lay judge, the natural law must be attended to, which commands that we show due observance to Superiors and avoid scandal.

Penalties of One Violating the Privileged Forum. From c. 120, Cardinals, Legates of the Apostolic See, higher Officials of the Roman Curia on account of business pertaining to their office, or one's proper Ordinary cannot be brought before a lay judge without permission of the Apostolic See; and he who has dared to draw a person of this kind without such permission to a lay judge contracts by the fact itself an excommunication reserved to the Apostolic See in a special manner (c. 2341); the rest who enjoy privilege of forum cannot be brought before a court without permission of the Ordinary of the place in which the cause is conducted; which license, however, the Ordinary, especially if the plaintiff is a layman, is not to deny without a just and grave cause, especially when he has in vain given labor to composing the controversy between the parties (c. 120, § 2); and he who has dared to draw another Bishop, even merely titular, or an Abbot or Prelate nullius, or someone from the supreme Superiors of religions of pontifical right, before a lay judge, contracts by the fact itself an excommunication latae sententiae simply reserved to the Apostolic See; finally, if he has dared without license to bring before a layman another person enjoying the privilege, a cleric indeed incurs by the fact itself suspension from office reserved to the Ordinary; but a layman is to be punished by his own Ordinary with suitable penalties according to the gravity of the fault (c. 2341). But, because daring is required, no one contracts the penalty who, compelled by office, draws a privileged person to a lay judge; and, by the very text of the canon, judges are excluded from this delict, since they draw no one to their tribunal. Cf. Epitome, III, n. 540.

III. Obligations of the Public Procurator. Besides competent knowledge: 1. he ought to guard the reputation of citizens. Wherefore, unless indications have preceded which suffice according to laws and received customs, he cannot inquire specially concerning some person whether he has committed some crime. Nor in canon law can he be cited as accused unless he is one against whom half-proof has existed; 2. since he is a promoter of justice and not of condemnation, he ought to speak sentence according to the merit of the cause, nor, by a prejudged reason, urge condemnation beyond what the proofs permit; 3. he ought to strive that causes, especially criminal ones, be judged quickly, and that citizens perhaps innocent not be detained too long in preventive prison. (Concerning that infamy to be avoided, cf. Ball.-Palm., Op. theol. IV, 559.)

IV. Obligations of the Instructing Judge. 1. He himself ought to be diligent in examining causes; and because public knowledge must be acquired, and by that reason which is expedient for the common good, the judge can employ only those means of investigation which are approved by usage, and do not furnish occasion for many abuses, or which are not repugnant to the judge's own dignity. A confession extorted by unjust means the judge cannot use for condemning the accused. And the same seems to have to be said if he has known the fault by unjust interrogations whose injustice the accused did not know. (Cf. Palm., Opusc. Theol. IV, 556, who thinks this more probable.) But if, by unjust interrogations, the fault of another has been detected, since the action was not unjust to the other, that fault can be publicly vindicated, i. e. judicially punished.

2. Among means plainly foreign to the character of present-day criminal process, the use of hypnotism seems to have to be placed. For it approaches a certain kind of torture, since it extorts the confession of a delict by insuperable force; and this not without harm to a perhaps innocent subject and diminution of his liberty for the future. Wherefore, unless perhaps a special necessity of averting a public evil should require it, we judge it unlawful to employ means of this kind. But it is clear that a confession made in that sleep can never be held as a certain argument, but indications thus given must be proved by ordinary means.

V. Obligations of the Judge of the Cause. 1. In examining and dispatching causes he ought to employ the usual diligence of a prudent judge. "For from office he is held to render to each his own: which he does not do if he defers sentence without a just cause." (Busembaum, De iudice.) He is held to refund to the injured party damages and expenses proceeding from gravely culpable negligence.

2. In criminal causes this holds: "the delict not being proved, the accused is absolved." And because the judge puts on a public person, the delict ought to be established for him from public knowledge. Public knowledge, however, is that which is gathered according to the acts in the trial. - If by private knowledge he has known an innocent man who nevertheless is publicly convicted, he ought to free the accused in every way, if he can, for example by offering himself as a witness and withdrawing from the cause as judge. If he can do nothing, some, with St. Thomas, think that here also merely public knowledge must be attended to. Others simply deny this, since it is the right of the innocent person not to be condemned. More rightly, with Lugo, Iust. d. 37, n. 41 ff., you will distinguish greater criminal causes and lesser causes in which there is question only of monetary penalties. For over these goods the public power has eminent dominion by force of which, on account of a proportionate public cause, it can take them away from citizens. But it is of public interest that the order of judgments be preserved, since violation of it easily becomes scandalous. Then therefore the opinion of St. Thomas seems to have place, but not when the penalty of death or the like would have to be pronounced.

