Duties of Masters and Servants

SERVANT is here understood in a wide sense so as to comprise both domestic servants and workmen who work for a master. The relation in modern times arises out of a contract freely entered into by the parties, and it is less intimate than that which in ancient times subsisted between the lord and the slave or serf. In spite of this, however, the nexus of cash payment is not the only bond between master and servant. By the very fact that one enters into the service of another, the latter becomes his superior, assumes the duty of caring for him, and in fitting proportion he acquires a claim to those marks of honour and reverence which are due to all who exercise authority over us.¹

¹ St Thomas, Summa, 2-2, q. 102, a. 1.

Servants, then, owe to their masters reverence, fidelity, and obedience.

(a) They are bound to show their masters due honour and respect, and grave sin may be committed by displaying open contempt for them, ridiculing them, and making known their secret defects. ‘‘ Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them count their masters worthy of all honour.’”¹

(b) They must faithfully discharge the duties imposed on them by the nature of their charge. If they waste the time which belongs to their master, wilfully neglect their duties, damage or destroy the property of their master by not taking ordinary care of it, they sin against justice and are bound to restitution. If special charge of what belongs to the master is committed to a servant, he will be obliged to guard it against damage or loss caused by others, and he will sin against justice and be bound to make restitution if he fail to do so. Where no such special charge has been laid on a servant, he will only be bound in charity, not in justice, to protect the property of his master.

(c) A workman who does not live in his master’s house will be bound to obey his master’s commands in all that relates to the work that he undertook to do.

A domestic servant is a member of the master’s household, and the obligation of obedience extends to what concerns domestic discipline, as well as to the special work which was expressly undertaken by the contract. ‘“‘ Servants,” says St Paul, “‘ be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ: not serving to the eye, as it were pleasing men, but as the servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart, with a good will serving, as to the Lord, and not to men.”² Still one who contracted to be a cook would not be bound to obey if ordered to do housemaid’s work; neither explicitly nor implicitly was such an obligation undertaken when the contract was entered into.

These duties of a servant toward his master are touched upon by Leo XIII in his encyclical letter on the condition of the working classes, May 15, 1891. “‘ Thus religion teaches the labouring man and the artisan to carry out honestly and fairly all equitable agreements freely entered into; never to injure the property, nor to outrage the person, of an employer; never to resort to violence in defending their own cause, nor to engage in riot and disorder; and to have nothing to do with men of evil principles, who work upon the people with artful promises, and excite foolish hopes which usually end in useless regrets, followed by insolvency.”

¹ 1 Tim. vi 1.

² Eph. vi 5-7.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. IV, Section IV. On the Duties of Household Masters and Domestic Servants · Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. IV, Section V. On the Duties of Employers and Non-Domestic Servants, or Workers · Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. VII, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § VII, Point III, Scholion. On Labor

The duties are not all on one side and the rights on the other in the relation of master and servant. Each has his rights and each his duties, and their good and the good of the community largely depends on both sides faithfully and loyally fulfilling their mutual obligations.

(a) A master must treat his servant not as a mere instrument of production, but as a fellow-Christian: “‘ Religion teaches the wealthy owner and the employer that their work-people are not to be accounted their bondsmen; that in every man they must respect his dignity and worth as a man and as a Christian; that labour is not a thing to be ashamed of if we lend ear to right reason and to Christian philosophy, but is an honourable calling, enabling a man to sustain his life in a way upright and creditable; and that it is shameful and inhuman to treat men like chattels to make money by, or to look upon them merely as so much muscle or physical power.

(b) “ Again, therefore, the Church teaches that, as religion and things spiritual and mental are among the working man’s main concerns, the employer is bound to see that the worker has time for his religious duties; that he be not exposed to corrupting influences and dangerous occasions, and that he be not led away to neglect his home and family or to squander his earnings.”¹ The general obligation of fraternal correction will more frequently impose a duty on the master of admonishing and correcting a domestic servant than an ordinary workman of his.

(c) “‘ Furthermore, the employer must never tax his workpeople beyond their strength or employ them in work unsuited to their age or sex.”² According to English common law, the contract between employer and employed involves on the part of the former the duty of taking reasonable care to provide appliances and to maintain them in a proper condition, and so to carry on his operations as not to subject those employed by him to unnecessary risk. This common law liability has been further increased and defined by the Employers’ Liability Acts and Workmen’s Compensation Acts, which, however, will as a rule only affect the conscience after the sentence of a competent authority, except in so far as there was grave culpable negligence on the part of the employer.

(d) The employer’s “ great and principal duty is to give everyone a fair wage. Doubtless before deciding whether wages are adequate, many things have to be considered; but wealthy owners and all masters of labour should be mindful of this, that to exercise pressure upon the indigent and the destitute for the sake of gain, and to gather one’s profit out of the need of another, are condemned by all laws, human and divine. To defraud anyone of wages that are his due is a crime which cries to the avenging anger of heaven. Behold, the hire of the labourers . . . which by fraud hath been kept back by you, crieth aloud; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth.³ “ Lastly, the rich must religiously refrain from cutting down the workmen’s earnings, whether by force, by fraud, or by usurious dealing; and with all the greater reason because the labouring man is, as a rule, weak and unprotected, and because his slender means should in proportion to their scantiness be accounted sacred. Were these precepts carefully obeyed and followed out, would they not be sufficient of themselves to keep under all strife and all its causes?”⁴ Sums must not be deducted from a servant’s wages on account of temporary illness, though by English law a master is not bound to provide medical aid or medicines for a sick servant, though he is for an apprentice. If he sends for medical assistance for a servant whilst under his roof, he is liable. In the same encyclical of Leo XIII a general rule is laid down for deciding what a fair wage is: ‘‘ Let it, then, be taken for granted that workman and employer should, as a rule, make free agreements, and in particular should agree freely as to the wages; nevertheless, there underlies a dictate of nature more imperious and more ancient than any bargain between man and man—namely, that the remuneration must be sufficient to support the wage-earner in reasonable and frugal comfort. If through necessity or fear of a worse evil, the workman accept harder conditions, because an employer or contractor will afford him no better, he is made the victim of force and injustice.”

The workman, then, has a right to a living wage, and the employer who grows rich by sweating his work-people commits a sin against justice and is bound to make restitution of his ill-gotten wealth. If, however, the employer gives as good wages as he can afford, or as good as the labour is worth, he will be excused from any sin against justice; occasionally in bad times he may be bound out of charity to give employment without profit to himself or even at a personal loss.

¹ Leo XIII, l.c.

² ibid.

³ Jas. v 4; Can. 1524.

⁴ Leo XIII, l.c.

n. 4.

It is sometimes the duty of the State to interpose its authority in order to settle labour questions. As Leo XIII says: ‘‘ If by a strike, or other combination of workmen, there should be imminent danger of disturbance to the public peace; or if circumstances were such that among the labouring population the ties of family life were relaxed; if religion were found to suffer through the operatives not having time and opportunity afforded them to practise its duties; if in workshops and factories there were dangers to morals through the mixing of the sexes or from other harmful occasions of evil; or if employers laid burdens upon their workmen which were unjust, or degraded them with conditions repugnant to their dignity as human beings; finally, if health were endangered by excessive labour or by work unsuited to sex or age—in such cases there can be no question but that, within certain limits, it would be right to invoke the aid and authority of the law.” A little further on Pope Leo again refers to strikes: “* When work-people have recourse to a strike, it is frequently because the hours of labour are too long, or the work too hard, or because they consider their wages insufficient. The grave inconvenience of this not uncommon occurrence should be obviated by public remedial measures, for such paralyzing of labour not only affects the masters and their work-people alike, but is extremely injurious to trade and to the general interests of the public; moreover, on such occasions, violence and disorder are generally not far distant, and thus it frequently happens that the public peace is imperilled. The laws should forestall and prevent such troubles from arising; they should lend their influence and authority to the removal in good time of the causes which lead to conflicts between employers and employed.”¹

It is unlawful for workmen to strike when by so doing they violate a just contract which they have freely entered into, or when they cannot hope to gain anything substantial, so that there is no adequate compensation for the sufferings, losses, and risks which generally accompany a strike. It is wrong to use violence and threats to compel other workmen to strike against their will, or to prevent them accepting work if they desire to do so.

If, however, other means of obtaining redress or of securing their rights have failed, it is not wrong for workmen to strike in order to obtain a diminution of excessive hours of toil, or a just wage, or other just, reasonable, and adequate advantage.

¹ Leo XIII, l.c.

n. 5.

The contract of hiring may be terminated by mutual consent of the parties concerned, or for just cause by one of the parties, provided that the laws and customs which regulate the matter be duly observed. Generally speaking, a month’s notice, or a month’s wages, is required by English law to determine a general hiring of a domestic servant. If, however, the servant is incompetent to do what he undertook, is habitually disobedient, or is guilty of immorality, or unlawfully absents himself from his work, he may be dismissed without notice.

Wouters, Manual of Moral Theology

Ludovicus Wouters, C.SS.R. — 9 passages

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. IV, Section IV. On the Duties of Household Masters and Domestic Servants

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, The Duties of Employers · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, The Duties of Employees · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, Labor Disputes · Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, Employment

Preliminary Note. The discussion concerns workers who have been received into the family, and therefore pertain to the masterly society.

n. 719.

I. Duties of masters. Masters are bound regarding domestic servants:

To treat them kindly, by not imposing excessive labor on them, by furnishing suitable food to them, and by addressing them humanely¹ (St. Alphonsus, III, 342).
Not to dismiss them before the appointed time, unless a legitimate cause is present, and to pay them a just wage; these things are explained at length in the treatise on the Seventh Precept of the Decalogue.
To provide for their spiritual good. This is clear both from Sacred Scripture,² and from the fact that "they are their head, and act in the place of parents; and therefore they are bound in some way to the same things to which parents are bound" (St. Alphonsus, III, 342). It is added that from the encyclical Rerum novarum and from can. 1524 masters must "take care that the same [that is, workers] have a suitable span of time free for piety";³ which you may apply with greater right to masters of domestic servants. Add can. 1335: not only parents and others who hold the place of parents, but also masters and sponsors are bound by the obligation of taking care that all subject or commended to them be instructed by catechetical instruction.

Corollary. "Masters sin gravely: 1. if without just cause they hinder servants from hearing Mass on feasts, or if on feasts they impose servile works;... 2. if they permit an occasion of sinning when they can prevent it; or if they do not correct those gravely offending" (St. Alphonsus, III, 342); 3. if they do not dismiss the incorrigible, unless they would suffer grave detriment from their dismissal.

As to forestalling occasions of sin, Aertnys-Damen rightly notes: "Regularly they should not permit a male servant and female servant of their house to court each other, but they ought to procure that those courting desist from courtship, or dismiss one or the other as soon as possible. Let them provide, as far as can be done, that servants not sleep together in the same bed. Let them also see to it that male servants and female servants are properly separated as to sleeping quarters; otherwise an occasion of sins will easily arise."⁴

¹ Cf. Ecclus. 33:31.

² 1 Tim. 5:8.

³ Namely because they preside over the society which is called masterly (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 65, a. 2; II-II, q. 72, a. 2, ad 2). From this encyclical masters must "effect that the worker have a suitable span of time free for piety."

⁴ Aertnys-Damen, I, 556.

n. 720.

II. Duties of servants. Domestic servants owe their masters reverence, obedience, and faithful service.

They owe them reverence and obedience, as is clear from Sacred Scripture;¹ likewise from the fact that masters, as governors of the masterly society, are true superiors (St. Alphonsus, III, 343). Faithful service is owed by force of contract, and therefore from justice.
The duties of reverence and obedience, since they regard morally different modes of observance, differ specifically; that the duty of faithful service differs specifically from the aforesaid duties is clear.
Obedience, as regards minors, extends also to morals; those of age are subject as regards domestic governance. Faithful service requires that they fulfill the work to which they are held, with law, contract, and custom considered, labor diligently, and not depart illegitimately before the appointed time (St. Alphonsus, III, cited place).

¹ 1 Tim. 6:1; Eph. 6:5; 1 Pet. 2:18.

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. IV, Section V. On the Duties of Employers and Non-Domestic Servants, or Workers

n. 721.

Preliminary Note I. The discussion concerns workers who have not been received into the family, and therefore do not pertain to the masterly society; such as those who labor in factories or workshops.

Preliminary Note II. It is disputed whether between employers and non-domestic servants there exists a relation properly so called of superiority and inferiority, or only that relation which every contract brings with it between contracting parties.¹ Now the reasons which are alleged for the existence of superiority properly so called, that is, authority, seem less firm.

Objection 1. Everything cannot be determined by contract; therefore it remains that authority be admitted, which orders what has not been determined.

Resp. Everything can be sufficiently determined by contract, at least implicitly; but if something obscure remains, recourse should be had to friendly composition, or the matter should be settled by a judge.

Objection 2. Between the employer and the workers there exists a true society, since they are bound to pursue a good common to themselves; but a common good to be pursued argues a society. But where there is a society, there is also authority.

Resp. The employer and servants are bound to pursue a good common to themselves, as all men are bound to that with respect to neighbor; indeed masters and servants are bound to that in a special way because they are joined to one another in a special way: granted. They are bound to pursue a good common to themselves insofar as they constitute a society, or insofar as they must pursue one moral end: this is not proved, or rather seems to be denied, because it is lawful for each one to rest in his own good, with common charity nevertheless preserved.

¹ Cf. Oskar Renz in Xenia Thomistica, vol. I, p. 474 ff.; Peques, Commentaire litteral sur la Somme Theologique, t. XII, on II-II, q. 104, a. 1; Vermeersch, De Iustitia, n. 455; Ned. Kath. Stemmen, 1927, p. 85.

n. 722.

I. Duties of employers. Employers are bound:

To treat workers kindly, for example by addressing them kindly and not imposing "more work than their strength can bear, nor that kind which is at variance with their age and sex."¹
To grant them a suitable wage, and not dismiss them illegitimately; concerning these things, in the treatise on the Seventh Precept of the Decalogue.
The things said in n. 719 about the spiritual care of domestic servants are not to be urged equally as regards workers. Yet certainly employers are bound, insofar as it can morally be done:

a) To take care that those who are of childhood age, and mothers of families, are not employed in factories or workshops.

"It is wrong to abuse childhood age and the weakness of woman. Let mothers of families chiefly at home, or in those things which are adjacent to the home, devote their labor by applying themselves to domestic cares. But it is a very bad abuse and to be removed by every effort, that mothers of families, on account of the smallness of the father's wage, are compelled to exercise gainful work outside the domestic walls, with their peculiar cares and duties, and especially the instruction of infants, neglected. Therefore one must strive with every effort that fathers of families receive a wage sufficiently ample, which may suitably provide for common domestic necessities."²

b) To take care that in factories or workshops everything be done honorably; hence, for example, let neither sex labor promiscuously, and let those who continue to be a scandal to others be dismissed.³

"The soul shudders if the very grave dangers are weighed, to which in modern workshops the morals of workers (especially younger ones) and the modesty of girls and other women are exposed."⁴

c) To leave them the faculty of fulfilling ecclesiastical precepts.⁵ Besides, other precepts also of common charity - for example of correcting - can be urged more as regards workers, since they are joined to the master by a special bond.

d) To acknowledge the right of workers to establish associations for protecting their rights and promoting their good.⁶

¹ Encyclical of Leo XIII Rerum novarum, May 15, 1891.

² Encyclical of Pius XI Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931.

³ Encyclical of Leo XIII Rerum novarum.

⁴ Encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

⁵ Encyclical Rerum novarum; likewise Quadragesimo anno.

⁶ Encyclical of Leo XIII Longinqua oceani, January 6, 1895; Sacred Consistorial Congregation to the Bishop of Lille, June 5, 1929; likewise encyclical Quadragesimo anno.

n. 723.

II. Duties of workers. Workers owe employers:

Reverence, and indeed from the virtue of observance. Moreover, they owe them a certain reverence because employers are more eminent in many things; wherefore note these words of St. Thomas: "In anyone there is found something from which someone can regard him as superior, according to that saying in Phil. 2: 'In humility, considering one another as superiors'; and according to this all also ought to anticipate one another in honor" (II-II, q. 103, a. 2, ad 3). But the reverence due is from the virtue of observance, according to these words of the same Doctor: "Reverence which is shown to some persons on account of any excellence whatever pertains to the same virtue [that is, to observance]" (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 102, a. 1, ad 2; n. 397).
Faithful service; which is owed by force of the contract entered into, and therefore from commutative justice; for the rest, as to faithful service, what has been said about domestic servants has force (n. 720).

Vol. I, Bk. II, Tr. II, Diss. I, Pt. VII, Sect. I, Ch. II, Art. II, § VII, Point III, Scholion. On Labor

n. 922.

I. Notion. Labor here is understood as the use of powers which by its nature is not ordered to delight, as games or sport, as it is called, are. It is distinguished as spiritual and bodily.

n. 923.

II. The right of laboring. It is clear that to each person belongs the right of using his powers, insofar as by that use the right of another is not harmed. But it is asked to what extent one who otherwise cannot provide for himself and his own has a broad right that an occasion of laboring be procured for him. Now those who can conveniently furnish it are bound to furnish an occasion of laboring to those who lack another means of support. Likewise the State, insofar as there is need, should provide for this cause.

What is to be said about the rationalization of labor, as it is called?

Response 1. The rationalization of labor consists in this, that with the least possible powers the greatest number and best effects are produced and brought to buyers. The consequence will be that more workers become superfluous and are dismissed.

Response 2. This way of acting is not illicit, because no one is bound to neglect his own advantage in order to procure advantage for another. Make exception if the State, insofar as it is necessary for the common good and can practically be done, restricts liberty.

n. 924.

III. Obligation of laboring. Each person is bound to labor: 1° if otherwise he cannot provide for himself and his own; 2° if idleness would be a proximate and free occasion of sins. Labor is also necessary for the common good; but if the intended end, with attention paid to the common character of men, will be obtained certainly enough - as has place in the case - a necessity of this kind does not oblige individual persons (cf. St. Thomas, II-II, q. 187, a. 3).

Objection. The Apostle warns: "If anyone will not work, neither let him eat."¹

Response. The Apostle can best be understood of those who, with labor neglected, cannot provide for themselves and their own.²

¹ 2 Thess. 3:10.

² Encyclical Quadragesimo anno, May 15, 1931 (A.A.S. 1931, p. 197).

McHugh–Callan, Moral Theology

John A. McHugh, O.P., and Charles J. Callan, O.P. — 5 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, The Duties of Employers

n. 2646.

Duties of Employers and Employees

Duties of Employers and Employees.—Between employers and their domestic servants or workingmen there are general mutual duties as between superiors and subjects, and special mutual duties as between parties to an explicit and implicit contract. Of these latter duties we shall now speak.

n. 2647.

Duties of Employers

Duties of Employers.—(a) Justice.—The labor assigned must not be excessive (e.g., unduly perilous, exhausting, protracted) or injurious (e.g., harmful to religion or morals, an unreasonable impediment to marriage, to cultural opportunity or amusement); the wage paid must be just (i.e., one that will enable the worker to support himself and his family in reasonable comfort) and equitable (i.e., one that rewards special merit and service by pensions or additional compensation); the terms of the contract must be observed (e.g., arbitrary lowering of wages or dismissal are unjust).

(b) Charity.—Liberality should be shown by preference to employees, since they have a special claim on the employ good will. The employer should consider that he is responsible for the spiritual betterment and material improvement of his workers, and should have them in mind when making contributions to religious, educational or special causes, so that his own employees will benefit in particular by his gifts to these worthy causes. Trade schools and insurance against sickness and unemployment are especially deserving of his assistance.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, The Duties of Employees

n. 2648.

Duties of Employees

Duties of Employees.—(a) Justice.—Workers are bound to give a fair return in quantity and quality of labor for the pay they receive, and to be loyal to their employer as regards his person, reputation, and property. Hence, it is unjust to loaf or come late or leave early, to turn out work too slowly or of an inferior grade, to damage machinery or property, to waste food or provisions, to act as a household spy or informer, to try to extort what is not due. (For a consideration of the worker’s obligation to join unions see “Catholics in Labor Unions” by Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., American Ecclesiastical Review, Vol. CXVI, no. 6 June, 1947, pp. 422 ff.)

(b) Charity.—Workers should be willing even at the expense of some right or of some slight loss to help an employer who is in grave necessity; for example, it would be uncharitable for farm hands to stop work promptly on time when this will cause a serious damage to the farmer’s crop, or for a cook to leave on her free day when her mistress is very sick and will be left alone.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, Labor Disputes

n. 2649.

Labor Disputes between Employers and Employees

Labor Disputes between Employers and Employees.—(a) In themselves these disputes are indifferent, as they are a species of industrial war (see 1380 sqq.) or of industrial self-defense (1826 sqq.). If the end, the means and the circumstances are not against right reason, the disputes are lawful or even laudable.

(b) In the concrete, the strike is labor’s chief means for enforcing demands. Since organized labor seeks to equalize the bargaining power between employer and employee, the way to counteract refusal to pay fairly is by a concerted refusal to work, i.e., a strike. A strike may be defined as an organized cessation from work by a group of workers to obtain advantages from an employer. Since an organized strike is a kind of war, moral theologians apply the principles of a just war to determine concretely the morality of a strike.

There must be a just reason for the strike. Too little pay, too long hours, brutal treatment, unsafe or unsanitary conditions constitute genuine grievances for what may be called a defensive strike, which presupposes injustice in the part of the employer. On the other hand an ameliorative strike does not presuppose an employer’s injustice, but consists essentially in the worker’s attempt to better conditions, e.g., a better salary, shorter working hours, etc. Such a strike seems to be unlawful if it violates a just work contract in effect at the time of the strike. If no such contract has been made, the ameliorative strike can be lawful, granting a proportionately grave cause; but it is never given unqualified approval owing to the fact that such a strike involves many and grave losses both material and moral to the workers, employer, and community. (See Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis II, n.556.)
The strike must be the last means. Owing to the fact that a strike is a kind of warfare, all other peaceful means should be tried, e.g., arbitration, governmental inquiry boards, injunctions, fact-finding boards etc. The moral principle involved is; if an evil is avoidable but not avoided, it cannot be considered as merely incidental to a good end.
The strike would be called by proper authority. The decision to strike should be made by the men themselves freely and Without intimidation. Organized labor must have the backing of a responsible union in its strike, for this is the channel of bargaining or arbitration that the employer must use, and it should be used by the workers also. Accordingly, “wildcat” strikes are unlawful unless the unions have ceased to represent the men and have been repudiated by them.
The benefits expected from the strike must compensate for the evils inseparable from it. In this matter not only the worker’s personal gains are to be considered, but also the welfare of others, namely the employers and the public. Thus, in a long-drawn-out strike the economic advantage gained in a small salary increase for the worker can never be proportionate to the financial losses inflicted on the workers themselves in loss of income, on the employers, and particularly on a community which suffers the loss of purchasing power of a number of its members. Many strikes in which the products or services of the workers are necessary to the public (transportation, food distribution, etc.) seem to be more a strike against the community than against an employer; and the harm inflicted on the innocent public is not incidental as it must be in order to be justified. Only extraordinarily grave reasons can justify such strikes.
The means employed must be just. The common means are work stoppage, persuasion of other workers to keep the work stopped until the demands are met, and picketing in a peaceful manner. Sabotage and violence against an employer’s person or property constitute unjust means. “Scabs,” or professional strike-breakers, may be prevented from depriving the workers of their jobs to which the workers keep their rights; but violence in defense of this right seems illicit, unless violence is begun by the strike-breakers and the workers are forced to defend themselves.

(c) Kinds of Strike. Thus far the analysis has been concerned with a direct strike. Other kinds of strike demand special consideration.

Slow-down strike. Since it does not involve cessation from work, but simply a reduction in production or services while the worker is receiving full pay under contract, the strike seems to be immoral. The striker is not giving the work paid for.
Sit-down strikes. Some authors justify these strikes by analogy with an act of self-defense in which the person attacked seizes the weapon from the attacker. The analogy seems defective since the place of work is hardly a weapon. This strike seems to be immoral since it involves an unjust invasion of property rights by way of excluding an owner from the use of his property.
Sympathy strikes. There is a great diversity of opinion in this kind of strike. A moderate view distinguishes between strikes of several groups against the same employer and one or several groups against different and unassociated employers. The first kind seems justified, for it is directed against the same unjust employer, and the workers are cooperators to defend the rights of one group against him. In the second case of striking against different employers, the “sympathizers” are striking against a just employer and are violating their work contract which binds in commutative justice. Hence this type of strike seems to be essentially unjust.