3. In a civil cause, doubts of fact are solved for the accused. For this is perpetual: the proof lies upon him who affirms, not upon him who denies. This reason is already enough for preferring the possessor, insofar as he merely repels the action of the other.

But what concerning a doubt of law?

With the rules of the older authors omitted, the civil judge should answer according to the opinion which, after study has been made, is more approved by him, unless he prefers to follow the opinion received in the tribunal of appeal, lest his own be reformed. For he can defer much to its authority.

This is the mind of our laws and the common reason by which the office of judge is understood. For a judge is not merely a private doctor, but by his authentic definition removes the doubt in a particular case. But since, in giving his solution, he ought to be solicitous concerning truth alone, he surely will have sinned if he has adjudged the matter to him whom the lesser probability favors. Lugo, Iust. d. 37, n. 117, excepts if the common good, for example of avoiding scandal, because by accident the choice of the more probable opinion would bring great public detriments, demands that sentence be brought for the less probable opinion; or if the cause is one which, from positive law, is to be favored in doubt.

Nor does justice stand in the way that, according as he can, he concede something to the lesser probability. In a morally equal doubt, others say that the thing is to be divided, if the judge can do this. (For example, in the U.S.A. this would be forbidden; he would rather have to leave the thing in its own state.) Nor do they condemn those who adjudge the thing to either party. But he should always be mindful of rule 11 of Law in 6°: "the accused is to be favored rather than the plaintiff." Concerning the cooperation of a judge with an unjust law, we treated above, n. 140.

Can a judge suggest to the other party what it could allege for itself?.

St. Alphonsus (L. 1, n. 210) reproves this, because he cannot act as an advocate. Reuter, Neo-confessarius, III, 465, judges that of itself it is lawful, and after him Lehmkuhl, I, 960, 5.

Indeed he says it must be done from charity, "if there is question of grave public damage, or danger of a soul, or the harming of a pious cause." But let the judge beware lest he seem to be carried away by zeal for parties, which would be scandalous. Nor do we think this lawful where there is question of means of law which cannot be supplied from office, but are valid only if they are appealed to by the litigant: thus prescription.

Moreover, juridical arguments the judge can and ought to allege in giving sentence.

What is lawful for a judge concerning gifts?.

With the law of nature considered, he can accept little gifts spontaneously offered, but not, before sentence, those which create danger of perverting judgment. Yet of those things which he has accepted he acquires dominion. - He ought to restore those things by which he obligated himself to doing that to which he is held from justice, for example to bringing a just sentence. But those things which compensate an honest and undue performance, for example extraordinary diligence, he by no means ought to return. Finally, before the iniquity has been committed, but not afterwards, he ought to return the price of iniquity. Cf. the things said concerning an illicit cause n. 412.

What therefore if, when the option is permitted to him, he has accepted a price so that he might examine some cause first? Laymann, L. 3, s. 5, tr. 4, c. 1, n. 9, does not dare to condemn this, while on the contrary Lugo, Iust. d. 37, n. 136, with St. Alphonsus approving, L. 1, n. 196, and Lehmkuhl, I, 969, think that it is not lawful to accept anything for the choice of some party whenever from justice you are held to do either gratis, nor is any labor added: for you perform nothing onerous which would be compensated by a price.

But every acceptance of gifts detracts not a little from the reputation of magistrates and from the honor of justice. Wherefore laws are entirely to be approved which gravely punish judges who have accepted such things. Every acceptance of gifts is prohibited by canon 1624 and 1911, § 2, both to judges and to the inquisitor; in causes of Beatification, moreover, they ought to emit an oath concerning gifts not to be accepted. Modest edible things, which before the Code, when offered liberally, were tolerated, do not seem to be contained in that prohibition.

VI. Effect of an Unjust Sentence. In a doubtful case the presumption favors the sentence. But where it is certainly unjust, it does not oblige conscience, although sometimes, in the external forum, it ought to be observed for avoiding scandals. The very party which has triumphed, when the error is known, ought to yield to the other and according to general rules restore what has been accepted. If the judge is to be blamed, he ought to repair damages. But unless there is question of laws which impose a compensatory fine of taxes, he will have to restore nothing on account of a fine not sought, because the end of penalties is not that the treasury be enriched.