(d) The lockout is the employer’s strike. Unwilling to grant the worker’s demand, the employer shuts down his plant, thus terminating employment of both strikers and non-strikers. The same conditions and restrictions that apply to the strike are applicable to lockouts. That the lockout itself is not unjust, but at least morally indifferent, appears to be evident in this, that as workers are not bound to submit to injustice, neither is the employer. He cannot be expected to pay wages when essential employers have quit or stalled production.

(e) A boycott is a mass refusal to patronize a certain business with the effort to persuade others to join in the refusal. Historically it has been used by labor to gain support from the public against an employer or by elements of the public itself to protest some evil practice of a business establishment, e.g., Legion of Decency boycotts of indecent pictures, NODL boycotts of literature, etc. In itself, a boycott is not immoral, since no one is obliged to trade in one place in preference to another and may refuse to trade with persons who are unjust or otherwise immoral. There seems to be no reason also to prevent a person from lawfully persuading others to follow his cause. The principles of a just strike are applicable to the justification of boycotts, and the conditions of a sympathy strike are to be applied to secondary boycotts, i.e., against other firms doing business with a boycotted firm. These other firms are not themselves unjust and should not be made to suffer for the injustice of another. Hence, a very grave cause, co-operation in injustice, for example would be necessary to bring pressure against them.

Vol. II, Pt. II, Q. III, Art. 2. Duties of Members …, Employment

n. 2650.

Is There Any Obligation of Giving Employment?—(a) The State certainly has an obligation in legal justice of offering opportunities of work to those who cannot find it, if the public welfare is compromised by widespread unemployment. Even if only one worker were without work through no fault of his own, the duty of helping him would seem to devolve on the State, since the laborer has a right to work and the State has the duty of promoting the temporal welfare of its subjects when they are unable to provide for themselves.

(b) Employers have a duty of commutative justice to give work to men with whom they have made a contract of labor and not to keep work from men unfairly; hence, arbitrary dismissal or blacklisting is a crime against justice. They should also try to secure other employment for good workers whom they are unable to keep, so as to tide over for the men the slack seasons when some have to be laid off. Industry, organized labor and individuals should interest themselves practically in private movements and plans to remedy unemployment situations, for these are matters that should not be left entirely to the State and charity. Employment and honest wages are in the long run to the advantage of employers as well as of employees, and are therefore good business as well as good morals.

Bucceroni, Institutions of Moral Theology

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 20 passages

Vol. I, On the Precept of Charity, VI. On Scandal · Vol. I, On the Fourth Precept of t…, V. Obligations of Inferiors and Superiors · Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XIV. On Hiring and Leasing · Vol. III, On the Particular Obligati…, X. On Guards, Merchants, and Artisans

Vol. I, On the Precept of Charity, VI. On Scandal

n. 444.

Resolves: Therefore it is not licit to ask, for example, from a notary something opposed to his office. But it is licit to ask the sacraments from an unworthy minister, or an oath from one who is going to commit perjury, provided a just cause is present, namely for the first case, if there is necessity or notable spiritual utility; for the second, if a judge asks for an oath by reason of office, or it matters greatly to you, as by perjury for manifesting the frauds of another, so that you may obtain your right. A girl sins by accepting gifts from a lover if they proceed from shameful love, for they foster that shameful love; but otherwise, as is clear, if they proceed only from honorable benevolence and friendship, or if they are offered before others and cannot be refused without the scandal of others and her own infamy. In no way is it licit for an innkeeper, in order to allure more guests, ordinarily to admit gravely shameful dances in his house, or to propose to them for reading public papers which are evidently and ordinarily adverse to religion or good morals. In cities in which it is permitted for the sake of avoiding a greater evil, it is licit to rent a house to a usurer and to a prostitute, especially if other tenants are lacking, or it is easy for them to rent another house, unless nevertheless the prostitute would gravely harm honorable neighbors, or because of the location would give greater occasion to sins. It is not licit to call a non-Catholic minister so that he may furnish his helps of false religion to the sick or dying person. S. O. 15 Mar. 1848.

L. 47, 60, 61, 70, 76, 77, 79; l. 3, nn. 434, 734; S. Th. 2. 2. q. 10, a. 11; q. 98, a. 4; Ithur., Cas. 26.

It is licit to sell indifferent things, or things which can easily have a good use, if the seller knows nothing about the evil intention of the buyer, because evil is not to be presumed. Hence it is licit to sell dice, swords, cosmetics, wine, etc., although very many abuse these things, because these are not ordered per se to sin, indeed often they serve good use. - But it is not licit to sell these same indifferent things when it is certainly known that the buyer will use them badly, unless they could not be denied without grave inconvenience, or also unless they would equally be bought from others; for in this last case, if the seller sinned, this would be only because he does not impede the sin of neighbor. But although he did not sell, he would not thereby impede the sin; for there would be another who would sell. Hence it is not licit to sell honorable ornaments to a girl, if it were established to the seller concerning future abuse, unless he would suffer notable damage, or unless she would equally buy them from others. Thus La-Croix, l. 2, n. 263, and others. But St. Alphonsus, 71, does not admit this last case. Cf. here 442. It is not licit to sell wine without grave and proportionate cause to those who resell it mixed with water. Likewise it is not licit for an innkeeper to sell wine to those who are foreseen to be about to become drunk, or to offer flesh-meat to those who are going to eat it on a forbidden day, unless a grave reason excuses, for instance if otherwise he would be notably harmed from diminution of buyers. Hence it is also commonly licit for an innkeeper to give flesh-meat when it is asked, unless the request is made in contempt of religion, because it would be a most grave inconvenience to inquire about the reasons of each one asking. L. 68, 69, 78. Indeed it is generally licit for an innkeeper, at whose place public coaches stop, to set a table with licit or illicit foods, because since it is established that several are going to ask for flesh-meat, it does not seem necessary to ask from individuals what they wish. A fortiori it is licit to sell flesh-meat on days of abstinence and in the time of Lent, because the seller cannot judge concerning the reasons of those buying, nor does it pertain to him to inquire about them. L. l. 3, n. 1030.

But it is not licit to sell things which by their institution or use are destined for evil, unless in a particular case it is established that the danger of abuse is absent, or unless a grave and proportionate reason excuses. Hence it is not licit to sell poison, unless it is morally established that the buyer will use it well, e.g., for the making of colors, medicine, etc. Nor is it licit indiscriminately to sell depraved books, namely to any buyer. Nevertheless sometimes they can be sold to prudent and learned men who can read books of this sort usefully, e.g., for refuting them, etc. Except, however, books altogether obscene, which must be extirpated from the root. Tambur., in Decal., l. 1, § 4, n. 37; L. 66, 72, 76.

It is licit for workers to build and adorn theaters, if the ornaments are honorable in themselves, although another grave reason is lacking, because it is licit for Princes to permit spectacles. It is lawful, with the legitimate magistrate permitting, to restore and build synagogues of Jews and temples of heretics, yet scandal and any contempt of religion being excluded, especially if it would equally be done without them. It is also licit to make statues of idols if these are not to be used for false worship, but for the adornment of streets, buildings, etc. On the contrary, it is not licit to build temples of idols, or to cooperate in their building; likewise it is not licit, so that danger of death or exile may be avoided, to build altars or idols, or to cooperate in their building, when this is had as a deed protestative of false religion. It is licit for Christian captives, from grave fear, to row in the galleys of infidels against Catholics. For they do nothing intrinsically evil, nor proximately pernicious to Christians. Besides, there is a most grave and proportionate cause for doing this. It is not licit to compose or represent gravely shameful comedies, whatever the profit may be. This also holds concerning shameful representations in Cinematographs. "Likewise those sin gravely who paint or publicly expose obscene images, namely with the shameful parts uncovered or covered with a thin veil; otherwise if, other parts being uncovered, the shameful parts are covered." L. 56. Yet except if something of this sort must be painted, e.g., for teaching or learning anatomical or obstetrical science. L. 73; l. 3, nn. 427-429; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., nn. 1733, 1748, 1845; E. M. 365, 366, 367, 368.

Vol. I, On the Fourth Precept of t…, V. Obligations of Inferiors and Superiors

n. 692.

What is the distinction between slaves and servants? - Servants are distinguished from slaves. Slaves are those who, by the law of nations and civil law against natural liberty, are subject to another master, so that they can be possessed, alienated, and sold after the manner of patrimony. Schmalz., l. 4, t. 9, n. 1 seqq. "The appellation of slaves flowed from this, that our commanders are accustomed to sell captives, and by this to preserve them and not kill them." L. 239, de Verb. sign. But servants are not slaves, but free persons who freely enter contracts of service, by hiring their works for a certain or uncertain time in the service of a master and his family. Hence servants are of the family, and therefore are also called familiars or domestics. Servants are under the governance of the master, and masters have rights and obligations toward servants. Although by servants and those of the family is not properly understood one who furnishes the duties of service only for one or another hour of the day, nevertheless those are sufficiently understood as familiars who have a stable seat for the whole day in the house of the master and serve him, but sleep at night in their own house. S. Th. 2. 2, q. 102, a. 1.

Therefore servants are also distinguished from workers. For these hire their works to some master for a certain time and labor, but are not received into his house and family, nor are they properly subject to his governance. From the contract of works there arises an obligation of commutative justice, for the servant to furnish his works to the master, and for the master to pay the agreed wage. But from the fact that he is taken into part of the master's family, the master has the right and office also of ruling and governing the servant for the common good of the family; but the obligation of observance and obedience falls upon the servant in those things which pertain to domestic order. And thus S. Th. 2. 2, q. 65, a. 2, not from some pact or from commutative justice, but from the order of society, although imperfect, recognizes in the master, besides dominion of ownership over the works of the servant, dominion of jurisdiction or power extending itself over the person even to moderate correction of him.

n. 693.

What are the obligations of masters? - Masters are bound toward their servants: 1. To treat them kindly, that is, by addressing and commanding them decently and humanely, by furnishing good and sufficient food, by not burdening them with too many works, by not exposing them to harmful and dangerous works without due precautions, and by conveniently caring for the sick. And generally they are bound to fulfill the offices of charity toward their own servants more than toward others, because servants labor for them, and as it were live for them, and are of the family. This is clear from natural law, and from Sacred Scripture. Ecclus. 33:31: If you have a faithful servant, let him be to you as your soul; treat him as a brother. Eph. 6:9: And you, masters, do the same things to them (servants), forbearing threats; knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him. C. He. 331, 332.

To govern them conveniently, having due regard for the goods of religion and salvation, to instruct and correct them conveniently; for the master is head of the servant, just as of the whole family; but it belongs to the head to direct, where there is need. It seems also clear from the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 5:8: But if anyone does not have care for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever. But the servant is reckoned among domestics. C. He. 332; Elbel n. 950.
To pay a just price; for the matter concerns an obligation of justice and natural equity; and defrauding such a wage is numbered among the sins crying to heaven. 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Kings 30:13; L. 342; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 102, a. 1.

n. 694.

You will resolve: Masters can sin, and indeed even gravely: If they do not concede time to servants for learning the rudiments of the Christian faith, or do not send them to catechism and sermon; if they do not take care that at the due time they assist at Mass, confess, and communicate. If they hire or retain in the house servants addicted to illicit sects, irreligious, impious, blaspheming, speaking base things; if they do not warn and correct those sinning gravely, or do not dismiss those unwilling to promise amendment, unless perhaps they especially need their works and cannot find others. If they do not watch, as far as lies in them, that servants abstain from sins; if they permit an occasion of sinning to them; if they lead or entice them into sin by bad example or solicitations.

If they do not pay the promised or just stipend, or delay it too much; if they do not care for sick servants, and immediately expel them, or dismiss them before the fixed time without just cause. Catholic Epistle of Blessed James 5:4; C. B. 618; C. He. 331, 332; L. 342. For understanding the gravity of sin as to the aforesaid omitted warning, correction, and vigilance, and the scandal that followed, it is often necessary to open the condition of the master. For as to extraneous persons grave fault is often absent. Almost the same are the obligations of other masters toward workers who labor in their factories.

n. 695.

What are the obligations of servants? - Servants are bound to furnish to masters: 1. Reverence; for thus the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6:1: Let servants judge their masters worthy of all honor. From this, those can sin even gravely who mock masters, spurn them, or manifest their hidden defects. 2. Obedience and compliance in all those things to which they have obligated themselves by force of contract and by force of positive laws, C. A. 1172; C. B. 616, 617, and in those things which regard good morals. For by force of service there arises a relation of superiority and subjection between master and servant. Therefore, if the right of governance belongs to the master, the obligation of obeying corresponds to the servant. Thus Eph. 6:5: Servants, obey your carnal masters with fear and trembling in the simplicity of your heart, as Christ. And 1 Pet. 2:18: Servants, be subject in all fear to masters, not only to the good and modest, but also to the difficult. Hence they sin more or less, by reason of matter, who, when something is prescribed to them, grumble, answer insolently, waste time uselessly, neglect to perform the prescribed labor, or labor for themselves with damage to the master; and in one word, all those who do not furnish the service which ordinarily is usually required and furnished by such persons. 3. Fidelity; according to the words of Paul to Titus 2:9: Servants are to be subject to their masters... not defrauding, but showing good faith in all things. Hence they sin, and often gravely against justice, who do not have care for things entrusted to them, who by their fault allow them to become worse, who steal expensive foodstuffs, or those not usually given to them, whether for eating, or for giving or selling to outsiders, who manifest secrets of the family, especially if harm follows from this. Leo XIII, Enc. Quod Apostolici, 28 Dec. 1878; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 103; L. 343.

For understanding the gravity of the sin, by reason of irreverence, disobedience against observance and dulia, and infidelity against justice, the condition of service must be manifested in confession. Otherwise the grave malice which is had is either not declared, or is not sufficiently expressed in its lowest species. Almost the same are the obligations of workers toward their own patrons.

n. 696.

Note: "Wages are owed to servants sick for a brief time, for example, for a few days, because the time of the year for which they are hired is to be taken morally, or no attention is to be given to a defect for a brief time; for a small time with respect to the whole year is to be reputed as nothing. But otherwise, if the servant is sick for several months, because wages are by no means owed for an office not furnished. L. 346. Nor is the master bound to expenses to be made for care, or for remedies and the work of a physician. All agree on this if the expenses are notable; indeed St. Liguori, n. 864, after Lugo, admits this, at least as probable, if the expenses are light. But no wages are owed to workers, even those sick for a brief time, because they are hired by the day... therefore they must be paid only for individual days, indeed for half a day, if they fail for half a day." Gury, Cas. 972; C. B. 616, 617.

A master cannot dismiss a servant before the established time without grave cause. The reason is that a contract of hiring is truly onerous, obligating each party according to the measure of the matter. Therefore, just as a servant cannot desert the master without grave cause if the latter, by defect of the servant, would have to undergo grave harm, so likewise neither can a master without grave cause cast off a servant hired for a year. A master dismissing a servant before the time without sufficient cause is bound to repair the harm arising from this. But if a servant departs before the established time, per se he has a right to salary almost according to the proportion of time served, though somewhat less; but if the master suffers grave detriment from the departure of the servant, he can retain a proportionate part of the stipend. L. 342, 345; C. H. 1584; C. B. 620 seqq.

Servants can rightly receive salary from a master burdened by debts if they have furnished service in good faith. For it is the just wage of labor, and the master gives his own thing. "But whether they are bound to depart if they notice that the master is rendered unable to satisfy debts from such service? Navarrus, etc., affirm. Yet Molina denies, and not improbably, says Laymann. For they do not sin against justice if, asked by the master, they serve and receive wages; nor against charity, if others will not be lacking for serving." L. l. 3, n. 694, and this especially if the master needs the servant.

n. 697.

Are servants bound to restitution when they culpably do not impede harms which are inflicted upon the master? - Either servants are hired to guard and defend the family estate, and to watch and impede lest any harm be inflicted upon it, as administrators, guards, etc., who are usually called by this name rather than by the name of servants; or they are hired for mere labor and furnishing their work in necessary things of the family, who are commonly called servants properly. In the first case they are bound to restitution and compensation of harms. For they are bound to impede the harm of masters from office and contract, and therefore from strict commutative justice.

In the other case, some say that even servants are bound to compensation of harms, whether they are inflicted by outsiders or by other servants. Their reason is that by force of the service itself, the master commits his things into custody to each servant. Others more commonly and more probably say that they are bound if theft and harm is committed by outsiders; but that they are not bound if it is committed by other servants or domestics. The reason is that by the very fact that they are admitted into the family, they are indeed judged to undertake the obligation of defending it against outsiders, but by no means also against other familiars. Finally, others say that servants are not bound to restitution or compensation of harm. For although they are obligated from charity to impede that harm, nevertheless they are not obligated from justice. For they are indeed hired to furnish labor and their work in necessary things of the family, but by no means also to guard and defend the goods of the family. Special servants and ministers are placed over custody and vigilance above domestic things or the family, and specifically over care and custody of the pantry; and to these the keys for guarding things are handed over. Therefore then servants are bound to restitution or compensation of harm, when that care and custody of the family estate has been committed to them by special duty, either explicitly or implicitly, for example, when a key is given to them for taking something from some place, because for then the custody of that place is entrusted to them. Given this variety of opinions, the confessor ought prudently to abstain from urging the obligation of restitution. Lugo, d. 19, nn. 105, 106; L. l. 3, nn. 344, 573.

n. 698.

Can servants, judging that the salary is below the work furnished by them, use hidden compensation? - R. Affirmatively, if masters do not pay the stipend established by agreement, or diminish it. For then they openly injure commutative justice. Ithur., Cas. 1, n. 2.

R. Negatively, at least speaking generally, outside the aforesaid case. This is proved: 1. from prop. 37 condemned by Innocent XI. 2. For although they have agreed about a lower price, nevertheless the contract, as being just in conscience, must be stood by. At least speaking generally, because several except: 1. If the servant is compelled by force or fear to consent to an unequal price. 2. If, compelled by necessity, he consented to it, provided however that the master would not already have justly found other servants at the same low price, or did not receive this one asking from mercy. Indeed, if a servant serves with no wage established, from mere charity of the master, so that he may be fed by him, he can claim none, "just as happens with boys whom nobles or Bishops are asked to admit into their family; for then it suffices if the masters give them food, clothing, and habitation, since such is the custom." L. 348. 3. If he is unwillingly burdened with undue works. 4. If he increases the works from the will of the master, whether express or tacit; for the worker is worthy of his wage; but otherwise if he himself altogether spontaneously increases the works, because then he is judged to remit the works in order to conciliate to himself the favor of the master. L. 522, 523; E. M. 1473.

n. 699.

Note: What has been said of servants is to be said likewise of other workers, and of merchants. What the just compensation is can also be left to the judgment of the servant, if he is prudent and of a timid conscience. But in practice the matter often is not without danger of illusion. The practical danger must also be guarded against, lest, if he is discovered to have taken the master's money secretly, he be denounced as a thief and condemned to prison. L. 524.

n. 700.

What are the obligations of teachers and pupils? Between teachers and pupils there are, in a certain way, the same obligations as between parents and children. The reason is that parents, whose right and obligation properly concerns the education and instruction of children, substitute teachers for themselves, who therefore hold their place in this matter toward the children. Therefore masters and preceptors owe to pupils love, good example, right education, correction, and true doctrine. Hence they are bound to perfect themselves in the science which they teach, in order to instruct others duly; to promote the progress of pupils in letters, as much as lies in them; to turn them away as much as they can from others who are defiled by depraved morals, whom they ought in no way to admit into their schools. They can also sin gravely when they neglect the instruction of pupils, or punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; but especially if they seduce them, by driving them toward sins; if they do not teach good morals; if deliberately they teach false things as true, or things harmful to salvation; if they retain pupils imbued with bad morals, who are pernicious to others, etc.

They can sin gravely, however, both by reason of office and by reason of the stipend which they receive. If the teacher has assumed from quasi-contract a special care for the education of his pupils, by contrary sins, for example of scandal, not only charity but also justice is violated. Hence the condition of teacher is to be explained in those sins. Pupils are bound to show teachers love, reverence, and obedience, because of their superiority and care, while they are instructed by them in good morals and arts. The reason is clear: for this is what the reciprocal obligation of pupils to teachers imports; teachers would plainly be obligated in vain to instruct them, or to imbue them with good morals, unless pupils likewise were obligated to follow the admonitions and precepts of the teachers. Pupils sin, however, gravely or lightly according to the gravity or lightness of the matter itself, and its various circumstances, if they do not obey teachers in things pertaining to studies and good morals; if they do not show honor and reverence to teachers; namely if, far from studying diligently, they waste time in idleness, play, or other follies against the will of their teachers; if they detract from teachers, or ridicule them, jeer at them, afflict them with curses, calumnies, annoyances, etc. C. 1. ult. de Magistr. etc.; Clem. 2. e. t.; L. 361; S. Th. Quodl. 3, a. 9; E. M. The condition of pupil is to be explained in grave sins against due reverence and obedience. Otherwise the grave malice against observance is not declared.

700bis. Schools: By her native right the Church has true authority over schools, whether private or public, in order to her own end. And the Church has in fact always applied care lest schools, even lower schools, be lacking, and for the sake of the poor, as may be seen in the Decrees, title de Magistris, and lest anything be demanded for the license to teach. Parents sending their children to heretical, schismatic, neutral schools generally sin gravely. They can be excused from the gravest necessity, scandal being removed, and the proximate danger of all perversion against faith and morals being removed, and suitable means being used for the right, Christian, and Catholic education of the children. E. M.

Studies: The teaching of Sacred Scripture is to be imparted in each Seminary, according to the prescription made on this matter by Pius X, Litt. Quoniam in re biblica, 27 Mar. 1906.

In the plan of studies, moreover, those things are to be observed which are contained in the Encyclical Letter of Pius X, Pascendi dominici gregis, section I, "Primo igitur," and following, and are repeated in the Motu Proprio Sacrorum Antistitum.

Therefore scholastic Philosophy is to be handed on, especially that which was handed on by Saint Thomas, concerning which whatever was sanctioned by Leo XIII remains in force. Scholastic Theology also is to be handed on. But account is also to be taken of positive theology, and indeed more than before, yet with due moderation. The science of philosophical matters cannot decline from divine and ecclesiastical authority. Profane disciplines also are to be cultivated, especially those of natural things, yet with no harm to sacred studies. As to the directors and teachers to be chosen for Seminaries or Catholic Universities and religious houses of studies, whoever, in any way, shall have been imbued with modernism are to be barred both from the office of governing and from the office of teaching. All books, periodicals, and any reviews which have the savor of modernism are to be permitted neither to adolescents in Seminaries nor to hearers in Universities. Besides this it is prescribed that individual teachers, before beginning lectures at the start of the year, show to their Ordinary the text which each has proposed to himself in teaching, or the questions or theses to be treated; then that during the year itself the method of each one's teaching be examined; and if it should appear to depart from sound doctrine, this will be the reason why the teacher is immediately to be removed. Finally, besides the profession of faith, they are to give an oath to their Ordinary, according to the established formula, and with their name subscribed.

The same thing must be furnished each year to their moderators by teachers or lecturers in religious orders before they begin lectures; namely they are bound also to show to them the text of lectures, and the questions or theses to be treated, and at the beginning of the year to give the oath. For the effect of sacred ordination, years of studies cannot be said to be completed by the feast of Pentecost or of the Most Holy Trinity; rather it is required that the scholastic course of nine months be completed, with the final examination successfully passed. E. M. Ordering of studies: In the Seminaries of Italy the ordering of discipline, and of schools and studies, is to be observed which is contained in the Circular Letter of the S. C. Consist., 16 Jul. 1912, A. A. S. vol. 4, p. 491 seqq. The S. C. Consist., Circular Letters 16 Jul. 1912 and 17 Oct. 1913 to the Ordinaries of Italy, recommends that in the Seminaries of Italy scholastic texts more apt and of safer doctrine be used, with others excluded, which can be dangerous for the formation of clerics. Hence in particular in the aforesaid letters are excluded: Il primo passo alla filosofia of Aloysius Ambrosi, the manual works of ecclesiastical history by F. S. Funk and F. S. Kraus, the manual work of Patrology by Rauschen, works of consultation and erudition, Delehaye's Leggende agiografiche, and similar things. E. M.