I. Concerning Necessary Knowledge,. it is asked whether a juror lawfully performs an office which, without sufficient expertise, he often will have to exercise.

Resp. The question of fact alone is to be solved by jurors. The danger of error indeed is not to be denied, but it is not greatly to be feared lest an innocent citizen appear convicted, since the cleverness and arts of advocates bring it about that often the truly guilty man is absolved. But the legislator himself may ascribe to himself the detriment of the common good which is received from the absolution of the guilty. Therefore a juror seems immune from fault who firmly determines to condemn him alone whom he judges manifest of a true crime. There is added that, with this disposition of mind, he will act better than, according to the things which generally happen, he who would be substituted for him, so that he can judge himself at least relatively capable, which is enough.

II. On the Use of Private Knowledge. 1. Not even a juror can condemn him whom he has known to be innocent. For the arguments brought will never give him the intimate persuasion which, according to law, is necessary that he pronounce the accused guilty.

2. Nor, as it seems to us, can he condemn him whom he has known to be guilty by private knowledge alone. For the very order of justice requires that, for condemning a citizen, public knowledge be had.

Nor does positive law which some allege, for example concerning the law of Belgium, seem to us to have this sense. Yet there are those, as Ill. Waffelaert, Ius II, p. 433, who think that the use of private knowledge can be permitted by law. We will be able to concede this if it is specially of interest to the republic that the crime be punished. Cf. Genicot, II, 9.

What if the accused was a cleric, we have seen above, n. 142.

III. It happens today that jurors are scandalously lacking in their office, when, on account of reasons wholly extrinsic to the cause, such as political passion, or appetite for vengeance, or antisocial errors, they deny that manifest crimes have been committed.

Notion and Office. 1. Arbiters are persons, of themselves private, whom, by an agreement which is called compromise, the parties have voluntarily chosen to settle a lawsuit.

Of themselves they ought to bring sentence according to law, unless from the compromise they have had the faculty of compensating the matter according to equitable and good.

The parties ought to stand by the agreement. Moreover, with certain conditions observed, the sentence of arbiters obtains the force of a thing judged.

2. For certain questions of fact to be solved, the judges themselves are accustomed to designate arbiters (skilled persons, experts). They should then take care that they diligently fulfill their office, and not allow themselves to be drawn, to the detriment either of the treasury or of the private party, into deceitful conclusions.

I. Parts of the Office. This general rule can be handed down: for an advocate those things and only those things are lawful which are lawful for him whom he patronizes. For he undertakes to defend his cause.

2. He is forbidden under grave sin to undertake a cause which he knows to be unjust. But among civil causes which are probable and doubtful on both sides, he can defend either one, even the less probable, provided the client is warned concerning the lesser probability, and provided there is some hope of victory. For each party has the right of bringing forward his reasons in court; nor is that always truer which is more probable. But if there is no hope of victory, the matter would end in a useless vexation of the other party. Make exception, however, if there is a just and proportionately grave reason for prosecuting the suit: for example, if only from prejudices or from the dishonesty of the judges the cause has become desperate. In a criminal cause, he can defend even a guilty accused man, so that he may escape death or another penalty. For the accused is not bound to admit a penalty unless juridically convicted; therefore he can, by himself or through another, overthrow the proofs until he is convicted. But to impede public vindications by right and wrong means, and by abusing the ignorance or passions of jurors, can be opposed even gravely to various virtues; and it socially offends due piety and charity toward the fatherland.

Even in a just cause he cannot employ illicit means, such as false witnesses, spurious documents. Yet if the cause is manifestly just, this will not be opposed to commutative justice.

3. If in the progress of the cause he recognizes its iniquity, he ought at once to warn the client and persuade him to desist. For since he has been hired for a fee, justice itself obliges him to this warning insofar as this care was tacitly promised: this will have to be gathered from customs and from the honesty of the client. Nor can he persuade a composition by which something is remitted from right, because composition has no place except when the matter is doubtful. Yet he does injury to no one if he induces him to a transaction without damage, deception, force, and fear, or to redeem by composition the unjust obstinate vexation of the other party. Even of an unjust cause which he deserts he ought to keep the secrets. Make exception if revelation were the only means of averting a gravest damage from an innocent person. But even then, on account of the prohibition of positive law or the greatest inconveniences, for the most part he will not be held to make that revelation. Cf. the things to be said concerning secrecy in the treatise on truth.