Academic Degrees: Regulars can have the habitual faculty from the S. C. to obtain academic degrees from the Biblical Commission. Degrees regularly are necessary for various dignities and ecclesiastical offices, for the Episcopate, for the Archdiaconate, for the penitentiary, theological, and scholastic Canonry, for the office of capitular vicar, Advocate before the Roman Congregations. Assistants in Rome must be distinguished by the laurea of doctor in sacred theology and in canon law. C. Sapienti Consilio, Ord. serv. in R. C., Normae pecul. c. 6, n. 5. E. M. Doctorate: Let no one hereafter be given the laurea of Theology and Canon Law who has not previously completed the established curriculum in scholastic philosophy. But if he should be given it, let him be given it in vain. The precept that no one is to be given the laurea of Theology unless he first has obtained the laurea in philosophical disciplines, or at least has furnished certain testimony concerning the completed curriculum in Scholastic Philosophy, is strictly to be observed. If anyone is enrolled in the same year in the Faculty of Theology and of Canon Law at the same time, even if in different Institutes, let him be deprived of every right to receive degrees. But if he is given some degree, let him be given it in vain. No one can be admitted to the school of the canonical text unless he proves by written document that he has studied for a year in some Institute in the Institutions of Canon Law. Those to be promoted to the doctorate are bound to make the profession of faith, according to the formula prescribed by Pius IV, with the addition prescribed by Pius IX. Academic degrees obtained in Rome or elsewhere at Catholic Universities or Pontifical Institutes are to be judged altogether valid in other places, without new confirmation, or new taxes to be exacted. The laurea of Doctor in Theology or in Canon Law, which is granted through the S. Congregation of Studies, without any examination made, but because of excellent merits, has all the rights and privileges of any other doctoral laurea. The manner of testing the doctrine of candidates for academic degrees in Sacred Scripture is found in Acta Apostolicae Sedis, vol. 3, p. 47 seqq., p. 296 seqq. Teachers, at the beginning of the year in Seminaries, and teachers or lecturers in religious orders, after the profession of faith has been made, are likewise bound to emit the oath, according to the formula prescribed by Pius X, M. P. Sacrorum antistitum. Before anyone is admitted by the superiors of some school, lyceum, or university to academic degrees, it must be evident by document that he was not enrolled in another institute. E. M.

n. 701.

What are the obligations of inferiors as regards ecclesiastical Superiors? Subjects are bound to show to their spiritual Superiors love, honor, and obedience in those things which pertain to their jurisdiction and care; likewise necessary support. Proof: 1. This is clear from many places of Sacred Scripture, 1 Tim. 5:17, 18; Heb. 13:17, etc. 2. As to love, reverence, and obedience, because they are superiors, having true jurisdiction; as to support, because the laborer is worthy of his wage. As to those who serve the common utility, that is, Princes, soldiers, and others of this sort, the stipends of livelihood are owed by the people; so also to those who minister to worship for the salvation of the whole people, the people owe stipends of sustenance. Trid. s. 25, C. 17 de R.; Leo XIII, Enc. Sapientiae christianae, 10 Jan. 1880; S. Th. Quodl. 6, a. 10; Quodl. 10, a. 12; E. M.

n. 702.

You will resolve: Therefore all Christians are bound under grave fault to obey the Supreme Pontiff in matters pertaining to faith, to morals, and to Christian discipline; for in these he is the Vicar of Christ on earth. In the same way, diocesan subjects are bound to obey Bishops, according to the nature of the matter, in those things which pertain to their jurisdiction. They must also depend on the Supreme Pontiff and on the Bishops as regards Catholic social action. For the Supreme Pontiff and the Bishops have the right of directing it. Pius X, 1 Mar. 1905, Ep. to Card. Svampa.

n. 703.

What are the obligations of ecclesiastical superiors? Spiritual Superiors in turn are bound to show to subjects love, care, doctrine, and good example. Proof: 1. This is clear from many places of Sacred Scripture. Cf. Epp. to Timoth. and to Tit., and from Trid. s. 23, C. 1 de R. 2. This is evinced from their very office. Hence neglect of souls as to care and administration of the sacraments, as to doctrine and correction in ecclesiastical superiors, is not only against charity, but also against justice, and for the most part a mortal sin, according to that saying of Ezech. 34:2, 4: Woe to the shepherds of Israel ... that which was weak you have not strengthened, and that which was sick you have not healed, etc. L. 357 seqq.

n. 704.

What are the obligations of subjects toward civil authority?

Subjects are also bound to show love, reverence, and obedience to secular superiors. For in the civil order they are true superiors, bearing toward us in the temporal order the place of God Himself. This is confirmed from Sacred Scripture, Rom. 13:1 seqq.; 1 Pet. 2:13, 17. For this reason the Catechism of the Council of Trent compares and joins an obligation of this sort with that by which we are bound toward paternal and ecclesiastical authority. For, p. 3, on the 4th Commandment, section 15, after it has taught that parents and ecclesiastical superiors are to be honored with due honor, it adds: "The same must be said of Kings, Princes, Magistrates, and the rest, to whose power we are subject. For if we pay them any honor, it is referred to God; for an eminent degree of dignity has the veneration of men, because it is a likeness of divine power; in this also we venerate the providence of God, who has attributed the administration of public office to them, and uses them as ministers of His power." Hence it is clear that reverence is to be shown not only to Princes, but also to their officials according to their office and dignity.

Leo XIII, Enc. Letter Quella lunga, 29 Jun. 1881; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 104, a. 5, 6; Quodl. 8, a. 7; Quodl. 10, a. 12; E. M. Therefore it is not fitting to speak rashly about those who perform public office, nor maliciously to carp at their deeds; although it is permitted to scrutinize them and to speak and write publicly about them, insofar as the laws permit this, so that right judgment may be made concerning them and public utility may be provided for. Therefore they sin against charity and justice who announce in newspapers the hidden offenses of certain persons, which do not harm others, or publish them in conversations and speeches, so that they may repel them from some office. Those wound the observance due to them who inflict insults upon them, whether by words or writings, and who deny them the signs of honor due to them. Kenrick tr. 8, nn. 164, 165.

n. 705.

What are the obligations of civil superiors? These are bound to show to subjects love, good example as to morals and religion, the administration of justice, and to provide for public happiness by just and suitable means. This is most plainly clear from the very nature of their office. For the end of civil government is the safety of the commonwealth. The Fathers of the Seventh Council of Toledo, chap. 10, explaining the office of kings, present them as "not looking to the rights of their own advantage, but consulting the fatherland." Hence secular superiors sin gravely by negligence, connivance, and omissions, for example if they do not protect subjects from enemies and unjust vexations, and most of all by positive injuries, oppressions, and excessive exactions, or by persecution of the Christian religion; which injustices God certainly will not leave unavenged. For, as is said in Wis. 6:6, 7, a most severe judgment shall be made upon those who preside: for mercy is granted to the little, but the powerful shall powerfully suffer torments. Struggl 28. They likewise sin if, as far as they can, they do not turn away from society crimes which tend to the common harm, if likewise they do not remove from it the sects of Freemasons, socialists, anarchists, etc., if they put over the commonwealth men ignorant and inexperienced. This grave precept of choosing good men, in due proportion, in a Constitutional and Republican Government, also urges all electors of Deputies, from legal justice, and, other circumstances being excluded, not only do those sin who give a vote to bad men, but also those who by not taking part are the cause that bad men are elected by others; for each one, when he can and no legitimate excuse is present, is bound to turn evil away from the commonwealth. Therefore the obligation per se is both to take part in the election and to choose a suitable deputy. No one is ignorant how many evils come from impious deputies both to religion and to civil society, since the sum of all matters has been entrusted to them, and they not only give counsel, but with others make the laws themselves. Make an exception unless somewhere and at some time, because of special reasons, it is better to act otherwise, and a special prescription is had for acting otherwise. Cf. here, on Particular Obligations of Clerics, n. 195.

Leo XIII, Enc. Immortale Dei, 1 Nov. 1885; Trid. s. 25, C. 20 de R.; Suarez, de Leg. l. 1, c. 7, n. 5; E. M. Deputies, however, legitimately elected, and truly suitable, by reason of the common good, from legal justice, are bound to accept the office conferred upon them, unless they are excused by a grave and just cause. Likewise Deputies and Senators, since some part of public government has in fact been committed to them, not only must not consent by passing wicked laws to the harm of religion and to the harm of the public good, but they are also bound to impede them by their presence and by their vote. Therefore it is not lawful for them to vote for wicked laws of this sort, nor is it lawful for them to be absent. And if by culpable absence they themselves are the cause why wicked laws are made to public harm, they are guilty both of violated legal justice, by which they are bound, by special reason of their office, to promote the public good, and of violated commutative justice, from a quasi-pact with their electors. As regards the election of Deputies, those things serve the matter which S. Thomas has from S. Augustine, 1. 2, q. 97, a. 1: "If the people is well moderated and serious, and a most diligent guardian of the common utility, a law is rightly made by which it is lawful for such a people to create for itself magistrates through whom the commonwealth is administered. But if little by little the same people, depraved, has a vote for sale, and commits government to disgraceful and wicked men, rightly is taken away from the people such a power of giving honors." Cf. also 1. 2, q. 105, a. 1. "For the work of Catholic men ... to embrace the very highest affairs of the commonwealth is generally useful and honorable... Generally, to be unwilling to touch any part of public affairs would be as much a fault as to contribute no zeal, no work, to the common utility; and all the more because Catholic men are impelled, by the admonition of the doctrine which they profess, to manage the matter honestly and from faith. On the contrary, if they are idle, those will easily receive the reins whose opinions offer, indeed, no great hope of salvation. And this would also be joined with the ruin of the Christian name, for those who would be ill-disposed toward the Church can do very much, and those who are well-disposed, very little. For this reason it is clear that there is a just cause for Catholics to approach public affairs; for they do not approach, nor ought they approach, for this reason, that they approve what at this time in the ordering of public affairs is not honorable, but so that they may turn these very arrangements, as far as can be done, to the public good, having a sincere and true intention to introduce the wisdom and virtue of the Catholic religion, like most wholesome juice and blood, into all the veins of the commonwealth." Leo XIII, Enc. Letter Immortale Dei, 1 Nov. 1885.

705bis. Note: Ordinary power is that which belongs to someone by force of his dignity or office. Delegated power is that which belongs to someone from the concession of him who has ordinary power. Power of Jurisdiction properly is the power of declaring the law from a public office, and such is the power of ruling subjects and declaring the law in a Society, whether civil or ecclesiastical. One furnished with this power can make laws.

Economic power properly is that which looks to the external order to be preserved in some Community, according to the nature and end of that Community. Such is, for example, the power of a Superiorissa of the Novitiate over Novices. One furnished with this power can make statutes. Power of jurisdiction can be exercised in the internal forum for private utility, and in the external forum for public utility. It is contentious if it is exercised in judgment as regards litigants; voluntary if it is exercised outside judgment concerning affairs in themselves not contentious. Lastly, dominative power properly is that which is exercised over a person as though over something of one's own, as may be seen in a master in relation to a slave, in a father in relation to a son, in a husband in relation to a wife, in a regular Prelate in relation to his subject. Cf. 600; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 57, a. 4; q. 88, aa. 8, 9; q. 189, a. 5.

n. 706.

Is it ever lawful not to obey temporal authority? Is it ever lawful to rebel? Is it ever lawful to kill a Prince? R. To the 1st: As was already said above, n. 171, 4. Laws unjust through contrariety to human good do not oblige in the forum of conscience. Laws unjust through contrariety to divine good are in no way lawful to observe. S. Th. 1. 2, q. 96, a. 4. But in those things which are lawful, and which pertain to civil power, obedience must be given to civil Princes, even to the difficult, and also to those who abuse their authority. From these most pure sources, namely Scripture and Tradition, says Gregory XVI in Br. 9 Jun. 1832, we are most plainly taught that the obedience which men are bound to furnish to powers constituted by God is an absolute precept, which no one can oppose. Pius VI, Br. Pastoralis, 5 Jul. 1796; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 69, a. 4; q. 102, a. 1; q. 104, aa. 5, 6.

R. To the 2nd: It is never altogether lawful to rebel. "In this matter," says St. Liguori, "the principle of John Gerson was exceedingly pernicious, who dared to assert that a monarch can lawfully be judged by the whole nation if he rules the kingdom unjustly... a principle, I say, not only false, but most pernicious." The reason is that subjects, by the very fact that they are subjects, cannot arrogate to themselves power above the Prince, by judging and punishing him. L. H. A. Tr. 8, n. 13; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 42, a. 2; q. 60, a. 6; q. 64, a. 3; q. 69, a. 4. But it is one thing to make rebellion, or to bring violence against a legitimate prince in order to depose him; another thing to resist unjust laws and their execution. Rebellion is a kind of aggression, not defense. But if a force plainly unjust is brought, resistance is then made not to authority, but to unjust force. "And therefore, just as it is lawful to resist robbers, so it is lawful in such a case to resist bad Princes, unless perhaps because of scandal, when from this some grave disturbance would be feared," S. Th. 2. 2, q. 69, a. 4; q. 42, a. 2, or there were no hope of a good outcome, and greater public evils were to be feared. Cf. also the Letters of Leo XIII, Sapientiae christianae, 10 Jan. 1890, who, speaking of laws openly disagreeing with divine right, injurious to the Church and contrary to Religion, then says, "to resist is a duty, to obey a crime." Therefore it is lawful to oppose passive resistance to unjust laws. For one must obey God rather than men, Acts 5:29. "For this reason to cast off obedience, and by the force of the multitude to call the matter to sedition, is the crime of treason, not only against human majesty, but also against divine." Leo XIII, Enc. Letter Immortale Dei, 1 Nov. 1895, section Non est magni toward the end. For "whoever have the right of commanding do not receive it from elsewhere, but from that supreme Prince of all, God. There is no power except from God, Rom. 13:1... Nature itself testifies that whatever power there is anywhere proceeds from God." When this is known and persuaded, "those things are understood altogether to pertain to justice: to revere the majesty of Princes, to be subject constantly and faithfully to public power, to do nothing seditiously, to preserve the holy discipline of the city."

Leo XIII, l. c., sections Talis, Eiusmodi; Pius X, Ep. Notre charge, 25 Aug. 1910.

R. To the 3rd: It is never lawful for anyone to kill a Prince, neither for a private man nor for the multitude; for the reason is the same for him and for this. The contrary opinion of the ancients is called by St. Alphonsus, l. c., improbable, false, most false. "I ask," says the Holy Doctor, "is he a man like others? And if he is a man, he cannot be deprived of life or goods by those who do not have the right to expel him from life or goods. The doctrine of the holy Fathers is common, that it is never lawful for any private person to kill a man, however private, and however iniquitous he may be, unless he has public authority, or unless this is necessary for protecting his own life." And the very same holds whether the Prince is good or bad; whether legitimate, or an usurper of the kingdom. Prop. condemned by the Council of Constance, Sess. 15, d. 6 Jul. 1414; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 12, a. 2; q. 42, a. 2; q. 64, a. 3; q. 101, aa. 1, 3; q. 102, aa. 1, 2; q. 104, aa. 1, 2, 5; Aertnys 178; E. M.

n. 707.

Are the more worthy to be chosen for civil offices? - R. Affirmatively, if there is a competition; for then there is an implicit contract about choosing the more worthy. But negatively, if there is no competition. For there is no proof of such an obligation. In order that the public good be sufficiently provided for, it suffices that the unworthy be excluded and removed, and that worthy men be chosen. And not only the supreme Prince himself is held by this obligation, but also all those who, by power received from him, can choose. For they do not receive power except for choosing in the mode in which the Prince ought to choose. Therefore also in the election of deputies, no one indeed is bound to choose the more worthy, but he is bound to choose a worthy man, with the unworthy man excluded, from whom grave harm is foreseen. Sometimes, however, it is lawful even to choose an unworthy man in order to exclude another worse man, or if that unworthy man will be more helpful than harmful, or unless otherwise someone would be exposed to undergoing a most grave evil; for his cooperation in evil is only material. Lugo de Iust. et Iur. d. 33; L. 342; S. Th. 2. 2, q. 63.

707bis. Offices: Civil offices strictly are those which look to the necessities and utilities of citizens. Political offices are those which look to protecting the government itself of the whole nation.

Vol. II, On the Seventh and Tenth P…, XIV. On Hiring and Leasing

n. 1203.

What is hiring and leasing? - It is a contract by which someone obliges himself to grant a thing to another for use or usufruct for a certain time and for a price, and the other obliges himself to accept it. C. A. 1090, 1091; C. L. 1595. - He obliges himself, for it is a consensual contract, L. 1, Dig. Locati conducti; C. I. 1569, 1570; C. G. 1709, 1710; C. A. 1094. Cf. C. L. 1619 ff. A thing, that is, one not fungible by use, whether a thing properly so called, or a person; wherefore an immovable thing can be leased, as an estate; a movable thing, as a flock; a person, as a worker or servant as to the services to be furnished, e.g., service, the transporting of things and persons, etc., or as to a work to be produced, e.g., a house to be built, a statue to be made, etc.

C. H. 1542; C. L. 1596. For use, as a house; for usufruct, as a vineyard. C. H. 1545. For a certain time, with regard namely to positive law, by which no perpetual lease is admitted. C. H. 1543, 1544; C. A. 1090. For a price; if gratuitously, there is not leasing but commodatum, L. 46, Dig. Locati et conducti. Cf. Vinnius, de Inst. de Locatione, § 1; C. L. 1603. For a price, that is, for money, Inst. l. 3, t. 25, init. and §§ 4, 5; L. Depositum § 9, Dig. Depositi vel contra; L. Naturalis § 2, Dig. de Praescriptis verbis, etc. If a thing is given for use or usufruct not for money, but for another thing, according to positive law there is another contract, but not hiring and leasing.

According to Positive Law, for by natural law the distinction is not essential. Italian Law, 1569, and French Law, 1709, agree with Roman Law. Therefore, as regards rural estates, L. Si merces § 4, Dig. Locati etc.; C. A. 1103; C. H. 1579, if the tenant farmer is a sharecropper, namely one who pays the owner not money but part of the fruits, the contract is said to be one of partnership. But if the tenant farmer has leased for counted money, there is a true lease. The same must be said concerning partnership or lease of animals. According to C. I. 1665; C. G. 1711, under lease is numbered the contract by which one person hands over animals to another, so that the fruits may be divided between the owner and him to whom they are handed over.

Likewise C. I. 1647 ff.; C. G. 1711, 1763: when the tenant farmer is a sharecropper, there is still a lease. - For a price: in order that there be a true lease, it is necessary that the price be determined when the agreement is made. If an agreement is made that the price be determined afterward, the contract will be innominate: I do that you may give, Vinnius l.c. - That which is repaid by the lessee takes the name of wage, and likewise of pension when immovables are leased. Inst. l.c.; L. Locatio 2, L. Si tibi 5, L. Ex conducto 15 § 4, L. Si merces 25, Dig. Locati conducti; C. A. 1092. But the one who grants is called the lessor, and the one who accepts is called the lessee, and, if he accepts a rural estate, a tenant farmer. C. H. 1546; C. B. 535; L. 857.

n. 1206.

What can be leased and hired; what in particular concerning wages for services? - Resp. To the 1st: all things can be leased which come into commerce, provided they are not consumable by use, and can and are accustomed to be estimated by a wage. Wherefore both immovables and movables can be leased; likewise service and work, as to carry someone elsewhere, paint a picture, etc.; and incorporeal rights, as usufruct, habitation, tolls, etc. C. A.

1092, 1093; C. B. 535, 581, 611, 631, 652. A work differs from service. A work is that which is made by working; service is the action by which the work is made, the action of the worker, the office, industry, ministry of the one doing something. He who furnishes services is the lessor; he to whom they are furnished is the lessee. As regards work, material and craftsmanship must be distinguished in it. If the lessor furnishes the material and the lessee the craftsmanship, it is hiring-leasing. But if he furnishes both, it is disputed whether it is a lease or a sale. A work, however, must be furnished by one's own labor if it requires one's own expertise. C. B. 613. Moreover the service of a surveyor is regarded as a benefit; and therefore, according to the older authors, hiring and leasing is not entered into with such a person, and consequently there is not a wage, but remuneration and honorarium. The same must be said concerning the service of an advocate, physician, and others who furnish us labor by intelligence, speech, trustworthiness, etc. But remuneration owed to servants and workers is commonly called salary and stipend. Remuneration; for service proceeding from human liberty is something nobler than merchandise, and puts on the character of merit, and of a right to a reward. Cf. Encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum novarum; S. O. Cas. Consc., ed. 6, num. 77, 5. Therefore the salary which is given to workers for their service furnished is not, as it were, an exchange of thing with thing, nor consequently is it given only for the service itself furnished for another's utility; but it is given also for the person himself, for the necessity of the person, for the merit of the person. According to C. I. 1571-1696, as regards the things which can be leased, special mention is made only of a rural estate, a house for dwelling, and animals. As regards services, three principal species of the hiring of works and industry are said to exist. The first, by which someone obliges his services into another's service; the second, by which carriers both by land and by water oblige themselves to transfer persons or things; the third, by which contractors of works oblige themselves to make works. Cf. C. H. 1575 ff.; C. A. 1151 ff.

Resp. To the 2nd: Therefore the wage for services must suffice to support the worker, from the very intention of nature, which supplies industry and labor to man for seeking those things which are necessary to him for life. From this, the justice of the wage is principally to be estimated; and consequently, since it must suffice for daily sustenance, it supposes a daily office on the part of the worker. Daily sustenance is certainly not to be taken strictly, as for an animal, but more broadly and suitably, as for a man, so that there be included in it, in due proportion, with regard to the whole time of human life and to the condition of workers in civil society, both food, and dwelling, and clothing, and other things entirely indispensable for life itself in the various necessities occurring in human life, from illness, from old age, etc. And these, moreover, are to be estimated with due moderation; for the worker is supposed not to be vicious and wasteful, but of good conduct and frugal. But the daily office is to be understood only morally, and likewise suitably to the very labor to be exercised, harder or lighter. Hence, as it certainly does not comprehend the 24 hours of the day, so neither is it restricted to one or another hour. But since those things which are necessary for life have a varying price according to varying time and place, hence the just salary of workers will also vary according to the various circumstances of times and places. But from this again it is clear that the service of man is not properly merchandise, nor is the wage of that service properly a price. Nevertheless there is no doubt that that service is also as it were merchandise, considered in itself, and not in relation to the person whose act it is; and consequently its wage is accepted as though a price. Hence the wage for services is also estimated in various ways from this head, according to the various customs of regions, from the works themselves, that is, from their intrinsic excellence, general necessity, utility, labor, danger. Hence it is estimated in one way in physicians, teachers, painters; in another in architects, masons, diggers. But it is by no means estimated from their peculiar necessity and utility; for this pertains to the lessee, e.g., if a boy to be instructed is endowed with great talent. Therefore, as the prices of things, so again the wages of services can be increased and diminished. They are increased and diminished from those same causes by which the prices of things grow and decrease: from the fact that there are many who furnish services and few who hire them; from their daily duration, longer or shorter; from the labor spent in them; from the danger which is incurred in them; from the required expertise; from their voluntary offering. Consequently the wage for services will be just if it at least reaches the lowest wage which is accustomed to be given to such workers in such a place and time. - And if one furnishing his services furnishes them to another or to others as though as a partner, it is equitable that he himself also receive something from the profits. But the wage for services can by no means be increased or diminished from the various conditions either of the person to whom they are furnished, or of the person who furnishes them. For justice regards equality of thing to thing, not the various circumstances of persons. And thus a greater wage is not to be paid because a less skilled lessor furnishes them with greater labor, time, danger, than others; or because he is in want, has a wife, and also has children. Hence that absurd family wage is rejected. Moreover it is also rejected from the very established breadth of the just wage of workers, if namely they are of good conduct and frugal, and live with due economy, which indeed is necessary at the beginning, and afterward ends in a small patrimony to be acquired, entirely sufficient for the ordinary necessities of life. If, on the contrary, someone furnishes the same entire service to several at the same time, by right he can, for the opposite reason, demand an entire wage from all; for it is not worth less to each one because it is also equally useful to others. And therefore he who demands one hundred gold pieces to bring the son of Titius to Rome will be able to demand another hundred gold pieces from Caius so that he may also bring his son to Rome. The same is consequently to be said of the surveyor, of the advocate, of the physician, who go somewhere to measure the fields of several, plead the causes of several, assist several sick persons with salutary care. C. B. 612, 614, 632, 653; E. M.

As regards the work which someone undertakes to be made, e.g., to build a house, to sculpt a statue, once the price has been fixed at the beginning, it is thereafter neither increased nor diminished, although the prices of things and of services have increased or decreased. But if the expenses to be made are notably increased from an unforeseen case, e.g., an inundation of a river, earthquake, etc., equitable compensation is to be made; for contracts of this kind are commonly made in such a way that the architect or contractor of works takes upon himself ordinary dangers, not those that are wholly unforeseen and extraordinary. A work leased by contract for a fixed price, or for one price, is not understood to have been delivered until it has been approved. A work leased for a price established according to its individual parts or measures is not judged to have been delivered until it has been measured or the part approved. Consequently it is at the risk of the lessee, not of the lessor. L. 36, 37, Locati conducti ff.; C. I. 1638, 1640; C. G. 1791, 1793. The lessor of a work can withdraw from the lease, reimbursing to the lessee the expenses made and the profit ceasing. For he who is obliged to some deed toward another is freed by furnishing the amount which is of interest to him. C. I. 1641; C. G. 1794.

Vol. III, On the Particular Obligati…, X. On Guards, Merchants, and Artisans

n. 94.

What are the obligations of guards, merchants, and artisans? - Guards are those who are set over the custody of woods, fields, etc., by the Prince or by a private master. Merchants are all those who exercise commerce by buying and selling goods. Artisans, moreover, are all those who give their labor to some mechanical art for a received stipend. Guards, besides the sin which they commit against religion by guarding negligently, if they have taken an oath, also sin against commutative justice toward those damaged, and in defect of the damagers are held for damages culpably not impeded. Probably, however, they are held only by reason of the damage, not by reason of the fine. L. 237; H. A. 73; Lugo d. 37, n. 99 ff. Merchants are unjust by buying and selling goods at an unjust price, by not manifesting hidden defects of things, by mixing new and old things together and selling both at the same price, by not observing the conditions of contracts, etc.; in which cases they are held to restitution, according to the things said under the seventh precept of the Decalogue. Artisans are unjust by hiring out their labors at an unjust price, by not manifesting defects of works, by wasting time through culpable negligence, by not observing the conditions of contracts, by turning other workers away from labor, with damage to the association and to masters, by turning other workers away from labor and taking away from them the freedom of working, by turning other workers away from labor with force and violence applied against them and against masters, by turning other workers away from labor when they are content with a smaller stipend. "This kind of cessation (from labor) harms not only the employers and the workers themselves, but it hurts commerce and the interests of the republic; and since it is not far from violence and disturbances, it very often brings public tranquility into danger." Leo XIII, Encyclical de Condit. opific. In these cases they themselves also are held to restitution according to the things said under the seventh precept of the Decalogue. E. M.

Manual labor is useful for removing idleness, for subduing the body, for seeking sustenance. It is under precept when by it someone must come to the aid of the neighbor's necessity or his own. S. Th. Quodl. 7, a. 17.

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910)

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 26 passages

Bucceroni, Commentaries (1910), Third Commentary: On the F…, X. On the Obligations of Masters and Servants

n. 143.

What is the nature and origin of servitude? - "Then someone has dominion over another as over a slave, when he refers him over whom he has dominion to his own utility, namely to the utility of the one having dominion." St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 96, a. 4. Therefore servitude properly pertains to dominion of property, not over the person, which is not a thing and cannot be appraised by price, but over works, which can be appraised by price and consequently sold and hired. Servitude is perfect if someone owes another all his works; imperfect, if he does not owe all, or not perpetually, or only under certain conditions.

n. 144.

Servitude, or the dominion of servitude, is a certain natural consequence of the condition of human life after original sin. Cf. St. Thomas, in Arist. Polit., p. 1, lect. 3. For in the state of innocence there would not indeed have been dominion of servitude, but only of governance and direction. St. Thomas, 1 p., q. 96, a. 4.

n. 145.

Absolute servitude of a man, so that a man would be fully in the dominion of property of another man as regards all his works and as regards life itself, is altogether repugnant to natural law. For no man is master of his own life, and no private man can at his pleasure dispose of the life of another man. Besides, the rights of man are altogether inalienable; and thus, for example, any man has from nature itself the strictest duty and consequently right of tending to his ultimate end by those means which God himself has constituted.

n. 146.

But perfect servitude of works only is indeed not consonant with human dignity and the cultivated development of civil society. And thus the Church always labored that this perfect servitude might be abolished among nations. In many places it has already been abolished; but outside Europe it still remains. Yet if just titles are present, and the inalienable duties and rights of man remain preserved, it is not prohibited by natural law. Otherwise even simple service would be prohibited by the same natural law. As service is not opposed to the essential equality of men and to personal dignity, so neither is perfect servitude, by which someone furnishes all his free works for the utility of another.

n. 147.

But this servitude can justly be induced by the free will of the slave himself, who can freely dispose of his works for a definite or indefinite time, or for his whole life, for their lawful use, in favor of another and for his utility. It can also justly be induced through a just condemnation to such a penalty. And if a certain whole city, having been subjected in a just war, has been condemned to this penalty, then, as is clear, the same penalty would consequently be extended to born children, as to parts of the same community. Indeed, neither does injustice against natural law appear if servitude, as formerly occurred, is induced by the title of birth. For, if the master is he who sustains the slave and his offspring, it is equitable that some compensation be granted to him, to be given surely by the offspring itself, since it cannot be given by the parents; for all their labors pertain to the master. Hence at least, with civil law intervening for the good of the offspring itself, the title of birth can be made honorable for inducing servitude. Cf. Molina, de Iust. et Iure, tr. 2, disp. 120, 121; Lugo, de Iust. et Iure, d. 6, s. 2.

n. 148.

What does a slave owe to the master? - "Regularly, when servitude is just, and the slave is justly and legitimately possessed by the master, and is sustained according to the prescription of equity, all gains and emoluments proceeding from the slave's own labors and industry are acquired for the master; and therefore a slave who attributes the same gains and emoluments to himself, and disposes of them with the master ignorant and reasonably unwilling, is guilty of theft." S. O., June 20, 1866, Coll. S. C. de P. F., v. 1, n. 1293. But as regards other labors, those which he acquires by the liberality of another are his, because he acquires them as a man. Likewise he lawfully contracts marriage, even with the master unwilling, because it is a natural right of all. C. 1, de Coniuge servor.

n. 149.

Is the commerce in Black persons lawful? - "It is not lawful to capture by force or fraud Black persons and other forest-dwellers, hostile to no one, and, when they have been so captured, to buy, sell, or make other contracts concerning them. Their possessors are bound to compensate their damages and to manumit them. Nor indeed is it lawful for possessors of Black persons and other slaves, by private authority, to kill, burn, wound, treat cruelly, or expose them to danger of death; and they are bound to impede them from living in concubinage. But they can retain them in servitude, even after baptism, if they do not retain them unjustly." S. O., March 20, 1686, Coll. S. C. de P. F., v. 1, n. 230; Gregory XIV, Dec. 3, 1839, Coll. cit., n. 891. Christians cannot buy either fugitives or those unjustly reduced into servitude, unless these freely consent to be sold. S. O., Sept. 12, 1776, Coll. cit., n. 515. Those who are in legitimate servitude can be given, exchanged, or sold by their masters, unless they are sold to those by whom they would be treated inhumanely, or, if baptized, exposed to danger of the faith. S. O., Apr. 29, 1840, Coll. cit., n. 900. They themselves cannot flee, unless perhaps they are solicited by the master to some sin, or treated inhumanely. S. O., June 20, 1866, Coll. cit., n. 1293.

n. 150.

What is the distinction of slaves and servants? - Servants are distinguished from slaves. Slaves are those who by the law of nations and civil law, contrary to natural liberty, are subjected to another master, so that they can be possessed, alienated, and sold after the manner of patrimony. Schmalz., l. 4, t. 9, n. 1 seqq. "The appellation of slaves flowed from this, that our commanders were accustomed to sell captives, and by this to preserve them and not kill them." L. 239, de Verb. sign. But servants are not slaves, but free persons, who freely enter a contract of service, hiring their works for a definite or indefinite time into the service of a master and his family. Hence servants are of the family, and therefore are also called familiars or domestics. Servants are under the governance of the master, and masters have rights and obligations toward servants. But although those are not properly understood as servants and of the family who furnish offices of service for only one or another hour in the day, yet they are understood sufficiently as familiars who through the whole day have a stable seat in the master's house and serve him, but who by night sleep in their own house. - St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 102, a. 3.

n. 150.

Therefore servants are also distinguished from workers. For the latter hire their works to some master for a definite time and labor, but they are not received into his house and family, nor are they properly and per se subject to his governance.

n. 151.

Whether and whence is there a society between master and servant? - If only the contract of works between servant and master is inspected, no society is had between them. But if it is inspected that the servant lives by day and night in the house of the master, and is adopted as a part of the family, then surely a society is now had, since there is now had a certain common good for the utility of individuals.

n. 151.

No human society can consist without some authority, and therefore subjection correlative to it is required by nature itself. "Because the conjunction," says Suarez, de Legib. l. 3, c. 1, n. 44, "of man and woman is natural, therefore in it there is found a head, which is the man.... Similarly in the other conjunction of parents and children the father has by nature power over the son. And in the third, which is of slaves to a master, it is also clear that the power of governing is with the master, as Paul teaches, Tit. 2, Eph. 6, Col. 3, saying that slaves ought to obey their masters as God. For although the conjunction of servitude is not altogether from nature, but through human will, nevertheless, that being supposed, subordination and subjection are owed by the law of nature under the title of justice. But the subjection of children also has the natural bond and foundation itself, namely natural origin, whence it is also more perfect from the title of piety."

n. 151.

From the contract of works there is born an obligation of commutative justice, for the servant to furnish his works to the master, and for the master to pay the stipulated wage. But from the fact that the servant is adopted into a part of the master's family, the master has the right and office also of ruling and governing the servant unto the common good of the family, and the obligation of observance and obedience rests upon the servant in those things which pertain to the domestic order. And thus St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 65, a. 2, not from some pact or from commutative justice, but from the order of society, although imperfect, recognizes in the master, besides dominion of property over the works of the servant, dominion of jurisdiction extending to the person even to moderate correction of him.

What are the obligations of masters? - Masters are bound to: 1. Treat their servants benignly, that is, by addressing and commanding them decently and humanely, and by furnishing good and sufficient food, by not burdening them with excessive works, by not exposing them without due precautions to harmful and dangerous works, and by caring conveniently for the sick. And generally they are bound to fulfill the offices of charity of neighbor toward their own servants more than toward others, because servants labor for them and, as it were, live for them, and are of the family. This is clear from natural law and from Sirach 33:31: If you have a faithful servant, let him be to you as your own soul; treat him as a brother. Eph. 6:9: And you, masters, do the same things to them (the slaves), forbearing threats, knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with him. - 2. To govern conveniently, by having due account of the goods of religion and salvation; to instruct and correct conveniently: for the master is the head of the servant, as of the whole family; but it belongs to the head to direct where there is need. It also seems clear from the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 5:8: But if anyone does not have care of his own, and especially of his domestics, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever. But servants are reckoned among domestics. Elbel, n. 950. - 3. To pay a just price: for the matter concerns an obligation of justice and natural equity; and defrauding such a wage is numbered among sins crying to heaven. 1 Tim. 5:18; 1 Reg. 30:13; L. 342; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 102, a. 3.

Almost the same are the obligations of other masters toward workers who labor in their factories and workshops.

You will resolve: Masters can sin, and indeed also gravely: If they do not grant servants time to learn the rudiments of the Christian faith, or do not send them to catechism and sermon; if they do not see to it that at the due time they assist at Mass, confess, and communicate. - If they hire, or retain in the house, servants addicted to illicit sects, irreligious, impious, blaspheming, speaking shameful things; if they do not admonish and correct those sinning gravely, or do not dismiss those unwilling to promise amendment, unless perhaps they greatly need them and cannot find others. - If they do not watch, as far as lies in them, that slaves abstain from sins; if they permit them an occasion of sinning; if by depraved example or solicitations they induce or entice them into sin. - If they do not pay the promised or just stipend, or delay it too much; if they do not care for sick servants and immediately expel them, or dismiss them before the fixed time without a just cause. - Catholic Epistle of Blessed James 5:4; C. B. 618; L. 342.

For understanding the gravity of the sin as regards the aforesaid admonition, correction, and vigilance omitted, and the scandal that followed, it is often necessary to disclose the condition of master. For as regards outsiders, grave fault is often absent.

n. 153.

What are the obligations of servants? - Servants are bound to furnish to masters: 1. Reverence; for thus the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6: Let slaves deem their masters worthy of all honor. Consequently they can sin even gravely who ridicule masters, despise them, or manifest their hidden defects. - 2. Obsequium and obedience in all those things to which they have obligated themselves by force of contract and by force of positive laws, Austrian Code 1172, German Code 616, 617, and in those things which look to good morals; for by force of service there arises a relation of superiority and subjection between master and servant. Therefore if the right of governance belongs to the master, the obligation of obeying corresponds to the servant. Thus Eph. 6:3: Slaves, obey your carnal masters with fear and trembling in the simplicity of your heart, as Christ. And 1 Pet. 2:18: Slaves, be subject in all fear to masters, not only to the good and modest, but also to the difficult. Hence those sin more or less by reason of the matter who, when something is commanded them, murmur, answer insolently, waste time uselessly, neglect to carry out the commanded labor, or labor for themselves with damage to the master; and, in one word, all those who do not furnish such obsequium as ordinarily is accustomed to be required and furnished by such persons. - 3. Fidelity; according to the words of Paul to Titus 2:9: Slaves are to be subject to their masters..., not defrauding, but showing good fidelity in all things. Hence they sin, and often gravely against justice, who do not have care of things entrusted to them, who by their own fault allow them to become worse, who steal expensive victuals, or those not usually given to them, whether for eating, or for giving or selling to outsiders, who manifest the secrets of the family, especially if damage follows from this. - Leo XIII, Enc. Quod Apostolici, Dec. 28, 1878; St. Thomas, 2.2, q. 102, a. 3.

n. 153.

For understanding the gravity of the sin by reason of irreverence and disobedience against observance and dulia, and of infidelity against justice, the condition of service must be manifested in confession. Otherwise the grave malice which is present either is not declared, or is not sufficiently expressed in its lowest species.

n. 153.

Almost the same are the obligations of workers toward their own patrons.

n. 154.

Note: "Wage is owed to servants sick for a brief time, for example for a few days, because the time of the year for which they are hired must be taken morally, or a short time lacking must not be attended to; for a small time in respect of the whole year must be accounted as nothing. But it is otherwise if the servant is sick for several months, because wage is by no means owed for an office not furnished. L. 346. Nor is the master bound to expenses to be made for care, or for remedies and the work of a physician. On this all agree, if the expenses are notable; indeed St. Liguori, n. 864, after Lugo, also admits this at least as probable if the expenses are light. - But no wage is owed to workers, even those sick for a brief time, because these are hired by the day..., therefore they are to be compensated only for individual days, indeed for half a day, if they fail for half." Gury, Cas. 972. - C. B. 616, 617.

n. 154.

The master cannot dismiss a servant before the established time without a grave cause. The reason is that the contract of hiring is truly onerous, obliging each party according to the measure of the matter. Therefore, just as the servant cannot desert the master without grave cause, if the latter, by defect of the servant, would have to suffer grave damage, so likewise neither can the master cast off a servant hired for a year without grave cause. A master dismissing a servant before the time without sufficient cause is bound to repair the damage arising therefrom. But if the servant departs before the established time, per se he has a right to salary almost pro rata for the time of service, yet a little less; but if the master suffers grave detriment from the departure of the servant, he can retain a proportionate part of the stipend. - L. 342, 345; C. H. 1584; C. B. 620 seqq.

n. 154.

Servants can rightly receive salary from a master burdened with debts, if they have furnished service in good faith. For it is the just wage of labor, and the master gives his own thing. "But whether they are bound to depart, if they notice that the master is rendered unable by such service to satisfy his debts? Navarr., etc., affirm. Molina, however, denies, and not improbably, says Laymann. For they do not sin against justice if, having been asked by the master, they serve and receive wage; nor against charity, if others will not be lacking for service." L. l. 3, n. 694. And this most of all if the master needs the servant.

n. 155.

Are servants bound to restitution when culpably they do not prevent damages which are brought upon the master? - Either servants are hired for guarding the family property, and for watching over and preventing any damage from being brought upon it, such as administrators, guards, etc., who are usually called by this name rather than by the name servant; or they are hired for merely furnishing their labor and work in things necessary to the family, who commonly are properly called servants. - In the first case they are bound to restitution and compensation of damages. For they are bound to prevent the damage of the masters from office and contract, and therefore from strict commutative justice.

n. 155.

In the other case, some say that even servants are bound to compensation of damages, whether those are brought in by outsiders or by other servants. Their reason is that, by force of service itself, the master commits his things into custody to each servant. Others more commonly and more probably say that they are bound if theft and damage are committed by outsiders; they are not bound if it is committed by other servants or domestics. The reason is that from the very fact that they are admitted into the family they are indeed judged to undertake the obligation of defending it against outsiders, but by no means also against other familiars. Finally, others say that servants are not bound to restitution or compensation of damage. For although they are obligated from charity to prevent that damage, nevertheless they are not obligated from justice. For they are hired indeed to furnish their labor and work in things necessary to the family, but by no means also to guard and defend the goods of the family. Special servants and administrators are placed over custody and vigilance over domestic things or the family, and especially over the care and custody of stores; and to these the keys to the things to be guarded are handed over. Therefore servants are bound to restitution or compensation of damage only when that care and custody of the family property has been committed to them by a special office, either explicitly or implicitly, for example when a key is given to them for drawing something from some place, because for that time the custody of that place is entrusted to them. - This variety of opinions standing, the confessor ought prudently to abstain from urging the obligation of restitution. - Lugo, d. 19, n. 106; L. l. 3, n. 344, 573.

n. 156.

Can servants, judging that the salary is below the work furnished by them, use occult compensation? - R. Affirmatively, if the masters do not pay the stipend established by convention, or diminish it. For then they openly injure commutative justice. Ithur., Cas. 1, n. 2. - R. Negatively, at least generally speaking, outside the aforesaid case. It is proved: 1. from proposition 37 condemned by Innocent XI. 2. For although they agreed about a lesser price, nevertheless the contract, as just in conscience, must be stood by. At least generally speaking, because many except: 1. If the servant is compelled by force or fear to consent to an unequal price. 2. If, compelled by necessity, he consented to it, provided, however, that the master otherwise would not already justly have found other servants at the same cheap price, or that he did not admit this petitioner from mercy. Indeed, if a servant, with no wage established, serves from the master's mere charity, so that he may be nourished by him, he can claim nothing, "as happens with boys whom nobles or Bishops are asked to admit into their family; for then it suffices if the masters furnish them food, clothing, and dwelling, since such is the custom." L. 348. 3. If unwillingly he is burdened with undue works. 4. If he increases his works from the will of the master, either express or tacit; for the worker is worthy of his wage; but it is otherwise if altogether spontaneously he himself increases his works, because then he is judged to donate the works in order to conciliate to himself the master's favor. L. 342, 348, 502.

n. 157.

Note: What has been said of servants must be said likewise of other workers and of merchants. - What is just compensation can be left even to the judgment of the servant, if he is prudent and of timorous conscience. But in practice the matter is often not without danger of hallucination. - The danger is also practically to be forestalled, lest if he is detected to have stolen the master's money, he be dragged about as a thief and condemned to prison. - L. 524.

Bucceroni, Cases of Conscience

Gennaro Bucceroni, S.J. — 13 passages

57. On the Obligations of Masters, Disciples, Subjects

Vincentius has already rather often detected his male servant with the maidservant, occupied in lascivious intercourse; yet because he adverts that from the dismissal of the male servant, as being especially necessary to the domestic estate, no small detriment threatens him, hence, anxious, he asks whether he can dissimulate with a safe conscience.

Q. 1. What are the obligations of masters? 2. What as to the case?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 693, 694. To the second. Vincentius cannot dissimulate the sins of the servants. For upon him, as superior and father of the family, there rests the obligation from justice of impeding the sins of subjects. And if, correction having been made, they are not amended, he is held under grave obligation to expel them from the house, if from such ejection it is prudently believed that they will return to good conduct. Indeed, even if this is by no means hoped, nevertheless he must altogether eject them, both because, since the servant has the concubine not outside the house but in the very house of the master, and sins with another maidservant, a present and far easier occasion of sinning is had from this; and also because of the grave danger and scandal of the family which is present, as is established by sad experience itself. Parents, retaining depraved servants at home, expose their own children most gravely to corruption. But it is scarcely credible that Vincentius, from the departure of the servant, can fear so great a loss that it would outweigh the most grave obligation of impeding the sins of subjects. And if danger and scandal to the family were present in fact, there certainly is no temporal detriment by which Vincentius could both dissimulate the sins of the servants and retain them at home. Indeed, the sins of subjects can in no way be imputed to a superior when he has tried according to his powers to impede them, by correcting, threatening, etc.; and for that reason only does he dissimulate something, because he cannot impede it without a graver, or certainly rather grave, detriment. But where danger and scandal are present to the family, to retain depraved servants at home is to constitute one's own children in a certain proximate and necessary occasion of sinning; and where servants advert that the masters know and are silent, and fear to expel them, they certainly become more bold for sinning and sin more securely, which is altogether illicit. - Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2106; Elbel 17, 18, 19; Tambur., in Decal., l. 5, c. 1, § 4, n. 21; G. 374, 375.

Mathurinus, a student of Moral Theology, is pressed by grave anguish of conscience. For a disciple, he says, owes love, reverence, and obedience to a master. I have love toward my master; I also have reverence for him; but I cannot have obedience to him. It is impossible for me to admit all the opinions of my master. For there is some opinion on which the master always and much insists, and it seems to me contrary to dogma; but there are also other opinions which seem to me at least equally probable, and even more probable, than those which the master defends as most probable, as uniquely probable, as at least altogether to be held practically.

Q. 1. What are the obligations of disciples toward masters? 2. What is to be held concerning Mathurinus?

R. To the first. Cf. I. M. 700. - To the second. Mathurinus, before he forms and pronounces judgment against the doctrine of his professor, ought first to understand it well and weigh it with mature consideration, lest perhaps he himself consider and attack as handed down by his professor a doctrine which the professor in no way taught. By acting thus he would both form a rash judgment against his master and, by speaking with others, would harm his reputation. But if, after serious study, and after other learned men have also been consulted, the doctrine of his professor seems erroneous to him, he is certainly not held to follow it. Likewise, if the opinions of others seem to him probable, more probable, or most probable, and are commonly held as such by authors, he is not held to follow the opposed opinions of the master as most probable, or uniquely probable, or altogether to be held. But with due modesty he will be able to think otherwise. Appositely St. Thomas, Quodlibet 3, a. 10: "It must be said that diverse opinions of doctors of Sacred Scripture, if indeed they do not pertain to faith and morals, hearers can follow either opinion without danger; for then what the Apostle says in Rom. 14:5 has place: Let each one abound in his own sense. But in those things which pertain to faith and morals, no one is excused if he follows the erroneous opinion of some master... otherwise those would have been immune from sin who followed the opinions of Arius, Nestorius, and other heresiarchs... Therefore he who assents to the opinion of some master against the manifest testimony of Scripture, or against that which is publicly held according to the authority of the Church, cannot be excused from the vice of error."

Moreover, if the confessor himself cannot impose his probable opinion on the penitent, who wishes to follow another probable opinion, much less will the teacher of moral theology be able to impose his opinion on his hearers when another opinion is truly probable and commonly held by authors as probable. Lugo, Resp. Mor., l. 1, d. 26.