4. An advocate in an unjust cause ought to repair to the contrary party all damages following from the unjust action; and indeed as principal cause, if he has concealed the injustice from his own party; of himself as secondary cause, if the injustice of the cause was clear to the client. Then toward his own client he of himself is held to nothing. The client, from a just cause, for example by friendly composition, can desert the lawsuit; in which case it is enough that he furnish the equitable price of the labor done. But if without a just cause he renounces the suit, and the fee was fixed from the beginning, not a few, with St. Alphonsus himself, L. 4, n. 225, permit that he exact this whole fee. Why, however, unlike another hired laborer, he could exact more than emergent damage and ceasing gain, we confess this escapes us.

II. On the Patronage of the Poor. The law of charity obliges an advocate to give patronage gratis to a poor man in grave necessity, yet without notable inconvenience to himself; in extreme necessity, he would have to patronize the poor man even with grave inconvenience to himself. Generally, however, today, since those who are to defend the cause gratis, pro Deo, as they say, are designated from office, that obligation is lightened for him. But a cause of the poor committed to him cannot be neglected, with justice preserved. For it is part of the office undertaken, and by social authority it is imposed as some office. Yet even in favor of the poor no one ought or can undertake a cause against the obligation of his conscience. It happens, however, that from lamentable ignorance Catholic advocates undertake causes, for example of civil divorce, with an equal mind, as if they could defend all almost indiscriminately. Hence refusal of causes of this kind becomes inconvenient for younger advocates, who must be employed in the office of gratuitous consultations. It is necessary that upright men, instructed, be able themselves to enjoy liberty of conscience. What is to be said concerning the cooperation of advocates we saw in the work On Chastity, 132, 287. This is the summary. Grave causes on account of which it is lawful to seek perfect civil divorce are to be approved by ecclesiastical authority; those causes, however, which the client is permitted to conduct, those same causes, and no others, advocates can undertake.

Today not rarely syndicates have hired advocates who must assist members with counsels. Although they have not contracted with individuals, the agreement seems to have been made in such a way that toward individuals they ought from justice to employ the promised diligence. Under this aspect they have an office, and find a place in this chapter.

Several other officials have a part in administering justice. Others, the more important, are the reporter or relator, who from office summarily exhibits to the judges the true state of the question, as, for example, in criminal matters, the instructing judge; the secretary or actuary, who notes the acts in writing. Others, inferior, are apparitors (uscieri, huissiers), public guards (gendarmi). To this their various obligations return: that, being sufficiently skilled, they execute the office with due diligence; that they preserve fidelity toward clients and therefore not open their secrets; that they consult their utility; that they not cooperate in illicit acts, according to the things said in the chapter on cooperation; that they not demand a stipend beyond the just price which is fixed by law or approved custom.

It is asked whether apparitors can ask a whole salary for individual summonses (exploits) or acts, when they carry several on the same occasion. The matter is to be judged from received usage and the practice of those who fear God. From the law of nature this can be permitted, since the price is not a mere compensation for the inconvenience of the journey. But positive law, received by usage, can stand in the way.

Can they execute an unjust sentence?.

Unless that injustice is manifest, the ministers do not sin by executing it. For the common good itself demands that they not discuss the sentence of a Superior (2, 2, q. 61, art. 6, ad 3).

If it was manifestly unjust, of themselves they cannot execute it. Wherefore they cannot inflict that evil with which even to cooperate materially is always illicit: such as killing, mutilation. For evils to be inflicted in goods, the rules concerning cooperation are to be applied. D'Annibale, II, 592, judges this to be lawful "because the damage of the republic and the damage of those themselves who otherwise would be removed from office prevails." There is not one opinion of the doctors. Cf. the things said, n. 141.

I. Notion. Under the name of notary comes an official who writes authentic acts for the parties and attributes to them a certain date.

II. Obligations. He ought to be skilled and assiduous in dealing both with civil and with fiscal laws, because by prudent counsel he can avoid for the parties not only causes of nullity and litigation, but also not moderate expenses. Wherefore he ought to warn the parties concerning suitable clauses which are to be inserted into acts, and concerning the mode by which superfluous expenses may be prevented. In dispatching affairs he ought to be diligent, and not by his delay increase expenses; and in affairs to be conducted he ought to look out for the utility of the parties by whom he is consulted.

Since he is not instituted to defend the interests of the treasury, of himself in the instruments which he writes he can admit those things which are lawful for the client in defrauding taxes. But let him beware lest he rashly offer himself into danger of having to undergo a grave penalty.

I. Notion. Formerly an accuser was a private person who, on account of the good of public vindication, accused another before the judge of a crime, after undertaking the burden of proving the crime. If proof was lacking, the accuser himself had to pay the penalty. Almost everywhere, in civil law, and now also in canon law, judicial accusation having been suppressed, private persons sometimes must perform only the office of denouncing. The general rules concerning denunciation were handed down in n. 117. Here certain things seem to have to be added concerning the obligation alone of judicial denunciation. The obligation can flow from a threefold source: from the law of nature, from an undertaken office, and from the precept or law of the Superior.

a) From the law of nature judicial denunciation is to be made when it is the sole and probably apt means of impeding public damage or great damage of a neighbor. Cf. Lugo, Iust. d. 38, n. 14. This will be the case of a pending crime, or one which is prudently judged will be repeated. The greater the damage feared, the more certain and imminent it is, the greater the hope of impeding it, the graver becomes the obligation, which is of charity, and, when public damage is at issue, is urged more gravely by legal justice.

From this obligation one's own grave and proportionate inconvenience excuses, also equal damage of the denounced person, if it is done to avert the damage of a neighbor, unless piety besides drives you to consult more for a neighbor who is closely joined with you.

b) From an undertaken office, these ought to denounce harmful persons: fiscal promoters, public and also private guards, insofar as this pertains to the office to be fulfilled.

For all who have been set over persons or things to be guarded ought, both by their own vigilance and by judicial denunciation, to protect persons and things, even with danger and inconvenience promised in undertaking the office, from injuries according to the reasonable will of the masters. Wherefore sometimes, from the highest rigor, without the oath being injured, guards can turn aside. This holds also concerning those who have been set over the exaction of tolls. Cf. Lehmk., I, 987. They are held from commutative justice, so that they ought to repair damages flowing from neglected office; nevertheless they probably are not held to repay fines lost.

c) From the precept or law of a Superior. From the new Code, an express obligation of denouncing is not imposed except of denouncing clerics or religious who have given their name to the Masonic sect and similar associations (c. 2336, § 2) and soliciting confessors (c. 904 and 2368, § 2). The principle of the obligation is expressed in c. 1935, § 2.

From this obligation there excuses: a) perfect amendment of the delinquent, if satisfaction has been made to the injured party and no danger threatens others (but cf. the things said concerning denouncing a soliciting confessor); b) a secret committed from office, unless from the persevering malice of someone grave damage of an innocent person arises, or religion or the fatherland is gravely interested that it be revealed (cf. Lugo, Iust. d. 38, n. 37); c) if from this grave danger of honor, life, or your goods threatens. Wherefore you are not held to denounce yourself, nor, of itself, the associates of the crime when thus you would equivalently denounce yourself.

N.B. Concerning the witness and the accused, cf. the Treatise on Truth.

I. Offices. 1. From contract, physicians and surgeons ought to help the sick man in the best way they can.

Wherefore they ought to administer the safer remedy which is at hand. Yet with the health of the sick man desperate, they can try a remedy of ambiguous outcome, which perhaps will be useful, perhaps will hasten death, provided the sick man has consented to it explicitly or implicitly, and has been made more certain of the matter, so that he can provide for himself, unless he has already provided for his conscience and his affairs. But if no hope of prudence of this kind is present, that warning does not seem to have to be imposed. If the sick man himself is lacking, those nearest to him seem able to answer for him, as interpreters of his will.

When, besides the good effect, certain harm will follow, and no other remedy is at hand, the cause is to be estimated from the proportion between the hoped-for good and the evil which is feared. But never, as has already been said, for the sake of exploration can dangerous remedies or "operations" be tried on the sick man, even consenting. Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1183, V.

Concerning the use of morphine and hypnotism, it was treated, I, 478, and above, 325.

They cannot cooperate in direct abortion. To give an obstinate woman a harmless potion is not illicit, provided, however, that the physician not simulate an evil action; but he ought to beware of scandal and also of the penalties of the law, if an abortion, following by chance, is attributed to him as author.