But this is directly confirmed from the response of the Sacred Penitentiary, 5 July 1831. For to the question: "Whether a professor of Sacred Theology can safely follow and profess the opinions which Blessed Alphonsus de Liguori professes in his Moral Theology?" it responded: "Affirmatively, without nevertheless judging that those are to be reprehended who follow opinions handed down by other approved authors." Therefore both the teacher of moral theology and his hearers can and are held so to defend their own probable opinions that they do not exclude the contrary truly probable opinions of other Catholic doctors. This certainly, especially in moral theology, would not be to build up, but to destroy.

Honoratus, a Catholic, never salutes the Prince, although others commonly salute him in the public streets and halt their step. For he says that the Prince is non-Catholic and by no means virtuous, but honor is owed only to virtue. - What of Honoratus?

R. Honoratus neither reasons rightly nor, of itself, acts rightly. "Honor is a certain testimony concerning the virtue of him who is honored; and therefore virtue alone is the due cause of honor. Nevertheless, it must be known that someone can be honored not only on account of his own virtue, but also on account of the virtue of another, as princes and prelates are honored, even if they are evil, insofar as they bear the person of God and of the community over which they are placed... and by the same reason parents and masters are to be honored on account of participation in the divine dignity, who is the father and master of all. But elders are to be honored on account of the sign of virtue, which is old age, although this sign sometimes fails... But the rich are to be honored on account of this, that they obtain a greater place in communities. But if they are honored with a view to riches, it will be the sin of acceptance of persons." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 63, a. 3; Quodlibet 8, a. 7. "If prelates are evil, they are not honored on account of the excellence of their own virtue, but on account of the excellence of dignity, according to which they are ministers of God; also in them the whole community over which they preside is honored." St. Thomas, 2. 2, q. 103, a. 3, ad 2; Quodlibet 10, a. 12. Cf. I. M. 701, 704.

"An infidel king lays snares for the Christians subject to him, or wishes to destroy them here and now and to blot out the Christian name in his kingdom. While he is meditating and preparing these things, other wicked men, by conspiring and warring against him, try to cast him out from his kingdom.

It is asked: Whether Christians are held positively to defend him, namely the tyrant who wishes here and now to slaughter them; or rather can behave negatively, neither warring against him nor helping him?

R. As it is set forth, negatively to the first part; affirmatively to the second part." S. O., 27 Jan. 1892; Collectan. S. C. de P. F., n. 2099; I. M. 706.

Gury-Ballerini, Compendium of Moral Theology (8th ed., 1884)

Jean-Pierre Gury, S.J.; notes by Antonio Ballerini, S.J. — 9 passages

Vol. I, Treatise On the Precepts o…, On the Fourth Precept of t…, Ch. IV, Art. I, § I. On the Obligations of Masters

- Masters are bound: 1. to treat their servants benignly; 2. to instruct and correct them; 3. to pay them a just price.

I. To treat benignly, that is, by addressing them and commanding them decently and humanely, furnishing good and sufficient food, not burdening them with excessive works, and conveniently caring for the sick. This is clear from natural law and from sacred Scripture, Ecclus. 33. 31: If thou hast a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy soul; treat him as a brother. - Ephes. 6. 9: And you, masters, do the same things to them (servants), forbearing threats, knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no acceptance of persons with Him.

II. To instruct and correct; for the master is the head of the servant, as of the whole family; but it belongs to the head to direct where there is need. It also seems to be clear from the words of Paul, 1 Tim. 5. 8: But if anyone does not have care of his own, and especially of those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. But servants are reckoned among domestics. - Elbel, n. 590, and others commonly.

III. To pay a just price; for there is question of an obligation of justice and natural equity; whence the defrauding of such wages is numbered among the sins crying to heaven.

Resolves. - Masters can sin, and indeed even gravely:

If they do not grant servants time for learning the rudiments of the Christian Faith, or do not send them to catechism and sermon; if they do not take care that they confess and communicate at the due time.

If they hire, or retain in the house, servants who are irreligious, impious, blaspheming, or speaking filthy things; if they do not admonish and correct those sinning gravely, or do not dismiss those unwilling to promise amendment, unless perhaps they especially need their work and cannot find others.

If they do not have care, as much as lies in them, that servants abstain from sins; if they permit them an occasion of sinning; if by depraved example or solicitations they induce or entice them into sin.

If they do not pay the promised or just stipend, or delay too much; if they do not care for sick servants and immediately cast them out, or dismiss them without just cause before the appointed time.

Tanquerey

Adolphe Tanquerey, S.S. — 9 passages

Vol. III, Contracts, and the Obligat…, On the Obligations of Stat…, Chapter I: On the Duties of Laymen

n. 980.

§ II. On The Duties Of Masters And Servants, Or On Herile Society.

Often domestic society is completed by herile society, inasmuch, namely, as male and female servants hire out their services to the head of a family, and for a certain price oblige themselves faithfully to fulfill certain duties in the house. This indeed arises from a twofold need and necessity: on the one hand, the members of the family cannot perform all the works which are required for domestic affairs; but on the other hand, there are certain persons who, on account of want or misfortune, can obtain the necessities of life by themselves only with difficulty: wherefore they desire to hire out their services, so that they may procure food for themselves or for others joined to them; thence arose service, or the contract by which certain outsiders, by hiring out their services, become of the master's family, and therefore are called domestics.

¹ Mayol, Summa moralis, col. 544-549, ed. Migne; Valentin, Examen sur les Commandements, Lyon, 1869, t. I, p. 202-216; Ball. P., n. 833-839; D'Hulst, Careme, 1894, 6th Conf.; L. M. Salmon, Domestic service, New York, 1897.

Servants are distinguished from workers, who hire out their services for a short time, but are not received into the master's family; for craftsmen have their own home and often a family, nor are they subject to employers except during those hours of the day for which they are hired, while servants ought to furnish obedience to masters for the whole time of service, and inhabit the house of the masters.

Historically it is certain that the condition of domestics has not always been the same; in antiquity many were bound to servitude; when afterward they were made free, for a long time the bonds between them and the masters were much closer than they are in our days; likewise today, the contract of service is not entered into in the same way in different regions; indeed, in the same region, it is understood in one way in the countryside and in another in cities. Wherefore all these things must be carefully attended to in defining the mutual obligations of masters and servants: their extension and obligatory force depend greatly on the customs of times and places. - Likewise, when texts of Scripture, the Fathers, and Theologians are brought forward, one must carefully distinguish between general principles, which are adapted to all places and times, and special rules which are applied only to certain conditions of places and times.

I. On The Duties Of Masters.

n. 981.

Masters obtain their authority from God, who, by granting unequal gifts to men, willed that in human society some should be superior to others, and constituted a certain hierarchical order; in which sense it can be said: "For there is no power except from God."¹ Yet this authority is not absolute, but ought to be exercised moderately, prudently, and in a Christian manner: for servants, although inferior to masters in state and condition, are equal to them insofar as they are children of the same heavenly Father, redeemed by the same Savior, participants in the same sacraments, and destined for the same end; therefore Christian charity and modesty should temper authority.

¹ Rom., XIII, 1.

These things being posited, the duties of masters arise both from justice and from charity: from justice, when they flow explicitly or implicitly from the very contract of service freely entered into; from charity, which ought to be greater toward domestics than toward strangers.

n. 982.

1. Justice demands that all legitimate conditions included in the contract be equally observed: - (A) A just wage ought to be paid at the appointed time, or according to the custom of the region confirmed by laws or custom; for masters have obliged themselves to this by the very contract. (a) As to the determination of the just price, the rules concerning the wages of workers handed down above are to be followed (On Justice, n. 819-826).

Hence those are guilty of injustice who, abusing the want or simplicity of servants, extort their consent to a wage below that which by common judgment is judged equitable. And indeed masters who assign very small wages to servants are less easily excused than employers who have many workers; for the latter sometimes, by reason of unbridled competition, are compelled to diminish stipends, lest otherwise they tend toward ruin; but the former, who have few servants, generally can pay a full wage without being conquered by the law of competition.¹

¹ Certain masters diminish the stipends of servants so that they may give more abundant alms, as they say; yet is it not better to give alms to the domestics themselves, as being nearer, under the form of a greater wage?

(b) Likewise those sin who do not pay the promised remuneration at the appointed time, but defer it for a long time;² the gravity of the injustice depends on the gravity of the damage thus inflicted: it is greater, for example, when servants need this stipend in order to sustain their own.

² For the words of Scripture look here: "Behold the hire of the laborers who have reaped your fields, which has been kept back by you, cries out, and the cry of them has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth" (James, V, 4).

n. 983.

Corollaries. (a) If a servant, hired for a year, is sick for a short time, for example, for a week, generally by the custom of places the whole wage is owed: and indeed deservedly, since sickness of this sort can be foreseen among things commonly occurring. But if he is sick for a notable time, strictly the whole wage is not owed, since remuneration, if justice alone is attended to, ought to be proportioned to the work furnished: therefore if the whole is paid, it will be a work of mercy.

(b) If a servant departs spontaneously, without a legitimate cause, before the time fixed, for example, before the month has elapsed, strictly speaking he loses the right to the wage corresponding to the time of service, because he himself broke the contract, and perhaps inflicted damage on the master thereby; nevertheless, if in reality the latter has suffered no damage, for example, because he can immediately find another servant, equity counsels that some compensation be given for the work furnished. - But if the servant is unjustly dismissed before the fixed time, or because of the fault of the master, who, for example, treats him harshly or provokes him to sin, he has a strict right to obtain compensation for all damages unjustly inflicted on him under this head.

n. 984.

(B) Masters cannot demand more works than those concerning which agreement was made in the contract; and if they ask anything more, they are held to increase the stipend. For since such a wage was determined by mutual consent for such a work, if the work is increased, the stipend ought to be increased. Yet often nothing certain has been defined, and the matter must be left to the judgment and moral estimation of prudent persons, according to the various customs of places.

n. 985.

1. Duties of charity. Masters ought to love servants the more because these are nearer to them. Wherefore: - (A) They ought to treat them kindly: "If thou hast a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy soul; treat him as a brother";¹ and therefore to address them most humanely, to preside over and command them without arrogance, to provide them sufficient food, and not to burden them with excessive labors. - Therefore they sin if they afflict them without cause by harsh and abusive words, and a fortiori by blows.

¹ Eccli., XXXIII, 31; cf. Ephes., VI, 9; Epistle to Philemon. - To the point Turgeon, op. cit., t. I, p. 363: "Appealing to masters and above all to mistresses, we beg them to penetrate themselves better with this Christian and human idea, that their domestics are their equals before God and before nature, beings who think as they do, who suffer as they do, and whom the progress of instruction and equality renders more and more sensitive to injustice, harshness, and humiliation. Let us have the courage to say to ourselves that they need more patience and resignation to serve us than we need to bear with them."

If servants labor under some infirmity or disease, masters ought to watch over them so that diligent care may be provided for them; indeed they are not strictly held to pay expenses for a doctor and medicines, unless this has been brought into the agreement; but often Christian charity will counsel this.

n. 986.

(B) They ought also prudently to procure the spiritual good of servants: by granting time for fulfilling religious duties,² namely, for hearing Mass, receiving the sacraments, learning Christian doctrine, etc.; - and therefore by not compelling them, outside necessity, to servile works on feast days or to eat flesh at a forbidden time; - by watching over good morals, especially where there are younger servants of different sex;¹ - by prudently and gently, but firmly, correcting them when by blasphemies, filthy speech, impious conversations, or illicit familiarities they scandalize other domestics; - by chiefly taking care that they themselves do not induce servants to sin by bad example, incautious speech, or solicitation; and that sons of the family do not draw younger maids, by importunate attentions, to acts contrary to modesty and chastity.

² "Respect the conscience of the servant: no imposed religion: hypocrisy does not honor God; no impeded religion: it is an odious tyranny to deny to one who serves his fellow man the liberty of serving his God." (M. D'Hulst, op. cit., p. 182.)

¹ "Be vigilant: the servant forms part of the family; he must not dishonor it by his vices; you have charge of souls with respect to all who live at your hearth." (M. D'Hulst, ibid.) Wherefore the praised author laments, p. 450, that at Paris and in great cities male and female servants are promiscuously relegated, far from the rooms of the masters, to the upper part of the building, where younger persons are often exposed to proximate occasions of sinning.

II. On The Duties Of Servants.

n. 987.

1. Duties of justice. (A) By force of the contract itself, they are held to furnish their services wholly and faithfully, just as it has been freely and equitably agreed, with that common diligence which is required by law or custom; - and therefore to inflict no damage on the master or on his goods, whether deliberately or from culpable negligence (On Justice, n. 793-794). - Therefore those sin who waste in idleness a notable part of the time owed to service, or divert it to their own or another's utility. - Moreover they ought to furnish obedience in all those things which pertain to service and good morals,² and those sin who obstinately resist the legitimate commands of masters.

² Here belong the words of the Apostle, with the due distinction nevertheless preserved between slaves and servants: "Servants, obey your masters according to the flesh with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as Christ; not serving to the eye, as pleasing men, but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the heart." (Ephes., VI, 5-6; cf. I Pet., II, 18-19.)

(B) Those who are hired by office to guard some thing, such as guardians of houses, administrators of household property, etc., are held by justice to prevent any damage from being inflicted on those things of which they have the guardianship or management; and if, from their culpable negligence, damage has been inflicted, they are held to its reparation, as unjust cooperators. But if they have been hired for common labor, they are indeed held by charity to prevent damages, but probably not by strict justice, according to modern customs. (On Justice, n. 512-515; in the same place, nn. 439, 457, see what we said concerning thefts of servants and hidden compensation.)

(C) It is not licit to desert service before the fixed time except for a grave cause, and, insofar as it can be done, with the master opportunely warned: this is clear from the very nature of the contract.

n. 988.

1. Duties of charity. (A) They ought to furnish interior and exterior reverence to masters, insofar as they are divinely set over them in those things which pertain to the government of the family; for the words of the Apostle to slaves can in some way be accommodated to servants: "Whosoever are servants under the yoke, let them account their masters worthy of all honor."¹ - Therefore they sin if they despise masters, mock them, offend them with abusive words, or bear themselves insolently toward them.

¹ I Tim., VI, 1. - "As the master ought to see in his servant a brother, his equal before nature and before redemption, so the man who serves his fellow man ought to respect in him this element of divinity which resides in his person and consecrates his authority." (M. D'Hulst, l. c., p. 189.)

(B) In a special way they ought to take care that they do not harm the master or his family by detraction or by the manifestation of secrets which they know from the office entrusted to them: from the fact that they are made in some way participants in domestic life, they ought to be more cautious when they converse with strangers about domestic matters.

It is indeed greatly to be desired that relations between servants and masters be more intimate, as in reality they still exist in some families; but if they cannot generally be restored, let the difficulties of service at least be tempered by mutual reverence and charity. - Priests, however, should not neglect the spiritual care of servants, but with paternal solicitude should take pains that by opportune counsels and pious confraternities they keep them from evil and direct them to the perfection of virtue.²

² How solicitously H. de Tourville, a man otherwise very meritorious concerning social matters, performed this, P. Bureau has set forth, L'Oeuvre de H. de Tourville, in Science Sociale, t. XXXV, 1903, p. 470-471.

Koch–Preuss

Antony Koch; adapted and edited by Arthur Preuss — 11 passages

Vol. V, Pt. II, Ch. II, Section 5: The Mutual Duties of Brothers and Sisters and Other Relatives, and of Masters and Servants

THE MUTUAL DUTIES OF BROTHERS AND SISTERS.—While the family converges towards unity in the parents, it diverges into variety in the children. The natural tie that binds brothers and sisters together is not their individuality, but their common relation towards their parents and towards the family to which they belong. For this reason the bond in question is much weaker and entails fewer duties than the one which unites parents and children.

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tractate IV: On Observance…, Art. I, § 1. On Masters and Domestic Servants · Vol. II, Bk. II, Tractate IV: On Observance…, Art. I, § 2. On Masters of Works and Hired Workmen

Broadly speaking, brothers and sisters are bound to love one another more dearly than other human beings and to help one another, not only in urgent, but also in grave and ordinary necessities.¹

¹ Ps. CXXXII, 1–3; Ecclus. XXV, 1 sq.—St. Alphonsus, Theol. Mor., l. III, n. 340 (ed. Gaudé, I, 606).

n. ¶3.

These duties, however, vary even between brothers and sisters. Older brothers and sisters have more duties towards younger brothers and sisters because they are the natural representatives of the parents. If they marry, however, their duties to their younger brothers and sisters must in case of collision give way to the duties they owe to husband or wife, and children. As a rule, too, brothers have more onerous duties towards their sisters than vice versa. Thus, if an unmarried sister would probably be exposed to want in case her brother joined a religious order, he would have to give up his intention, or at least postpone its execution, until satisfactory provision could be made for the dependent sister. If the parents are dead and an older brother or sister takes their place in rearing the younger children, he or she has a right to demand from them, in all that pertains to unity and peace of the family, the same respect and obedience that they would show to the parents, were they alive. Uncharitableness, enmity, and revenge among children of the same parents is doubly detestable and sinful.²

² See this Handbook, Vol. I, pp. 215 sq.; cfr. O. v. Marmerie, Die Familie, pp. 331 sqq.

n. ¶4.

THE MUTUAL DUTIES OF RELATIVES.—When a family broadens out into several, we have what is called relationship. Descent from the same ancestors is a bond that unites relatives into a natural group. This bond grows weaker in proportion to the distance of the descendants from their common ancestor. Consequently, the duties of relatives to one another are difficult to define. We may lay it down as a general rule, however, that when different relatives are simultaneously in need, the nearer should be given precedence over the more distant. For the rest, the duties which relatives have towards one another are obligations of charity rather than of justice, except when there is question of an inheritance ab intestato.³

³ Sporer-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 2nd ed., 803.

n. ¶5.

Lack of affection for one’s relatives is a sign of selfishness and involves a gross violation of Christian charity. On the other hand, love of one’s relatives should never be allowed to degenerate into unjust partiality or lead to the neglect of higher vocational duties.⁴ Nepotism, i. e., favoritism extended to relatives, near or distant, in the bestowal of offices, in fact every species of undue discrimination in favor of relatives, especially in governmental patronage, is detrimental to private and public morality because it leads to violations of duty, unjust preference, and other vices.

⁴ Matth. VIII, 21 sq.; XII, 46 sqq.; Luke IX, 59 sqq.

n. ¶6.

It belongs to the allied sciences of politics and political economy to weigh the advantages and disadvantages of the patriarchal or feudal system of society as against its opposite extreme, the atomization of society and property into minute particles. Both tendencies involve grave social dangers.

n. ¶7.

Another danger, which affects morality very closely, is inbreeding, i. e., marrying among near relatives. It is apt to result in physical degeneration and the transmission of undesirable characteristics, notably mental defects, from ancestors to descendants. Though the physiological consequences of inbreeding are undeniable, it will be well to put the case against it on moral grounds, because heredity is still a largely unexplored subject. Among the moral dangers of inbreeding are too great intimacy between near relatives, the exclusion of new blood, and the cultivation of a spirit of social pride and exclusiveness that is detrimental to society at large. Marriages between near relatives as a rule are not contracted for love, but for extrinsic, conventional reasons, and hence involve an undue restriction of individual liberty. It is difficult to determine the exact limits to which parental authority may go in controlling the rights of children, though quite evidently he who shares in the advantages of family life, ought to submit to a certain amount of compulsion for the benefit of the whole.⁵

⁵ St. Augustine, Enarr. in Ps., 127, n. 12: “The Lord wills that we prefer God to earthly blood relationships. Defer to your father, because he is your father; defer to God, because He is God. Your father begot you by furnishing his flesh; God created you by applying His omnipotence. Do not— let the father be angry when God is preferred to him; rather let him rejoice that so much deference is paid to him, that He alone was found who ought to be preferred to him.” (Migne, P. L., XXXVII, 1685).

n. ¶8.

Unequal treatment of relatives is not immoral so long as the personal rights of each are respected and no one is compelled to choose a vocation, to marry or to abstain from marriage, to sacrifice his religious convictions, or hindered in the performance of his duties. But when love of one’s kin leads to clannishness, to undue pride, and to the exploitation of outsiders, it is sinful and apt to foment social disturbances.⁶

⁶ St. Augustine, De Civ. Dei, l. XV, c. 16, n. 1: “Since, after the first union of the man made from dust and his wife from the man’s side, the human race needed the joining of males and females in order to be multiplied by generation, and there were no human beings except those who had been born from those two, the men took their sisters as wives; and this act, certainly, the earlier it was under the compulsion of necessity, the more damnable it afterward became when religion prohibited it. For the most right account was taken of charity: that men, for whom useful and honorable concord existed, should be bound by the ties of diverse relationships, and that one man should not have many of them in one person, but that individual relationships should be distributed among individuals and thus, for the more diligent binding together of social life, many relationships should hold many persons. Father and father-in-law, indeed, are names of two relationships. Therefore, in order that each person might have one man as father and another as father-in-law, charity extends itself more widely.”—Ibid., n. 3: “The union, therefore, of male and female, so far as the mortal race is concerned, is a kind of nursery of the state.” (Migne, P. L., XLI, 457, 459).—St. Thomas, S. Th., 2a 2ae, qu. 154, art. 9; 3a, Suppl., qu. 54, art. 3: “Incidentally, the end of marriage is the alliance of men and the multiplication of friendship, since a man regards his wife’s blood relatives as his own. And therefore prejudice would be done to this multiplication of friendship if someone married a wife connected to him by blood, because from this no new friendship would accrue to anyone through marriage.”—On endogamy and exogamy see Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, pp. 451 sqq.—Cfr. Linsenmann, Moraltheol., pp. 654 sq.

n. ¶9.

The duties arising between masters and domestic servants from the express or implicit contract existing between them, are duties of justice in the strict sense,⁷ neglect of which involves sin and the duty of making restitution. Besides the duties flowing directly from the contract, there are other duties, which bind masters to provide for the spiritual and, to a certain extent and more remotely, also for the temporal welfare of their servants. They should not only make it possible for their servants to comply with their religious duties, but exhort and persuade them to avoid proximate occasions of sin. Servants, on their part, should be faithful to their employers, honor them, promote their interests, obey them in all legitimate things, and keep the secrets entrusted to them. As a rule it is a mortal sin for a servant to make statements which are apt to cause his employer considerable loss or annoyance.

⁷ Ecclus. XXXIII, 31; Eph. VI, 5–9; Col. III, 22–24; IV, 1; 1 Tim. VI, 1 sq.; Tit. II, 9; 1 Pet. II, 18 sq.—Elbel-Bierbaum, Theol. Mor., Vol. I, 3rd ed., 740 sqq.; Gury, Comp. Theol. Mor., Vol. I, n. 392–394.

n. ¶10.

In the ideal social order every servant would be enabled sooner or later to become his own master and to govern others, service would merely be a condition of, and a preparation for, the government of others, and no one would command who had not previously learned to obey.

n. ¶11.

READINGS.—Sailer, Handbuch der christl. Moral, Vol. III, pp. 194 sqq.—Jocham, Moraltheologie, Vol. III, pp. 336 sqq.—H. Noldin, Summa Theol. Mor., Vol. II, pp. 314 sqq.—A. Lehmkuhl, S. J., Theol. Mor., Vol. I, pp. 554 sq.—Th. Meyer, S.J., Inst. Iuris Nat., Vol. II, pp. 112 sqq.—F. A. Göpfert, Moraltheologie, Vol. II, pp. 29 sq., 427 sqq.

Vermeersch, Theologia Moralis

Arthur Vermeersch, S.J. — 6 passages

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tractate IV: On Observance…, Art. I, § 1. On Masters and Domestic Servants

n. 329.

I. 1. Household servants must acknowledge and reverence the domestic power of the master almost as children, at least those greater by birth. But if they are minors by birth, they are constituted in reality under the paternal governance of the master. Therefore in matters which regard the domestic order, and, if they are minors, their right institution, they must obey the master. And they are at the same time obliged to foster and show internal and external love and reverence.

Yet if, in certain regions, express agreement or usage more tempers the rights or power of the master, at least for servants greater by birth, and circumscribes them by certain acts, it will be enough that the servant furnish the things promised.