2. They ought to fulfill the offices of spiritual and temporal charity, frequent occasion of which is offered to physicians. Therefore they will take care that they themselves can in a case of necessity validly confer baptism, especially on fetuses; they will make a dying man aware of his state in time, so that he can provide for his salvation and also for temporal affairs. It is better that they perform this themselves, nor for the most part do they have grave inconveniences to fear for themselves from it. But if others can and will make the warning, it is enough that these be made more certain. They can be excused from grave obligation if either they know that all things have already been ordered, or they hold it certain that it will profit nothing because of the perverse disposition of men. Yet this will rarely happen.

3. They cannot institute more visits in number than the true utility of the sick man demands; or than the solace suggests which is expected from the reasonable will of the sick man or of his family. Say the same concerning remedies to be administered.

4. They cannot exceed the usual rate in fixing a price, yet with account taken also of his skill and reputation. From the poor they cannot exact except the lesser price which it is customary to concede to them: for that alone the poor have tacitly promised.

II. They sin against justice itself when they violate these offices. Nor can those physicians be excused from grave sin who, after making an agreement with a surgeon, persuade clients to operations which are not necessary, for which they themselves obtain from the surgeon a reward for the counsel. Say the same if they prescribe superfluous medicines to be taken.

III. A physician hired by a community: a) from justice is forbidden to desert the sick in time of plague; b) from justice ought diligently to care for those for whom he is hired. For a stipulation in favor of a third party is valid from the law of nature, and the third party, when he calls the hired physician, ratifies the stipulation. Physicians not hired, if they decline grave danger of life, can with difficulty be accused of grave violation of charity, unless probably, while plague raged, they would have saved many who now die.

It will be enough to say one thing: that they furnish good and accurately prepared remedies; and that they beware lest they offer for sale things which are destitute of every useful or honest use. Cf. n. 145.

Notion. Day by day more persons occur who are ready, after a fee has been obtained, either to do something for others or to assist others in some undertaking: to such an extent that catalogues of persons from whom alms for good works can be hoped are saleable for a price. If someone is considering a long journey, a society offers itself for procuring every convenience of the journey; if someone wishes either to sell or to buy some house, there is one who seeks out for him a buyer or a seller; if someone has a litigious cause, there is one who wishes to render the way of success more level for him; there is one who investigates unknown heirs concerning unclaimed inheritances so that he may warn them; nor are those lacking who are eager to have a part in concluding and dissolving marriages.¹

Let us call all these by the name of brokers.

From justice itself these ought: 1. to commend nothing which is not worthy of commendation; 2. to employ the promised diligence and not to desert an undertaken cause for a better one, in such a way, for example, that they cannot promise their labor at the same time to two parties whose utilities are contrary; 3. to abstain from every fraud; 4. to be content with an honest price.

Indeed the delicate cases of conscience to which the arts of brokers give place can scarcely be numbered.

¹ The German Code, art. 656, removes every obligation from the brokerage-price promised for a negotiation of this kind concerning marriage. Yet it denies repetition of the price paid.

General Matters. The same or a similar obligation and commutation of rights which a contract between private persons works, the undertaking of an office begets, except that a contract is always a voluntary juridic act, while an office can also be imposed on one unwilling, on account of the common good.

An office cannot be assumed by one incapable without injustice; nor can one, with justice preserved, offer himself for the exercise of an art without sufficient skill, unless lack of a suitable person or another public cause excuses the intervention or assumption of the office.

An office undertaken is then to be fulfilled from justice with the diligence promised expressly or tacitly. Nor does an inconvenience connected of itself with the office excuse from that diligence.

Only on account of true and just causes can someone, after abdicating an office, ask for a pension from the public treasury or from the pension fund.

II. On the Judge. The judge, or magistrate, not only declares the right, but speaks the right, i.e. constitutes the proximate title, as it were by a particular law, either of the right of the parties or of the penalty to be sustained by the accused.

In beginning and prosecuting a process, he ought to observe the order prescribed beforehand by law. Between the civil and canonical forum there is this difference: that a civil judge can judge only causes brought to him either by private persons or by the fiscal promoter, while an ecclesiastical judge often himself commands or executes the inquiry and instruction of a cause. Therefore he himself ought to attend to that rule of natural equity, that, without sufficient indications, he not begin an inquiry against someone in particular, nor without half-full proof order anyone to appear as accused.