Besides, because of the wage agreed upon, they must serve faithfully. Nor can they break off the contract before the time or day set, without a very grave cause.
But if they depart before the day, of themselves they are not prohibited from seeking some just stipend for the time through which they have served. Yet the master then is not bound to pay the agreed wage pro rata, but it is enough that he pay the one departing before the time the lowest just wage; indeed, one departing unjustly is held for damages. Laws or received usages are accustomed to define these matters more, just as they order the forewarning which must be made.
Household servants must impede the grave damage of the master which they can impede. But if there is question of things whose care has been expressly or tacitly committed to them, they cannot be excused from restitution who permit damage to be inflicted, whether by strangers or by other servants. Otherwise, of themselves they do not have the office of watching over other servants, so that they are not bound from justice to report those same ones sinning or stealing.
Scandal or another grave inconvenience being excluded, on account of a denied just wage or fitting sustenance, servants are not prohibited from using hidden compensation. Yet let the confessor beware lest he easily advise this or even permit it, since servants are ready to exceed, and those arts grow into bad customs in them. If they have furnished services beyond what was due, it must be prudently judged whether they are considered to have undertaken those services gratis, as if they wholly of their own accord performed them, or, on the contrary, at least tacitly asked, from an intention of wage.

Among the propositions which were condemned and prohibited "as they stand, as scandalous and pernicious in practice" by Innocent XI, March 2, 1679, this 37th is read: "Male and female domestic servants can secretly take from their masters in order to compensate their labor, which they judge greater than the salary which they receive" (Denz. n. 1187). For so general a proposition would permit compensation even to the servant who freely, without necessity, had agreed concerning a stipend; even to him who, from charity, had been admitted to certain services; even to him judging imprudently. Such compensation can only cautiously be tolerated or excused. Indeed several stricter authors required the most common judgment of the skilled, or of a very learned man versed in moral matters. Cf. St. Alphonsus, L. 3, n. 522-524; Lehmkuhl, I, 1126.

n. 330.

II. 1. Masters themselves and Superiors are bound by offices of quasi-piety toward these servants. Therefore they are forbidden to permit them a proximate occasion of sinning, when they can impede it; to prohibit them from observing the precepts of the Church; to provoke them with injuries; to expel them from the house before the day. But if they have expelled them without a very grave cause, they must at least refund that which is of interest, and that which the judge has determined must be paid. For there are civil laws which oblige the whole wage to be paid.

Positively they must admonish and correct them, insofar as this can usefully be done; help them by good example; and beware lest they receive under their roof or keep corrupters of others; promise them a fitting wage and pay it seasonably, much less, as sometimes happens, extort borrowed money from them for their own luxury.
Of themselves, they are not bound to pay salary to a sick servant, nor are they compelled to bear the expenses of care. But usages must be observed, nor is it fitting that those who are of the family be treated rigorously, since, on the contrary, piety and charity persuade that these persons, beyond what is due, be surrounded with friendly benevolence.
If the servants are adolescents or minors by birth, the masters supply for parents, and they cannot cast off the office of human, moral, and religious institution.

Vol. II, Bk. II, Tractate IV: On Observance…, Art. I, § 2. On Masters of Works and Hired Workmen

n. 331.

Both, the master as well as the workman, must observe justice in making and executing the contract.
Justice besides obliges the master to preserve safe both the person of the worker, i.e. his body and soul, and his honor; it obliges the worker not to injure the things or reputation of the master.

a) Therefore the master violates justice who, when he can pay more, promises an insufficient salary to a strong and fully useful worker; who does not apply fitting diligence to beware lest from the arrangement of the workshop, from the ordering of labor, some unnecessary danger impend to the health, life, or members of the worker. But detriments which cannot morally be removed must at least be compensated by a greater stipend. - He must also beware from justice lest, from the way in which things are arranged or from license permitted to others, the workers be in a proximate occasion of sinning.

Labor on a feast day, nocturnal labor, labor too prolonged, or that which in some way consumes the powers, apart from agreement, cannot be imposed without necessity and must be compensated by a greater price. An agreement, freely entered into, concerning labor of this kind, although often to be disapproved, nevertheless is not strictly repugnant to justice.

But if there is question of boys or adolescents, neither their own assent nor that of their parents excuses from violated commutative justice the manufacturer who demands of them works too grave, or too prolonged, or too stupefying to the mind.

b) The worker violates justice who injures the instruments, animals, or reputation of the master; who betrays a secret expressly or tacitly promised; who interrupts before the day the works promised.

Yet not rarely today, when a common strike has been declared, individual workmen will be compelled themselves to refuse works.

n. 332.

On strikes. From the end, strikes are illicit which happen for disturbing society, or for extorting a wage beyond the just sum, or any unjust conditions. From the mode, strikes are opposed to commutative justice: a) those by which, before the time established by free agreement, work is ceased, unless they happen for rescuing workers from unjust vexation; b) those which exercise unjust coercion of others. But that coercion is unjust by which, through force, fraud, threats, or strictly harmful means, the other workers are prohibited from labor; or by which the other workers are virtually interdicted from water and fire. From the effects, those strikes are gravely opposed to charity and piety toward the fatherland which happen for a cause not sufficiently grave, or whose happy outcome is too uncertain, or which are announced when a gentler way is available for attaining the intended end. But among the workers some are unwillingly compelled to carry out the strike, and these cannot be accused of injustice; others have a formal part in strikes, but are ignorant of their injustice: in good faith they are immune from formal injustice; others consciously cooperate with injustice: these sin, but, excepting damages which they have caused by their immediate cooperation, in practice they will scarcely have to be obliged to restitution, which for the most part they will not be able to make and which is easily tacitly condoned to them. Then there remain the authors and favorers of illicit strikes, who are guilty of very grave sin and often take upon themselves very grave obligations. - Cf. more in Quaestiones de Iustitia, n. 470-475.

n. 333.

The hiring of works is followed by a bond of closer nearness by which master and worker are joined one with the other: for to the essential society of men, a certain new union has been added. There follows also a debt of quasi-piety in the master, but of observance in the worker. For from the agreement itself, the master moves and directs the workers in order to attaining the end of the work; master and workmen breathe together toward one immediate end. These things cannot happen without some superiority and subjection, which necessarily generate mutual offices of quasi-piety and observance. Indeed, according to various circumstances and persons, those offices can be intensified or remitted; but they cannot be wholly suppressed.

n. 334.

But a certain imitation of masterly society, by which hired workers, in condition and affection, approach household members, is especially consonant with the vows of nature, since it introduces greater unity in the human race and diffuses greater happiness. Cf. Quaest. de Iustitia, n. 467.

The Code contains these two notable canons concerning the present matter.

"Not only parents and others who hold the place of parents, but also masters and sponsors are bound by the obligation of taking care that all subject to them or commended to them be instructed by catechetical instruction" (c. 1335).

"All, and especially clerics, religious, and administrators of ecclesiastical things, in the hiring of works must assign to workers an honest and just wage; take care that these same have suitable space of time for piety; by no agreement draw them away from domestic care and the study of thrift, nor impose upon them more work than their powers can bear, nor that kind which conflicts with age and sex" (c. 1524).

First also, in the international treaty of peace after the bloody war, declarations are read which protect the rights and utilities of workers.

Marc, Institutiones Morales

Clement Marc, C.SS.R. — 20 passages

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, CHAPTER IV: On the Mutual Obligations of Inferiors and Superiors · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. I, § 1. On the Obligations of Servants · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. I, § 2. On the Obligations of Masters · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. II, § 1. On the Obligations of Disciples · Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. II, § 2. On the Obligations of Teachers

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, CHAPTER IV: On the Mutual Obligations of Inferiors and Superiors

Encyclical Rerum novarum (ed. Herder), p. 28; authors cited at the beginning; Biederlack, Die soz. Fr., p. 154; Willems, III, p. 415 seqq.; Cathrein, Moralphil., II, p. 436 seqq.; Burg, Vie sociale des nat. mod., p. 437; Koch, Moraltheol., 2160, 167; Schindler, Moraltheol., II, 714, 761 seqq.; Forster, Schule u. Character.

The duties which are proper either to inferiors or to Superiors, some arise from justice, from the contract of hiring work, and are positive; others from observance which is to be given to personal dignity, and are rather completive and negative, insofar as it is licit to attempt nothing against this superiority. Concerning the former there will be treatment below (n. 1153); concerning the latter there was discussion when we were speaking of the virtue of observance (cf. n. 689). It remains that we here add a few things: 1. concerning the mutual obligations of servants and masters; 2. concerning the obligations of disciples and teachers toward each other.

n. ¶3.

As regards the duties of parish priests and of those who bear a public office, see n. 2250, 2265, 2282 seqq.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. I, § 1. On the Obligations of Servants

By the generic name of servants there is designated by authors a threefold genus of men, of whom some are obliged more strictly than others; and thus someone is also called master in a threefold way. a) There are slaves, who depend on the master perpetually and for all works. b) There are domestics, who freely hire their works for a time to a richer person, and are as though enrolled into the family. c) There are artisans and workers, who freely hire their works for a certain time, but are not admitted among the household.

n. ¶705.

Principle. Servants are held to furnish reverence, obedience, and fidelity to their masters. Thus from natural right, from the natural condition of servants, and from a pact freely entered (III, 343 seqq.; H. Ap., VII, 8-11).

Reverence: for the master is the head of the family or workshop. The Apostle says (1 Tim., 6, 1): Let servants judge their masters worthy of all honor. This, proportion being had, must be applied to servants.
Obedience: for the master shines with authority, so that in those things which regard service and good morals the word of the Apostle has force: Servants, obey carnal masters with fear and trembling, ... as Christ: serving not to the eyes, ... but as servants of Christ, doing the will of God from the soul (Ephes., 6, 5, 6).

Hence they sin if they resist just and express commands of masters; if by contumacy, indocility, neglect of their offices, they provoke them to anger; likewise, if they obey in illicit things (cf. n. 521).

Fidelity, and indeed from the contract entered according to civil laws and customs of the place, whence from strict justice: to this end they were hired and receive a stipend, that they may faithfully serve, labor strenuously, care for the master's things, steal nothing, or allow nothing to be stolen by others. Whence the Apostle: Servants ought to be subject to their masters, pleasing in all things, not contradicting, not defrauding, but showing good faith in all things (Tit., 2, 9, 10).

Therefore servants sin, more or less by reason of matter, and are held to compensation of damage: a) If they spend a notable part of the time owed to service in idleness, or divert it to their own utility or that of others. - b) If, without just cause, they depart from their masters before the agreed time.¹ Concerning cessation from labor by agreement, strikes, see n. 1154, q. 1. - c) If because of culpable carelessness they bring detriment to domestic things. d) If they betray the secrets of the family. e) If they steal more delicate foods. f) If without the consent of the master, at least presumed, they bestow alms from his goods. g) According to the more common and more probable opinion, if they do not protect the master's things from the theft of outsiders.² We say outsiders, because it is more probable that a servant is not held from justice to impede the thefts of other domestics, unless he is deputed to this, or unless it is a question of things specially committed to him. h) If, not content with the stipend legitimately agreed, under pretext of compensation, they steal something (III, 344 seq.; ed. G., I, p. 610). Cf. n. 918.

n. ¶706.

- Practical rules. 1. Care must be taken that servants be content with their lot. For the state of subjection helps much toward obtaining eternal salvation. - 2. Girls are to be turned away lest, on account of a greater stipend, they migrate into cities for the sake of serving; for in cities great dangers for the most part threaten them, especially where they have no one whom they can consult. - 3. It must be strictly forbidden to servants that they hire their work to masters in whose houses they would be exposed to proximate danger of sinning, or to grave harm concerning faith and morals. But if there is question of heretical masters, conditions concerning the laws of the Church to be observed must be expressly added (cf. n. 447, 450, 2). - 4. Servants must be admonished that a right is conferred on them also by law (cf. German Code, § 618, 626) to depart, if the master does not make provision for satisfying the prescriptions of religion or similar things. If they depart from a just cause, they can exact the whole stipend corresponding to the time of service exhibited, and then they are not held to supply the works from which they ceased (H. Ap., VII, 8).

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. I, § 2. On the Obligations of Masters

n. ¶707.

Principle. Masters, both from charity and from a certain natural equity, or even from justice, are held by special obligations toward their servants. And indeed they must:

Treat them kindly: namely on account of human dignity, by addressing them decently, furnishing them good and sufficient food, not burdening them too much, caring conveniently for the sick, according to that (Eccli., 23, 31): If thou hast a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy soul: treat him as a brother.

Hence, they sin if they burden them with immoderate labor, or affect them with insults, say if they call them devils, dogs, etc. Yet such names are commonly not held as grave injuries (III, 342).

Instruct and correct them: for they are their head, and they bear the place of parents toward them. Whence the Apostle: If anyone does not have care for his own and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever (1 Tim., 5, 8).

Hence masters sin, of themselves gravely: a) If they are the cause that servants do not satisfy the precept of feasts, of prescribed abstinence, of the reception of the sacraments, etc. b) If they do not correct them when they blaspheme, speak shameful things, or furnish scandal (cf. n. 496). c) If they do not dismiss the incorrigible, when they can find others fit. d) They are especially guilty if they induce a male servant or maidservant to evil, by depraved examples, words, solicitations, or if they permit an occasion of sinning, while they can impede it (cf. n. 515, 9).

Pay them a just price:³ for defrauding the owed wage is counted among the sins crying to heaven, and must be repaired by restitution.

Hence, they sin against justice, gravely or lightly according to the matter subjected: a) Who do not pay the promised or customary stipend, or defer it for a long time, with certain harm to the servant. b) Who dismiss a servant before the prefixed time, without just cause and without congruous indemnity. In this case, in punishment of his injustice, the master is held in conscience, says St. Alphonsus (III, 342), to pay the servant at least the greater part than half of his salary; indeed, according to Lessius (l. 2, c. 24, n. 8), he is held to grant the whole wage, at least after sentence. But others oblige the master only to compensation of damages, Noldin (II, 295).

n. ¶708.

Note. Masters are not held, unless perhaps custom or pact bears otherwise, or charity because of grave necessity demands help, to pay a stipend for some notable time, say several months, which servants spend outside service on account of sickness or their own convenience; nor to furnish great expenses owed to physicians or pharmacists. These things indeed hold from natural right; but positive laws often establish otherwise, and since this confers on servants a true right, it must be observed in conscience.⁴

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. II, § 1. On the Obligations of Disciples

n. ¶709.

Principle. Disciples, both from piety toward parents and by reason of the pact entered by parents, owe to their teachers love, reverence, and obedience in those things which pertain to studies and good morals. The reason is that parents, by this very fact that they have committed children to teachers to be educated, have delegated their own authority to them for obtaining this end. - In Religion, a similar office toward professors is founded in piety toward the Order.

Therefore disciples sin: 1. "Who mock their teachers, deride them, detract from them, affect them with curses, calumnies, troubles, provoke them to anger, and then they sin by a double sin. In these things, however, Sporer adverts, for the most part children are excused from mortal sin, because of levity, imprudence, or passion." - 2. "Who do not comply with teachers seriously commanding in a matter regarding good morals, studies, or the discipline of the school. But the sin is light

or grave, according to the reason of the matter," although inadvertence more often excuses them from mortal sin. - 3. Those who spend time in idleness, in play, or in other follies; "who during the time of lessons attend to nothing or little, the mind distracted elsewhere and preoccupied with various useless cares. In these and similar things, disciples sin gravely if by this manner of acting the acquisition of sciences necessary to status or condition is notably impeded. For estimating this, two things must be attended to: namely the quantity of time uselessly consumed, and the quality of the things which the teacher then hands on" (cf. Jaugey, n. 620).

Note. Disciples who are of their own right, and enter Institutes or Colleges in which they live under the authority of a Superior, are altogether held to observe the statutes of the Institute and to furnish obedience to the Superior, from the renunciation of their liberty freely furnished.

Vol. I, Pt. II, Sect. II, Tr. IV, Ch. IV, Art. II, § 2. On the Obligations of Teachers

n. ¶710.

Principle. Teachers, both by reason of office and by reason of the stipend received, are held suitably to instruct and educate pupils. The reason: the contract entered with parents so wills.

Hence they must: 1. Hand on sound doctrine and one fit for the intended scope. If in the books which one is compelled to use there are found certain things less right or adverse to religion, the teacher must amend the ambiguous and suspect things by opportune explanations (Kenrick, tr. 13, n. 38). But if the books are by profession contrary to faith or good morals, it will by no means be licit to introduce them and use them. - 2. Teach by a convenient method and one accommodated to the capacity of the disciples, so that their minds are not overwhelmed, nor affected with weariness. Cf. St. Thom., opusc. de Virt., c. 2. - 3. Insert into the souls of the disciples the seeds of Christian virtues, be to them of good example, and watch attentively over their morals. For they are in the place of parents for spiritual education.

n. ¶711.

- Therefore they sin: 1. If they dissemble the sins of disciples, and do not correct them. - 2. If they do not promote their progress in letters. - 3. If they do not teach good morals. - 4. If deliberately they teach false things as true, or superstitious things and things harmful to salvation. - 5. If they themselves do not study so that they may satisfy the office. - 6. If they exact a stipend greater than just, or than the laws or custom of the gymnasium permit. - 7. If they deny the insignia of doctorate to the worthy, or confer them on the unworthy. - 8. If they are of evil example to disciples. - 9. If they admit to schools those imbued with evil morals and pernicious to others, or do not dismiss them from those schools (III, 362).

SCHOLIUM

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, CHAPTER IV: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER SUPERIORS AND INFERIORS · Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, Art. I, § I. On The Obligations Of Masters · Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, Art. I, § II. On The Obligations Of Servants · Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, ARTICLE II: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS · Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, ARTICLE III: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF MAGISTRATES AND CITIZENS

On Depraved Schools

Cf. the Pontifical documents cited below; Jansen, de Facult. doc.; Zitelli, App. Jur. eccl., p. 499; Pierret, L'esprit moderne; Goyau, L'ecole d'aujourd'hui; Hammerstein, Die Schulfrage; Willems, Phil. mor., III, p. 487; Aertnys, Fasc. theol. mor., I, n. 38; Ami du Cl. (cf. Gen. Index, v. Enseignement); Stimmen aus Maria-Laach; Questions actuelles, where there are many things; Wernz, Jus Decr., III, 66.

n. ¶712.

- Notions. 1. A school is called depraved if it is not conformable to the principles of the Catholic religion concerning educating youth. - 2. Schools of this kind a) sometimes are ruled by a depraved spirit or according to the tenets of a heterodox sect, and are impious; b) sometimes prescind from every positive religion, and are called neutral; - c) sometimes admit children pertaining to any sect whatsoever, and are named mixed.

There will not be discussion here of impious schools, since in relation to these the principles are too plain. The question is only agitated concerning schools which they call neutral; and the principles which we shall establish concerning neutral schools it will also be licit to apply to mixed schools, since regularly in them positive religion is not taught.

n. ¶713.

Principles. I. That manner of instructing youth which excludes every religious education is of itself most adverse to the Catholic cause. The reason is because 1. it induces, of itself, into contempt of religion, as if namely religion were to be esteemed nothing; 2. it is separated from the authority of the Church; whence it can happen that teachers are placed over schools and books are used which pour errors and seeds of vices into tender minds; 3. it is impossible to hand on precepts of morals without religion, and to teach certain sciences, for example history, without the teacher saying something incidentally concerning revelation and the Church, and either patronizing or opposing them; - 4. the authors themselves of this instruction have confessed that one of its ends is the overthrow of religion. Thus from the Instruction of the S. C. de Prop. F. to the Bishops of North America, 24 Nov. 1875 (A. S. S., XI, p. 44).

And Leo XIII, in the Encyclical Letter Nobilissima directed to the Bishops of France on 8 Feb. 1884, confirmed these things: "The Church ... has always openly condemned the schools which they call mixed or neutral, again and again admonishing fathers of families that in a matter of so great moment they should attend their mind to taking care."

n. ¶714.

II. Of schools which they call neutral, some are positively, others negatively harmful. Therefore not all bring equal danger. This is gathered from the cited Instruction.

Now: 1. Those are negatively harmful in which nothing adverse to faith or morals is taught. 2. But those are positively harmful in which the integrity of faith or the honesty of morals, or both together, are exposed to proximate danger.¹

Moreover, the causes on account of which they become POSITIVELY harmful are three of themselves and regularly: a) books, which little by little destroy religion or modesty, or both, in the souls of children; - b) teachers, who instill the poison of error into the souls of children, if not openly, at least craftily and gradually; - c) fellow-disciples who cultivate either a false religion or none, and are furnished with such morals and accustomed to such license of speaking and acting, that from this the faith of youths, although excellently instructed at home, is shaken, or certainly modesty and piety are consumed. It is plain that, besides these sources of dangers, which are given as regards schools in general, others can be present in this or that school, if namely boys with girls are ordered to sit on the same bench. It is plain also that in higher schools, because the mind is more imbued with religion, the influence of evil is often less than in others, especially elementary ones.

n. ¶715.

III. Schools called neutral cannot be frequented with a safe conscience unless a sufficient cause is present and opportune cautions are used.² This the natural law itself and divine law proclaim.

We have said: 1. A sufficient cause is present. This is plain from the fact that great danger of perversion is feared. But from the magnitude of the danger, weigh what cause can be called truly sufficient: a) If the neutral school is negatively harmful, the danger ordinarily will be remote, and therefore ordinary grave causes will be sufficient, for example if a neighboring school is found little fit for educating children conveniently to their condition, and the means are lacking of educating offspring Catholicly in another region. b) If the school is positively harmful, the danger ordinarily will be proximate, therefore urgent reasons are required, for example if no other school were at hand, if continual vexations from the Government were feared, etc. In each case, mentioned under a) and b), cautions are required more or less rigorous according to the gravity of the danger. c) If the school is so positively harmful that necessarily, even with cautions used, perversion infects souls, no cause can be called sufficient, and such a danger must altogether be avoided, with any temporal harm whatsoever, even of life, as is from the cited Instruction.

Opportune cautions are used. For by these means the danger must be made remote, insofar as it can be (cf. cited Instruction).

n. ¶716.

- To use cautions pertains to the parish priest, to parents, to the scholars themselves. And indeed: a) Let the parish priest devote himself much more diligently to catecheses, attending especially to those things which are more frequently attacked by the enemies of our faith. Let him teach not only publicly and through houses, but admonish each one; let him help in resistance against perverters one whom he knows to be placed in such straits (cf. Acts Ap., c. 20). b) Let parents watch solicitously over their children, through themselves or through others carefully question them concerning the lessons heard, recognize the books handed to them, and if they detect anything harmful there, furnish antidotes. But if books handed on by the teacher have been condemned by the Bishop, let them altogether forbid the children to use such books, and from competent authority strongly and persistently demand their removal. If any societies established by fathers of families, associations des peres de famille, exist in the region, let them give their name to these, so that thus, with a juridic person intervening, complaints may become more effective. c) The scholars themselves, on whom harmful books are imposed, or whose teachers or fellow-soldiers labor to infect them, should know that they themselves personally, independently of parents, are held to cautions (Ami du Cl., 1912), yet in ways convenient to their age. They cannot retain with themselves harmful books prohibited by the Bishop, and, in the case in which such things are imposed on them, they are held to resist internally, indeed also externally; internally, by not approving, strengthening their will in good; externally, by not accepting the books without protest, by using them only for the time necessary, and by similar acts by which they make manifest horror of evil and aversion from dangers.

Note. He who desires to know more very useful things should read the Decrees of the Third Council of Baltimore, n. 194 seqq., confirmed by Leo XIII, 31 May 1893; the Responses from the Secretariat of State, 5 May 1911, in relation to books prohibited by the Bishops of France (in Ami du Cl., 1911, p. 598); he should also weigh the very many practical solutions which are to be found in the above-mentioned commentary, years 1908-1913, v. Manuels condamnes, peche scolaire. Cf. also Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 45, p. 47.

n. ¶717.

Consequences. 1. TEACHERS, teaching in a neutral public school, cannot of themselves introduce and explain harmful books. But if such books are imposed by office, and at the same time they foresee that resistance would be useless, they must necessarily read them in such a way that they provide an effective antidote to disciples, or, better, read those things alone which would be harmless. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1908, p. 846; 1911, p. 598; Linz. Quart. Schr., 1907, p. 375, diverse cases.

INSPECTORS should undertake their office with this mind, that they are prepared according to their powers to impede evil in positively harmful schools. The hope of good which they have must be founded; otherwise they would cooperate with evil (Konings, n. 440).
YOUTHS cannot go to schools called normal schools if they are positively harmful and they themselves remain exposed to depraved influences; if they are negatively harmful, access is not forbidden to youths, provided they form a firm purpose, in carrying out the office of teacher, of avoiding those things from which a Catholic teacher must abstain. But if they seem not about to be tenacious of this purpose, they are earnestly to be exhorted that they dedicate themselves to another office or art (Konings, l. c.).

As regards Colleges, Gymnasia, Universities, the rules handed on above can and must be applied, nevertheless with regard to the danger preserved. It is known that the Holy See has forbidden that clerics go to Government Universities without license of the Bishop, and Regulars who must teach without license of the Superior. Let especially the Encyclical Pascendi be read, by which those things are extended to the universal Church which in the year 1896 the S. C. Ep. et Reg. had sanctioned. Cf. Nouv. Rev. Theol., vol. 40, p. 750; A. S. S., vol. 29, p. 360; Ami du Cl., 1907, p. 1135.

If the University is non-Catholic, the Bishop must prescribe greater cautions as regards removing the danger. Only in recent times did the Holy See concede that Catholic youths go to the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge (S. Off., 26 Mar. 1891; S. C. de Prop. Fide, 17 Apr. 1895).

PRIESTS can hand on the teachings of the Christian faith in the mixed schools of heretics, or carry out the office of chaplain. The mind of the Holy See is that, not only over schools of handing on the faith, but also over schools of other disciplines, as much as can be done, priests or honest laymen be placed. S. Off. to the Bishops of Switzerland, 17 Jan. 1866 (in Bucceroni, Enchir. morale, p. 79).

n. ¶718.

- PRACTICAL RULES. 1. To parents who, the cautions mentioned above being spurned, without sufficient cause send children into harmful schools, absolution must firmly be denied. A fortiori this must be done if severe decrees promulgated by the Bishop command that the threatening evil be plucked up by the roots. It will always be better to seek a uniform norm from the Ordinary.

To children, since they are not of their own right and are usually made conscious of the gravity of the danger only little by little, let the benefit of absolution not be denied at the beginning. With great prudence let them be taught concerning those things which natural and episcopal law demand of them, and then only let them be dismissed unabsolved when sufficient knowledge of the obligation and evil disposition of the will are present.
Parish priests, so that they may more easily avert evils from children, have the office of often admonishing parishioners concerning the gravity of sin committed in this matter, so that thus the public conscience, as they say, may be formed according to the norm of right. But if certain persons from their parish, parents, children, or teachers, confess to an outside priest, and cautions as regards prohibited books, or sufficient causes as regards access to a harmful school, are in no way present, and this is publicly established, of himself the parish priest will be able to deprive the resistant, admonished once and again, of communion. But since public denial of communion is full of difficulties, let him do nothing without the Bishop being consulted. Cf. Ami du Cl., 1909, p. 1178; 1911, p. 198, 201, 503, 666.

Konings, Theologia Moralis

Anthony Konings, C.SS.R. — 18 passages

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, CHAPTER IV: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF OTHER SUPERIORS AND INFERIORS

The obligations which regard other Superiors or inferiors are generally the same, proportion observed, as the obligations of parents and children. Hence we shall say only a few things: 1° concerning the obligations of masters and servants; 2° of teachers and students; 3° of citizens toward temporal authority.

But concerning the offices of Pastors and other ecclesiastical Superiors there will be treatment in the Treatise on Particular States, where there is treatment of the clerical state.

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, Art. I, § I. On The Obligations Of Masters

n. ¶446.

- Masters are bound toward their servants: 1° to treat them kindly; 2° to instruct and correct them; 3° to pay them a just price.

I. To treat kindly, that is, by addressing them and prescribing to them decently and humanely; by furnishing good and sufficient food; by not burdening them with excessive works; by suitably caring for the sick. This is established from natural law and from Sacred Scripture: If thou have a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy own soul; treat him as a brother.² And you, masters, do the same things to them (servants), forbearing threatenings, knowing that the Lord both of them and of you is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him.¹

II. To instruct and correct: for the master is the head of the servant, as of the whole family; but it belongs to the head to direct where there is need. It seems also to be established from the words of Paul:² But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith and is worse than an infidel. But servants are reckoned among domestics. - Elbel,³ and others commonly.

III. To pay a just price: for there is question of an obligation of justice and natural equity; hence fraud of such wage is numbered among sins crying to heaven.

n. ¶447.

You will resolve. - Masters can sin, and indeed even gravely:

1° If they do not concede time to servants for learning the rudiments of the Christian Faith, or do not send them to catechism and sermon; - if they do not take care that at the time of the precept they confess and communicate.

2° If they hire or retain in the house servants who are irreligious, impious, blaspheming, speaking filthy things; - if they do not admonish and correct those sinning gravely; - or do not dismiss those unwilling to promise amendment, unless perhaps they have very great need of their work and cannot find others.

3° If they do not take care, as much as in them lies, that servants abstain from sins; - if they permit to them an occasion of sinning; - if by depraved example or solicitations they induce or allure them into sin.

4° If they do not pay the promised or just stipend, or delay too much; - if they do not care for a sick servant, immediately expel him, or dismiss him without a just cause before the fixed time. - But if a servant hired for a year is sick for some months, suppose for a quarter of a year, according to the truer opinion a salary is not owed to him for service not furnished; nor probably is the master obligated to the expenses of sickness, provided charity does not demand aid because of grave necessity. Except, for each case, if and insofar as custom bears otherwise, especially in brief sickness.⁴ Yet in these matters let equity prevail over strict right! - Similarly neither is the servant bound in such a case to supply his services. - To a servant departing before the fixed time by his own fault, according to the more common opinion, half the stipend owed for the time in which he served, or a little less, is owed, unless grave damage comes to the master from this, or mutual agreement or custom establishes otherwise.¹

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, Art. I, § II. On The Obligations Of Servants

n. ¶448.

- Servants are bound to furnish to masters:

1° Reverence; for thus the Apostle:² Let servants count their masters worthy of all honor. From this they can sin even gravely who ridicule masters, spurn them, or manifest their hidden defects.

2° Service and obedience in all those things to which they have obligated themselves by force of the contract, and in those things which look to good morals. Thus to the Ephesians:⁴ Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ. - And St. Peter:⁵ Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward.

Hence by reason of matter they sin more or less who, when something is prescribed to them, murmur, answer insolently, are accustomed to be unteachable, neglect to carry out the prescribed labor, or fail in the office imposed on them; and in one word, all who do not furnish the service such as is ordinarily able to be exacted and furnished from such persons.

3° Fidelity; according to the words of Paul:⁶ Servants to be subject to their masters, ... not defrauding, but in all things showing good fidelity.

Hence they sin, and often gravely against justice, who do not take care of the things entrusted to themselves; who from their own fault permit them to become worse; who steal precious victuals, or those not customarily given to them, either to eat, or to give or sell to outsiders.

n. ¶449.

- Quaer. What do our laws generally establish concerning the obligations of masters and servants?

Resp. 1° The "relation of master and servant rests altogether upon contract," express or implied.¹ If this contract is lacking, nothing is owed by civil law to a servant.²

2° "If the servant hired for a definite term leaves the service before the end of it, without reasonable cause, or is dismissed for such misconduct as justifies it, he loses his right to wages for the period he has served. A servant so hired may be dismissed by the master before the expiration of the term, either for immoral conduct, wilful disobedience, or habitual neglect."³

3° The power of the master of giving "moderate corporal correction to his servant ... may safely be confined to apprentices and menial servants while under age, for then the master is to be considered as standing in loco parentis."⁴

4° "The master is not bound to provide even a menial servant with medical attendance and medicines during sickness."⁵

Concerning servants whom they call "apprentices," see, if you like, Kent.⁶

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, ARTICLE II: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF TEACHERS AND STUDENTS

n. ¶450.

- I. Teachers and instructors owe to students: 1° love; 2° example; 3° correction; 4° doctrine. The reason is both because they in some way stand in the place of parents, and because they are instituted for educating students in sound doctrine of morals and letters.

Therefore they ought: 1° to perfect themselves in the knowledge which they teach, for duly educating others; 2° to promote the progress of students in letters, as much as in them lies; to turn them away, as much as they can, from others who are disgraced by depraved morals, and whom they ought in no way to admit into their schools.

Hence instructors can offend even gravely when they neglect the instruction of students, or punish them unjustly or indiscreetly; but especially if they seduce them, by impelling them for example to carnal sins; if they do not teach good morals; if deliberately they teach false things as true, or things harmful to salvation; if they admit or retain students imbued with evil morals who are pernicious to others, etc. Cf. n. 437. case VI, 440. 1°.

n. ¶451.

- II. Students are bound to exhibit to teachers:

1° Love and reverence, because of their superiority and care.

2° Obedience, while they are being educated by them in good morals and arts. The reason is plain: for the reciprocal obligation of students toward teachers imports this, since teachers would be obligated altogether in vain to educate them or imbue them with good morals unless students were likewise obligated to follow the admonitions and precepts of teachers.

Hence students sin if, instead of studying diligently, they waste time in idleness, play, or other foolishness contrary to the will of their teachers; but much more gravely if they detract from teachers, ridicule them, mock them, afflict them with curses, calumnies, annoyances, etc.

Concerning these obligations we note these dispositions of our civil law. "The power allowed by law to the parent over the person of the child may be delegated to a tutor or instructor, the better to accomplish the purpose of education. A schoolmaster, who stands in that character loco parentis, may in proper cases inflict moderate and reasonable chastisement, even for acts done out of school, if prejudicial to its order and good discipline."¹

Vol. I, TREATISE ON THE PRECEPTS O…, Ch. IV, ARTICLE III: ON THE OBLIGATIONS OF MAGISTRATES AND CITIZENS

n. ¶452.

- A. On Magistrates. Principles. I. They ought to know the things which pertain to their office, for example laws.

II. They are bound to seek and guard the common safety of all.

n. ¶453.

You will resolve. They sin:

1° Who, altogether ignorant of laws and not powerful in judgment, procure or assume some office for themselves, with danger of inflicting harm on those concerning whose controversies they are going to pronounce sentence, or whose business they are going to handle.¹

2° Who foster quarrels or lawsuits for their own gain.²

3° Who pronounce an unjust sentence, yielding to popular prejudices, or courting popular favor, or seeking the utilities of private persons, with damage to the innocent.³

4° Who permit the rights of conscience to be violated, the children of the poor being taken away by masters from ancestral Religion against the laws.⁴

5° Who promote or take care that men not suitable be promoted to offices because they are men of their own party;⁵ or indeed suitable men, but with the promoted, by wages agreed upon to the prejudice of the public treasury; and likewise those who take care or permit themselves to be promoted by this same pact.

6° Who either permit the public treasury to be pillaged, by entrusting public money to fraudulent men,⁶ or pillage it themselves, while, for example, they expose public money to dangerous businesses from which they hope profit for themselves, or on occasion of contracts which they enter with private persons in the name of the republic they bargain or procure something unjustly for themselves.

7° Higher magistrates, namely Presidents and Governors, if, uniquely seeking their repeated election, in distribution of offices and in laws either to be approved or vetoed they especially consider whether they are going to procure more votes for themselves, and to that end neglect the advantages of most citizens.⁷

8° Who do not take care that laws be committed to execution, and do not guard public tranquillity and order.⁸

n. ¶454.

- Yet they do not sin if, when asked and from office, or according to the laws, they do something which of itself is licit, but either because of adjuncts yields to the detriment of Religion, or is little consonant with the laws and mind of the Church, although not forbidden. For 1) they do these things not in their own name, but in the name of the law; and 2) they neither intend the evil effect from a cause not evil in itself, nor are they compelled to impede it with the loss of their office or with their own danger. Besides, they would try this in vain; for what citizens seek by force of law they will certainly obtain by recourse to others, especially superior magistrates. Therefore a Catholic magistrate will be excused who commands that a child be shut up in a prison, with testimony sworn before him according to the laws that the child is vagrant, or that the parents are vagrant, although he knows that by this arrangement the child is to be instructed there according to the principles of the sects. Nor does he sin who receives the matrimonial consent of citizens and refers this into the records, not solicitous concerning impediments of the Church; for in this case he usurps no spiritual authority, but only testifies concerning the consent furnished. Therefore the Cardinal Prefect of the Sacred Congregation de Propaganda Fide wrote back to Bishop Kenrick on July 30, 1851, that he was not to be disturbed for this cause. Nevertheless Catholic magistrates seem to sin who easily receive Catholics approaching them to contract matrimony, while there is a supply of a priest, since they add courage to sinners; but if, having been admonished, those who seek to enter nuptials are unwilling to desist, they are not guilty of fault because they furnish a merely civil service.¹

n. ¶455.

- B. On Legislators. Principles. I. They are bound to be skilled in the matters to be treated in the assembly of legislators,² or certainly to acquire skill in these, lest they either themselves give a vote rashly and with danger of harm to the republic or to private persons, or persuade others to give one.

II. They are bound principally to seek the public utility, and only then the utility of those by whose votes they were elected.³

n. ¶456.

- You will resolve. They sin:

1° Who promote the utilities and advantages of certain places for catching votes, with public detriment.⁴

2° Who, unless others obligate themselves to furnish votes for matters which have no public utility, refuse to vote for matters which concern all.⁵

3° Who squander public money in things of no moment.⁶

4° Who neglect to carry out those things which would bring very many advantages to the republic, or reject profitable things from party zeal.⁷

5° Who spend time in useless disputes, with expense to the fisc.⁸

6° Who give votes after a certain pact concerning payment has been entered.¹

7° Who take care that laws be made and unmade, that they may consult their own affairs with detriment of others.²

8° Who in the Senate cast votes concerning those designated by the President or Governor for some public office, from party zeal by voting for the unworthy or rejecting the worthy.³

9° Catholic legislators confirming by their vote whatever is opposed to the doctrine of the Church, for example that divorce from the bond of matrimony may be given because of adultery or another cause. But they are not to be blamed because they furnish their service for making laws by which the rights of all citizens are vindicated according to the Constitution.⁴

n. ¶457.

- C. On Citizens. Principles. I. Although it is licit for citizens to exercise all those rights which belong to them from the Constitution, nevertheless it is necessary to preserve both order and the laws of charity.⁵

II. In choosing magistrates and legislators public utility must be kept before the eyes, and votes must be given according to merit, so that he who seems more suitable and useful be preferred.⁶

III. Concerning those who discharge a public office it is not licit to speak rashly, nor maliciously to carp at things done by them; yet it is licit to scrutinize these, and to speak and write publicly about them, insofar as the laws permit, so that judgment may rightly be made concerning them, and the public utility may be provided for.⁷

IV. Nothing is to be attempted by the judgment of individuals against the authority of laws.⁸

n. ¶458.

You will resolve. They sin:

1° Who, led by money, favor, hatred, or zeal for private utility, confer votes on the unworthy.⁹

2° Against charity and justice, those who announce in public papers the hidden delicts of some persons which do not harm others, or in their speeches or conversations, so that they may repel them from some office or deprive them of it.¹⁰ Whether and when these are bound to restitution, see n. 715.

3° Who maliciously carp at the acts of magistrates, so that they stir up envy against them.¹¹

In what cases those of whom there is speech under 2° and 3° can be punished by our law, see apud Kent.¹

4° Who, with the authority of laws spurned, usurp to themselves the supreme right of life and death, as happens more often in this region, and generally rashly, namely under pretext and not by true title of necessity and common safety. (Lynchers) Kenrick.²

n. ¶459.

- Quaer. Is it ever licit to resist legitimate temporal authority?

Resp. Resistance is one thing passive, another active.

Passive resistance, or the simple refusal of obedience, obligates when something is prescribed which is contrary to a law from which either you can never be excused (as if there is question of a negative precept of the natural law), or at least here and now you are not excused; - it does not obligate, but is licit, when something is prescribed which here and now can both be furnished and omitted without sin; suppose because, although it is not illicit, nevertheless it exceeds the power of the one prescribing, or is useless to the common good, or is opposed to distributive justice, equality not being observed in the imposition of burdens. Except if per accidens, for example by force of the natural law, a precept of this sort would have to be observed, suppose because it cannot be neglected without scandal, or disturbance of public order, or grave damage to the common good.

As regards active resistance, or rebellion, these two things are certain: First, a case of rebellion, or of active resistance to legitimate authority, is not given when the community itself (not private persons), by force of the pact by which it was legitimately constituted, and in cases expressly determined in the pact, takes power away from someone in order to transfer it to another; for in these cases, the title perishing, the power ceases to be legitimate. The other is that it is not licit to rebel against a legitimate prince, as is clear from proposition 63 condemned in the Syllabus. See p. XLV. But whether a prince ceases to be legitimate when he has habitually become a tyrant in governance is disputed. Against those affirming stands the fact that much graver evils are wont to follow from active resistance than from tyranny, and that today, at least, in fact there is lacking one who may judge between the Prince and the nation. H. A. Tr. VIII. 13.

ON THE FIFTH PRECEPT OF THE DECALOGUE.

You shall not kill.¹

n. ¶460.

- This precept, insofar as it is negative, primarily indeed prohibits homicide, that is, the unjust killing of a man; secondarily, however, and consequently, every unjust lesion, wounding, or mutilation of the body, whether one's own or another's. But insofar as it is virtually affirmative, it commands the conservation of life.

Simple homicide is to be distinguished from qualified homicide, namely one having another species of sin annexed. Of this kind is 1° sacrilegious homicide, either by reason of the person killed, or by reason of the place in which the killing is done; 2° parricide, namely the slaughter either of parents or of children, or of a brother or sister, or of a spouse, or even of a Prince; 3° robbery-murder, namely killing or wounding from the will of plundering; 4° magical poisoning, when namely by the help of the demon bodily evil, or even death, is inflicted on someone.

But those things which will be established concerning killing, whether licit or illicit, will have to be applied, with due proportion observed, to mutilation or to any bodily lesion.

We must treat 1° of the killing of oneself; 2° of the killing of one's neighbor; 3° of the duel; 4° of war.

Prümmer, Manuale Theologiae Moralis

Dominic M. Prümmer, O.P. — 3 passages

Vol. II, Tr. XI, Sect. II, Q. II, Observance, and Obedience,…, Ch. II, Parents, Etc, Article IV. On the Obligations of Masters and Servants

n. ¶68.

In most regions the rights and duties of masters and servants are determined by the civil laws. These laws can generally be considered just, and consequently masters or servants who direct their manner of acting according to them are not to be disturbed. A closer relation exists between household masters and servants living under the same roof than between masters and workers living separately. For servants are accustomed truly to belong to the family of the household master, for which reason they are also called domestics. But workers or laborers merely hire their work to a master for a determined price, without living in the same house with the master. Nevertheless, for the sake of brevity, there are explained here together, on the one hand, the obligations of masters and household masters, and, on the other hand, the obligations of servants and workers.

n. 595.

595. Obligations of masters and household masters. Masters are bound: 1. to treat their servants and workers kindly; 2. to instruct and correct them; 3. to pay them a just wage.

1. To treat them kindly, that is, by addressing them decently and humanely, providing good and sufficient food, not burdening them with excessive labors, and suitably caring for the sick.¹⁰³¹ These things are established both from natural law and from Sacred Scripture: "If thou have a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy own soul: treat him as a brother."¹⁰³² "And you, masters, do the same things to them [namely, to servants], forbearing threatenings: knowing that the Lord both of them and you is in heaven; and there is no respect of persons with him."¹⁰³³ Hence masters sin who address servants with harsh and insulting words; who burden them with excessive labor; or who expose their health to dangers. In caring for sick servants, those things are to be observed which the civil laws establish concerning this matter.¹⁰³⁴

2. To instruct and correct them, or, in other words, a master is bound to have due spiritual care for his servants. For a master is the head and superior of his servant, whom he is therefore bound to direct in those things which regard religious and moral life. This duty is most grave. Hence St. Paul says severely: "But if any man have not care of his own, and especially of those of his house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."¹⁰³⁵

For this reason masters sin:

a) if they do not grant servants and workers time to fulfill religious obligations, for example, to hear Sunday Mass, receive the sacraments, or hear a sermon or catechesis;

b) if they do not prudently and charitably correct irreligious, blasphemous, or foul-speaking servants, those giving scandal to others, etc., and endeavor to bring them back to better fruit. But if all admonitions have been vain, such impious servants must be cast out of the house;

c) if they permit their servants a proximate occasion of sin, for example, by not prohibiting dangerous familiarities;

d) if they themselves give a bad example, or if they directly solicit their servants to sins. Masters should be wholly mindful of a truth confirmed by long experience: an impious and irreligious servant who neglects his duties toward God the Lord also neglects his duties toward a temporal lord.

3. To pay a just wage. What a just wage is was said above, n. 310, in the tract on justice. Defrauding another of a due wage is numbered among the sins crying to heaven.¹⁰³⁶ Notwithstanding the civil laws existing today in all civilized regions, harsh and unjust oppressions of servants and workers are sometimes committed by inhuman household masters and masters, by exacting labors not contained in the agreement, unduly delaying payment of wages, dismissing workers for frivolous causes, etc. All these things more or less violate justice or at least charity.

¹⁰³¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 342; Homo apost. tr. 7, 7; Gury, Cas. consc. I, n. 382.

¹⁰³² Ecclus. 33:31.

¹⁰³³ Eph. 6:9.

¹⁰³⁴ Cf. the insurance schemes for workers existing in diverse regions and prescribed by governments (Herder's Konversationslexikon, s.v. "Arbeiterversicherung").

¹⁰³⁵ 1 Tim. 5:8.

¹⁰³⁶ "Behold the hire of the laborers, ... which by fraud hath been kept back by you, crieth: and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth" (Jas. 5:4; cf. Deut. 24:14ff.).

n. 596.

596. Obligations of servants and workers. Servants and workers are bound to render to household masters and masters: 1. reverence; 2. obedience and faithful service.

1. Reverence. For this follows from the virtue of observance which subjects must exercise. Therefore St. Paul says: "Let servants count their masters worthy of all honor."¹⁰³⁷ Hence servants and workers sin who mock or despise their masters; who address them with insulting words; who speak ill of them; who behave toward them impudently and insolently, etc.

2. Obedience and faithful service must be rendered by servants and workers in all those things which pertain to service or to the works owed. For this follows from the authority which masters have from God after a contract of labor has been entered into. Hence St. Paul admonishes: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your lords according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in the simplicity of your heart, as to Christ."¹⁰³⁸ And St. Peter commands: "Servants, be subject to your masters with all fear, not only to the good and gentle, but also to the froward."¹⁰³⁹

Accordingly, servants and workers sin more or less according to the gravity of the matter if they murmur against just commands, answer insolently, do not work vigorously and waste time in idleness; if through their negligence damage is caused to domestic goods; if they reveal family secrets, etc. It is disputed among authors whether servants are bound to restitution if, through their fault, the master's goods are carried away by theft or are gravely damaged by others. It appears that an answer must be given with a distinction. When things of this kind have been specially committed to the custody of servants, then, if through their grave fault they perish or are carried away by theft, the servants are bound to restitution. For they are then themselves unjust cooperators and have violated the contract entered into.

But if the special care of the goods is not incumbent upon a servant, he is indeed bound from charity and equity to avert damages from the master's goods, but not from strict justice, and consequently he is not bound to restitution for damage inflicted by others and not prevented by him.¹⁰⁴⁰ The reason is that by force of the contract entered into, and therefore from justice, such servants are bound to nothing other than performing the stipulated works. Concerning this matter, however, the authors are by no means in agreement. A few authors, such as Billuart,¹⁰⁴¹ think that a servant is always bound to restitution for damage not prevented, or at least not disclosed, by whomever it may have been inflicted upon the household master. Others, with St. Alphonsus,¹⁰⁴² think that a servant who does not prevent damage to the household master according to his ability is indeed bound to restitution if that damage was caused by outsiders, but not if the damage was done by members of the household. The reason of these authors is that servants are bound from charity alone to protect their master's goods against members of the household, while on the contrary, by reason of their service, they tacitly obligate themselves to watch over the master's indemnity against outsiders.