For the reputation of the accused person is not accustomed to remain intact. I except a cause of prevailing public necessity.

A lay judge also ought to beware lest he usurp causes of the ecclesiastical forum, with the manner observed in which the privilege of the ecclesiastical forum is urged by the Church in his region.

Moreover, in a criminal cause he cannot condemn anyone unless from the acts it is established to him with moral certitude that he is guilty. If by private knowledge he has known as innocent someone who has been publicly convicted, it is the opinion of grave doctors, and of St. Thomas himself, that he indeed can condemn without injustice; nevertheless today in practice he can and ought to save the innocent man.

In a civil cause, he can and of himself ought to settle doubts of law according to his own founded opinion concerning the law; yet it is lawful for him also to assent to the jurisprudence of the superior court, as to a greater authority.

Doubts of fact for the most part will be solved by the rule which imposes the burden of proving on the plaintiff. But he does not violate justice who, in equal probability, while observing the laws, adjudges the whole to one party; yet he can also have the probable account of the right of the other party which the laws permit, for example in dividing the expenses of the suit.

He is not unjust who accepts gifts liberally offered, but observance of the law forbidding this is altogether to be commended. Those things, however, which he has exacted or stipulated for pronouncing a just sentence are to be restored; but not for an unjust sentence which he in fact brought: here, not there, some title seems to exist.

In general it pertains to the probity of a judge that he have no consideration of persons or causes, excepting those causes to which, from the law itself, favor is to be given in doubt.

III. On Jurors. Jurors can and ought always, by their negative answer, render free from penalty one whom they know to be innocent; nor can they pronounce as guilty anyone except one who has been convicted according to the acts.

But let them beware lest they be scandalously lacking in their office if, on account of reasons wholly extrinsic to the merit of the cause, such as political passion or appetite for vengeance, they deny that manifest crimes have been committed.

IV. On Arbiters. Freely chosen by the parties who have determined to settle a lawsuit by compromise, they ought to bring sentence according to law, unless they are permitted to compose the business from equity and good.

Those designated by a judge should willingly and without zeal for parties perform their office.

V. On Advocates or Patrons of Causes. A patron of causes, in a criminal cause, does not violate commutative justice if he strives to snatch even the truly harmful person from penalty; but those who, by right and wrong means, and by abusing the ignorance or passions of jurors, impede public vindications, can sin even gravely against various virtues, and socially offend due piety and charity toward the fatherland.

In civil process they cannot either undertake or prosecute a certainly unjust cause; they are permitted, with justice toward the other party preserved, to furnish doubtful causes with suitable arguments, provided they warn their own client concerning the uncertain success.

N.B. What is lawful for a witness and for an accused person will be said below, where truth is treated.

VI. On Other Ministers of Justice. Whether higher or lower, they ought to fulfill the office diligently and faithfully, sparing the reputation of persons and tenacious of secrecy.

A manifestly unjust sentence cannot be completed by execution, unless perhaps there is question of goods which someone can renounce.

VII. On Notaries. A notary ought to be skilled and diligent, so that he not only may compose valid acts according to the norm of law and write them faithfully according to the will of the parties, but also know how to compose them in that manner which spares considerable expenses for the parties. He ought usefully to manage the affair of his clients, for example in ordering an auction.

Since he is not an exactor of taxes, he violates justice no more than the parties themselves if he cooperates in defrauding certain taxes.

VIII. On Physicians and Pharmacists. Besides diligent care of the sick, physicians and pharmacists ought to abstain from those contracts by which, through non-necessary medicines or operations, they impose useless expenses on clients.

IX. On Guards of Persons or Things. He who, privately or publicly, has been set over guarding persons or things ought, both by his own vigilance and by judicial denunciation, to protect persons and things from injuries, even with the danger and inconvenience tacitly promised in undertaking the office, according to the reasonable will of the masters. Wherefore sometimes, from the highest rigor, without the oath being injured, guards can turn aside. This holds also concerning those who have been set over the exaction of tolls. Cf. Lehmk., I, 987.

X. On Brokers. Brokers, or mandataries today of manifold name, who, under some title, undertake to care for the affairs of other physical or moral persons, or in some way assist them, from justice itself owe: 1. to those who hired them, fidelity and diligence; 2. to all, the negative offices of justice, by which they are forbidden to commend things which are not to be commended, or to deceive someone by fraud.