I plainly do not see why servants, by reason of service alone, are bound less with respect to fellow servants and members of the household than with respect to outsiders; indeed, the more easily, frequently, and for a longer time damage can be inflicted, the greater is the obligation incumbent upon them to avert it. Moreover, members of the household more frequently cause damage to the household master than outsiders. Therefore it appears to follow logically that servants who do not prevent or report the thefts of fellow servants and other members of the household are more bound to restitution than if they conceal the same thefts when committed by outsiders. This, however, is most commonly rejected. Consequently, neither is a servant bound to restitution who, for example, does not prevent according to his ability the theft of something belonging to the household master which has not been specially committed to his care, unless, however, such restitution is imposed upon him by civil law.

How workers are bound to abstain from an unjust cessation of work or strike was said above, n. 307, in the tract on justice.

¹⁰³⁷ 1 Tim. 6:1.

¹⁰³⁸ Eph. 6:5.

¹⁰³⁹ 1 Pet. 2:18.

¹⁰⁴⁰ Cf. above, n. 110. Thus also Noldin, De praeceptis, n. 302.

¹⁰⁴¹ De iust. diss. 8, a. 13, § 7.

¹⁰⁴² Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 342.

Merkelbach, Pastoral Questions

Benedict H. Merkelbach, O.P. — 38 passages

Ch. I, Question III: Concerning Masters and Servants

n. ¶4282.

I. The duties of masters toward servants and workers are:

n. ¶4283.

A. Of justice: 1. faithfully to furnish those things to which they bound themselves by contract explicitly or implicitly, first of all to pay the wage due;

n. ¶4284.

not to impose work upon them beyond their strength;

n. ¶4285.

not to dismiss them before the time without a just cause.

n. ¶4286.

B. Of charity: 1. to acknowledge human dignity in subjects and to treat them kindly;

n. ¶4287.

in no way to impede them from their religious, moral, and family duties;

n. ¶4288.

to beware lest they provide scandal to them, and lest scandal be provided to them by others on the occasion of work or service.

n. ¶4289.

C. Moreover, of piety toward servants properly so called, domestic servants:

n. ¶4290.

to furnish suitable food to them and have care of their health, and even to provide a remedy for those who are sick for a short time, if custom has it so; but not if for a long time, unless it has been specially agreed;

n. ¶4291.

to watch over them so that they may lead a good and Christian life, and to ward off the danger of perversion and occasions of sin, especially if they are younger persons whose education masters ought to care for in the place of parents;

n. ¶4292.

also to correct them if by blasphemies, foul speech, impious discourse, illicit familiarities, they give scandal to others.

n. ¶4293.

II. Masters sin toward servants and workers:

n. ¶4294.

If they do not give them suitable food or a just wage, or due insurance against misfortune or dangers.

n. ¶4295.

If before the time they dismiss them without a just cause.

n. ¶4296.

If they do not pay salary at the time due, or without just cause subtract something from it.

n. ¶4297.

If they treat them harshly or afflict them with insults.

n. ¶4298.

If they furnish scandal or an occasion of sin to them, or do not avert it from them.

n. ¶4299.

Especially toward domestic servants, if they do not take care that they observe the precepts of God and of the Church, do not correct delinquents, and do not admonish those negligent in the matter of salvation.

n. ¶4300.

Hence, Reuter notes:¹ "if circumstances bear it, masters are to be admonished to satisfy their obligation, to treat servants kindly, not to call them by insulting words; to correct their errors, sometimes to overlook lighter ones, mindful of human frailty; to consult their reputation and not divulge their defects or vices, unless perhaps charity demands that they be revealed to another to whom they would thereafter wish to devote their labor; in which case also, no more is to be said than what conduces to the caution of the future master." And Aertnijs:² "Masters should be questioned whether they have corrected their servants when they were blaspheming, were not present at Mass, were not satisfying the paschal precept, were speaking foul things? Whether they permit the courtship of a male servant with a female servant in the same house, or clandestinely? Whether they have paid servants the agreed wage?"

¹ Neo-conf., n. 150.

² Th. P., n. 36.

n. ¶4301.

III. The duties of servants and workers are:

n. ¶4302.

To show the reverence due to the master.

n. ¶4303.

To furnish obedience to the master's commands, given concerning work or service in order to the execution of the contract.

n. ¶4304.

Not to harm the master's things, by abusing them or by inflicting damage.

n. ¶4305.

To furnish integrally and faithfully the labor agreed upon, and indeed with diligence and at the appointed time.

n. ¶4306.

Not to cease work or leave service before the appointed time, unless there is a grave and just reason; if nevertheless they did this because of grave fear or notable inconvenience, sometimes they could be immune from fault.

n. ¶4307.

Moreover, if they are servants properly so called or domestics, to obey in those things which pertain to the governance of the house and family, good morals, and peace, and, if they are minors, also in those things which pertain to their education and instruction.

n. ¶4308.

IV. Servants and workers sin:

n. ¶4309.

A. Against observance: if they treat the master irreverently, afflict him with insults, contemn him, mock him, detract from him, divulge those things which are done at home, or violate a secret known from their office.

n. ¶4310.

B. Against obedience: if they do not obey the master's commands as to work or service, and, for servants strictly so called, also as to the governance of the house and good morals.

n. ¶4311.

C. Against charity: if they scandalize the master, or also if they cooperate in his sin, unless from a proportionately grave cause this is done merely materially and only mediately.

n. ¶4312.

D. Against justice: 1. if through negligence they omit to furnish the service or work due.

n. ¶4313.

If they inflict real damage on the master, or even do not prevent it from being inflicted in those things which have been specially committed to their care.

n. ¶4314.

If, not content with the salary due, they strive to earn more than is just, or even secretly compensate themselves, unless it is certain that more is owed from justice and cannot otherwise easily be compensated.

n. ¶4315.

If they appropriate to themselves the things of the master, or dispose of them by giving or selling against the master's will.

n. ¶4316.

If in the name of the master they sell things more dearly or buy more cheaply and reserve the profit to themselves, unless the master consents, or the premium was certainly made in their favor.

n. ¶4317.

In a case of injustice committed, they are of themselves bound to restitution for emergent damage and ceasing profit. Let them attend that several damages or light thefts against the master can coalesce into one grave matter. Yet this ordinarily does not hold concerning things of lesser moment, as concerning common foods, because masters are not very unwilling about the surreption of them, or only about the mode; on the contrary, concerning things carefully guarded, large sums, exquisite foods, extraordinary things, or things of great value, it does hold.

n. ¶4318.

Concerning all the aforesaid they are to be admonished when opportunity is given and questioned, for example, whether they have faithfully fulfilled their duties, have well furnished the labor due by agreement, have not handed over work affected with a hidden or harmful defect, have labored diligently and not spent working time idle, have not called others away from work, have had care of the master's things and have not stolen from him.

n. ¶4319.

V. Admonition: concerning masters who preside over larger industrial workshops and more abundant stores of things. - Let these take special care not to act unjustly toward workers, and to use great riches well, lest they be a scandal to workers and the poor. As Lehmkuhl notes,³ the confessor ought to watch: whether they fulfill the duties of a good father of a family and duly watch over their own, whether they abstain from depraved or dangerous amusements. But let him take care: that they lead a life useful to the common good and use money for founding works truly useful to human society, abstaining from excessive prodigalities; that they make large alms to the poor and to charitable works; that in honor and imitation of Christ crucified they abstain from worldly amusements and lead a simple life.

³ In the edition of the work of Reuter, Neo-conf., n. 156a.

Merkelbach, Summa Theologiae Moralis

Benedict Henry Merkelbach, O.P. — 51 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Vol. II, Special Moral Theology: On…, Treatise: On the Cardinal …, Third Part: Concerning Com…, Sect. C, Ch. III, Question Two: On Letting a…, Article III: On the Letting of Services, or On the Contract of Labor

550. The duties of justice of workers are indicated by Leo XIII:

"1. What has been freely and equitably agreed concerning work, that they should render wholly and faithfully; 2. not to harm the property in any way; 3. not to violate the person of the owners; 4. in defending their own interests, to abstain from force, nor ever to stir up sedition, nor to mingle with wicked men"; 5. by which words an unjust strike also is prohibited.

Therefore workers must:

Furnish wholly and faithfully that amount of work which has been freely and equitably agreed; and therefore a) perform the determined work at the prefixed time; b) complete it with due diligence, which is required by pact, law, or custom; this generally is sufficient when common and ordinary, yet sometimes from the nature of the thing, or by reason of the pact and a greater stipend, special care is owed; c) accordingly obey the commands of the owner given concerning labor in order to the execution of the contract.³

³ Cf. Belgian law of 10 March 1900 concerning the contract of labor, a. 7-10.

The obligations are of justice, as flowing from the bilateral onerous contract itself: for the worker does not make his own the wage, if he does not wholly, faithfully, and fittingly fulfill the work which he promised to furnish. Hence he sins against justice if from carelessness or culpable negligence he spends time uselessly, or furnishes his work defectively; the gravity of this sin depends upon the gravity of the damage inflicted.

Not to harm the property in any way, that is, to inflict no damage, whether by using materials prodigally, or by destroying machines, or by damaging or not returning instruments, or by producing defective wares, or by revealing the secret of manufacture; for by means of this sort injury is inflicted upon the owner or also upon buyers.

The gravity of the sin depends upon the gravity of the damage inflicted; this is also prohibited by civil law and sometimes punished by fines. But if damage arises from a fortuitous event, the worker is not held to compensate it, nor on that account does he lose the right to the agreed stipend.⁴

⁴ Ibid., a. 9.

Not to violate the person of the owners, that is, to inflict no injury upon the owners themselves, whether by harming, or by calumniating, or by grieving them with insults or threats.

Concerning the gravity of the injury, judgment must be made from what has been said concerning injustice through involuntary commutations, also noting that there is present a special malice against the observance owed to owners by their workers.

In defending their rights, to abstain from force, sedition, and mingling with wicked men. It is indeed lawful for workers to pursue their rights by legitimate means, by entering associations, by setting forth their desires to the owners, by having recourse to magistrates and deputies in public assemblies; but they must abstain from sedition and violent or unjust means.⁵

⁵ Ibid., a. 15.

Those acting thus commonly harm not only the owners but themselves, since the ruin of industry by its nature is apt to bring more detriments to these than to those. Hence the Pontiff admonishes them "not to mingle with wicked men, skillfully throwing out immoderate hopes and enormous promises, which generally has useless repentance and ruin of fortunes following."

To abstain from an unjust strike, namely, not to cease from labor before the prefixed time, unless there is a grave reason; and if it is indeterminate, to give warning at the due time; otherwise they are held concerning damages.⁶ Concerning this argument, more will be said below.

⁶ Ibid., a. 16 and following.

551. The duties of justice of owners were defined by the same Leo XIII:

"These things, however, pertain to the wealthy and to owners: 1. that workers are not to be held in the place of slaves; that it is equitable to revere in them the dignity of the person, everywhere ennobled by that which is called the Christian character... It is truly shameful and inhuman to abuse men as things for gain, and not to value them more than according as they are strong in sinews and powers. 2. Similarly it is prescribed that regard ought to be had for religion and the goods of the soul in proletarians. Wherefore it is the part of owners to bring it about that the worker be free for piety in a suitable space of time; not to expose the man to the allurements of corruptions and enticements of sinning; nor in any way to draw him away from domestic care and the study of thrift. 3. Likewise, not to impose more work than their powers can bear, nor that kind which is at variance with age and sex. 4. But among the greatest duties of owners this stands forth, to furnish to each one what is just... But to defraud anyone of the wage due is a great crime, which calls down avenging wrath from heaven. Behold, the wages of the laborers... which have been defrauded by you, cry out: and their cry has entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth (Jas. V, 4). 5. Finally, the wealthy must religiously take care that they harm the profits of proletarians in nothing, neither by force, nor by deceit, nor by usurious arts; and this all the more because they are not sufficiently fortified against injuries and impotence, and their goods, the smaller they are, the more sacred they must be held." Among these harms also must be considered unjust dismissal from work.

Therefore owners must:

Revere in workers the human, religious, Christian dignity of the person, and not hold them as slaves, or as mere instruments of production, in which there is no other value than what they produce.⁷

⁷ Ibid., a. 15.

Hence a) workers must furnish obedience to owners only in those things which regard the agreed work, and indeed during the time of furnishing labor; b) when that time has passed, they remain free, nor do owners have the right of commanding anything against their conscience or liberty; c) indeed, in commanding those things which regard the work, they must abstain from those which are repugnant to human dignity or are altogether less fitting.

Have regard for the goods of the soul in proletarians, and concede to them a suitable space of time so that they may be able to live as men, that is, so that they may be able to attend to religious and moral and familial duties.

Care must be taken a) that rest be conceded on Sundays and feast days, unless true necessity stands in the way; and that to those workers who more often must labor on Sunday from necessity there be granted at least the time necessary for fulfilling religious duties;⁸

⁸ Hence the Belgian law of 17 July 1905 concerning rest on Sunday.

b) that workers not be exposed to the allurements of corruptions and enticements of sinning; especially that occasions of sinning not arise from the promiscuity of the sexes, that scandal not be given by impious or lustful conversations, that superiors not abuse authority to extort something repugnant to good morals;

c) that the time necessary be conceded to men, and especially to women, for rightly arranging domestic life and well educating offspring.

Have regard for the powers of the body in imposing work, and for difference of age or sex; and, as much as possible, turn away from workers damages and dangers to life, integrity, and health.

Hence a) in dangerous works or industries, precautions must be applied by which danger is removed for life, security, or health;⁹

⁹ Cf. Belgian law of 20 July 1899.

b) if it is impossible to avert the danger totally, the wage must be increased according to the probability of the danger, or the damage inflicted must be equitably compensated;

c) the owner must take upon himself the dangers arising from the labor itself, and insure the workers against them, except in the case of graver fault in the workers¹⁰ or of an evil intention;

¹⁰ Cf. Belgian law of 24 Dec. 1903. This law extends natural right, so that the owner is held even in the case of graver fault on the part of the worker, unless however the latter acted with the intention of provoking harm; but that disposition of the law obliges in conscience only after the sentence of the judge.

d) daily labor must not be prolonged excessively, lest the worker's powers be exhausted, "the mind grow dull by excessive labor, and at the same time the body succumb to weariness,... but intervals of rest ought to exist";¹¹

¹¹ Hence the law concerning labor for 8 hours, 14 June 1921.

e) there should not be imposed upon women labor which exceeds their powers or is unbecoming to their sex, as are many things to be performed in workshops, while they are rather born for domestic works;¹²

¹² Cf. Belgian law of 13 Dec. 1889 and 10 Aug. 1911, 14 June 1921.

f) nor should works be committed to children for the performance of which they are not yet equal: thus especially in the weaker age, while lighter things rather should be assigned to those more grown.

Pay a just wage, and indeed at the established time.¹³

¹³ Cf. Belgian law of 10 March 1900, a. 11 and following.

This is the chief duty, concerning which one must speak expressly.

Finally, beware of every unjust harm, especially of unjust dismissal from work.

The owner cannot cast out workers before the prefixed time without a grave reason; but if the time is indefinite, he must warn them at the due time. Otherwise he is held concerning damages.¹⁴

¹⁴ Ibid., a. 16 and following.

556. A strike (greve; werkstaking, strijken) is the common withdrawal of many workers by agreement for obtaining certain advantages from masters. Hence it is, as it were, an economic war; concerning its liceity or justice there can be a special difficulty.

When a contract of labor has been entered into, it is explicitly or implicitly defined how long it ought to last; and workers or owners act unjustly who without a grave reason withdraw from a legitimate agreement, and therefore they are held to compensate the damage inflicted from this.²¹ But a) if the contract from the beginning was unjust, or afterward became unjust, as if it was entered into under compulsion, or then unjustly changed by the owner, or brings an imminent danger of temporal or spiritual damage, those who withdraw from the contract because of the harm which they suffer do not commit injustice: for this is legitimate defense.²² Likewise b) when the time has elapsed, or warning has been given, workers can denounce the contract without injury toward the owner even without any reason: for they can justly let their work to others or even rest from work; although in doing so they can sin against charity, for example, toward their own, on account of which sometimes a lesser evil will have to be undergone to avoid a greater one. c) This also has force concerning owners toward workers, although they can sin against charity if they do this without sufficient reason, for example, because the workers are associated; on the contrary, it would be otherwise if it were done because the workers are a danger to others under the respect of religion or morality.

²¹ Cf. Belgian law of 10 March 1900, a. 16 and following.

²² Ibid., a. 20 and following.

But in the present matter it is asked whether workers can cease from work in bands by agreement, for this end indeed, that they may obtain or extort better conditions from masters.²³

²³ On this argument, Kiselstein, La legitimite de la greve, in Rev. Eccl. de Liege, 1923, deserves to be read.

Moreover, a twofold strike is distinguished. One, defensive, is instituted by workers who are unjustly oppressed by masters, for example, when a truly insufficient wage is paid or the health or morality of workers is not sufficiently consulted; the other, ameliorative, is for obtaining a greater wage or shorter and easier labor, although the wage accepted up to now is not altogether insufficient nor the labor excessive. The first is not of itself illicit, provided that another means is not at hand for defending oneself licitly against the injustices of the owner: for it is licit to defend oneself with the moderation of blameless defense. The other has been held by some to be illicit, as seditious; nevertheless it is rather commonly judged that sometimes it can be licit, provided a proportionately grave cause is present and unjust means are not employed. But in practice, considering concrete circumstances, a strike, even a defensive one, is not easily licit, because of the many and grave damages, both material and moral, which it is accustomed to imply, both for workers and for owners and for the community itself.

These evils are described by Tanquerey:²⁴ during the whole time of the strike "a) workers receive no wage, but b) spend money accumulated by long thrift for the sustenance of themselves and their family; c) owners, however, not only make no profit, but d) often incur burdensome expenses for protecting and repairing their buildings and instruments of labor, e) lose the opportunity of selling their wares not only for the present, but f) often also for the future time, since not a few buyers are accustomed to have recourse to other manufacturers, and often afterward retain this custom. Moreover, g) railways and also certain other workshops, which depend upon those from whom work has ceased, suffer not slight damages from this; h) sometimes the industry and commerce of the whole province are involved in entangled difficulties, and the number of the poor in the whole region is greatly increased; i) Nor must there be passed over in silence the evils of the moral order which arise from this: namely, hatreds which divide citizens, the corruption of morals which naturally flows from long idleness, blasphemies against religion, violent and unjust acts by which persons or things are attacked, and other things of this sort."

²⁴ Th. M. De Virtute Iustitiae, n. 845.

Deservedly, therefore, Leo XIII says: "That kind of cessation affects with damage not only the masters and the workers themselves (and their family), but harms commerce and the utilities of the republic; and since it is usually not far from force and disturbances, it very often brings public tranquillity into danger." But since it is not licit to posit the cause of evil effects, unless the conditions are given, among which especially is this one, that a compensating good arise from it, hence the following principles concerning a strike must be attended to.

I. Common cessation from work by agreement is not licit unless 1. for a legitimate end to be obtained with founded hope, 2. with a just cause existing and proportionately grave, 3. while another way is lacking, 4. and unjust means are not employed.

There is required 1. a legitimate end to be obtained with founded hope: if the legitimate end is lacking, because the conditions demanded are unjust, the strike is intrinsically evil; if founded hope is lacking, it is gravely rash because of the harmful consequences to which it exposes one without likely compensation;

…and 11 more passages — all of them are listed on the topic page.

Sabetti-Barrett, Compendium of Moral Theology

Aloysius Sabetti, S.J., and Timothy Barrett, S.J. — 1 passage

Vol. I, Tr. VI, On the Fourth Precept of t…, Ch. III, Article II. On the Obligations of Masters and Servants

n. 259.

I. Masters are held toward their servants:

1st. To treat them kindly, that is, by addressing and commanding them decently and humanely, by furnishing good and sufficient food, by not burdening them with excessive works, by suitably caring for the sick. This is clear from natural law and from Sacred Scripture, Ecclus. xxxiii, 31: "If thou hast a faithful servant, let him be to thee as thy soul; treat him as a brother." - Ephes. vi, 9: "And you, masters, do the same things to them (servants), forbearing threats: knowing that both their Lord and yours is in heaven, and there is no acceptance of persons with him."

2nd. To instruct and correct: the master is the head of the servant, as of the whole family; but it pertains to the head to direct where there is need. I Tim. v, 8: "But if anyone has no care of his own and especially of those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel." But servants are reckoned among domestics.

3rd. To pay a just wage, for it is a question of an obligation of justice and natural equity, whence the defrauding of such a wage is counted among sins crying to heaven.

II. Servants are held to render to masters:

1st. Reverence. I Tim. vi, 1: "Let servants account their masters worthy of all honor." From this they can sin even gravely who deride masters, spurn them, or manifest their hidden defects.

2nd. Service and obedience in all those things to which they have obliged themselves by virtue of contract, and in those things which regard good morals; thus Ephes. vi, 5: "Servants, obey carnal masters with fear and trembling in simplicity of your heart, as Christ"; and I Pet. ii, 18.

Hence by reason of the matter those sin more or less who, when something is commanded to them, murmur, respond insolently, waste time uselessly, neglect to perform the commanded labor, or labor for themselves with damage to the master; and in one word all those who do not render the service which ordinarily is accustomed to be exacted and furnished from such persons.

3rd. Fidelity, according to the words of Paul to Titus ii, 9: "Let servants be subject to their masters, not defrauding, but in all things showing good faith." Hence those sin, and often gravely against justice, who do not have care of things entrusted to them, who by their fault permit them to become worse.

Bontempi, Palladium Theologicum V

Gaudentius Bontempi of Brescia, O.F.M. Cap. — 10 passages

Tr. IV, Disputation XIII: On the O…, Sect. I, Question IX: On the mutual obligation of servants and masters

First indeed masters are bound out of charity and justice to take care that slaves do not live wickedly, that they keep the commandments of God, as also of the Church. Out of charity indeed, because they are their neighbors; out of justice, however, because as the slave is bound to serve the master out of justice, so the master is bound out of the same justice to give him wages, feed him, and teach him.

They are bound, if they see them incorrigible, to rebuke and cast them out. So Navarr. Man. cap. 14. num. 21. Fagund. lib. 4. cap. 14.

They are bound also not to impede the marriages of slaves; they may, however, refuse their consent; the slaves, however, may contract marriage against the will of their masters, as St. Bonaventure teaches 4 d. 36. question 1. St. Thomas there, in the single question, art. 2. and all the Thomists, Sanchez lib. 7. de matrim. d. 21. Fagundez lib. 4. cap. 14. The rest I shall say in the Tract. de matrimonio. In the meantime I shall indicate that doubt: whether a slave ordered by his master to accomplish something, and called by his wife to render the debt, being involved in both, is bound rather to the master.

n. 4.

It is answered that if he entered marriage with the master's consent, he is bound rather to his wife, because whoever grants something necessarily grants also what is connected with it. So St. Bonaventure loc. cit. St. Thomas ad 3. and commonly, as cited by Fagundez lib. 4. cap. 14.

n. 5.

But Sanchez lib. 7. d. 21. says the service of the master is always to be preferred; but of this in part 3, loc. cit.

n. 6.

I say also that if a master has hired a servant for a fixed time, say for a year, and dismisses him without cause after a month, or even before, the master is to be compelled to pay the whole wage. So commonly the Doctors, as cited by Fagundez cap. 15. num. 20. The reason is that it did not lie with him. And say the same of a slave, if he is dismissed for his own fault; or if he runs away before the prescribed time, he is worthy of no wage.

n. 7.

A servant hired for wages is bound also for damage done to the master himself through his own fault, at least light. So commonly the Doctors, as cited by Fagundez num. 22.

n. 8.

Likewise he is bound for damage inflicted on the master himself by another in a thing that was under his custody, and this out of justice, and so he ought to make restitution; but if the thing was not under his custody, he was bound only out of charity, and therefore he is not compelled to restitution. So Azor. 3. part. lib. 8. cap. 13. question 8. Molin. tom. 2. de Iust. d. 506. Fagund. loc. cit. num. 23.

n. 9.

There occurs the case of slaves committing petty thefts under the appearance of just compensation from the master.

n. 10.

NOTE that if they are so ill treated that not even the lowest usual price is given for their servitude, or if, hired for food alone, they do not have necessaries, they can usurp something. See Fagundez from num. 31. and Molina loc. cit.

Slater, Cases I

Thomas Slater, S.J. — 12 passages (filed under the subtopics)

Slater, Cases I, Contracts, 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: