Duties of servants and workmen

300. On obligations in general. Servants are called those who are hired for pay to furnish services in some family. Servants through the contract of service become part of the master's family, and therefore are called familiars and domestics.

a. From servants are distinguished workers or artisans, who lease their labors to some master for a definite time. These are not received into the master's family nor properly subject to his governance; for masters do not become their superiors.

b. The principal obligations of masters and servants arise from the contract of service, and therefore are obligations of justice; but from the same contract there also arises a relation of superiority and subjection, for which reason servants are subject to the master's governance. Therefore if they offend gravely against the honor or obedience due to the master, they sin against the virtue of observance and ought in confession to indicate the circumstance of service in order to declare the lowest species of the sin.

c. In most cultivated regions today, the rights and offices between master and servants are specifically determined by civil law, that is, by the servant ordinance (Dienstboten-Ordnung).¹ Since contracting parties enter contracts according to the laws in force, the dispositions of these laws are contained in the contract of service, to which special agreements can be added.

¹ Cf. Austrian civil code, Section 1172; German civil code, Section 617 ss.

301. On obligations in particular. Servants are bound to furnish their masters: a. reverence; b. service.

1. Reverence: for their own condition enjoins observance upon servants, which by its nature requires reverence: "Let them judge their masters worthy of all honor."¹

Therefore they are bound to bear with an even mind the troubles, harshness, and moroseness of masters, and not for this reason to desist from their office. Hence according to the measure of the matter servants can sin even gravely if they spurn masters, mock them, use contumelious words against them, or conduct themselves arrogantly and insolently.

2. They owe service and obedience to masters in those things which pertain to service and to good morals. The reason for the first is that by force of the contract they obligated themselves to these things; the reason for the second is that governance belongs to superiors by reason of office, to which in subjects corresponds the obligation of obeying.

a. Hence according to the measure of the matter servants can sin even gravely: alpha. if they do not labor strenuously or waste time in idleness; beta. if from culpable negligence they bring detriment to domestic affairs; but if without fault and beyond intention, for example by breaking something, they cause damage to the master, of themselves, apart from a special agreement, they are not bound to repair it; gamma. if they reveal the secrets of the family to others, especially where damage follows from their revelation.

b. They sin if without just cause they abandon service before the constituted time. A servant who without cause departs before the constituted time of himself has the right to the agreed pay for the time during which he actually furnished service, although this pay, according to a quantity to be determined by prudent judgment, can be diminished somewhat; for service furnished merits its pay, but the master can lessen it because the servant did not stand by the contract. Yet if the master suffers grave detriment on account of the departure of the servant, he can keep himself indemnified by deducting part of the pay.² But positive laws sometimes establish otherwise.³

¹ 1 Tim. 6:1.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 345.

³ Austrian civil code, Section 1172; German civil code, Section 617.

302. Whether servants are bound from justice to guard the goods of the family and therefore to impede damages which are inflicted upon the master. - a. Servants who are hired for guarding and defending the family estate, such as guards, administrators, etc., certainly are bound from commutative justice to impede any damage from being inflicted on the master.

b. But servants who are hired only for furnishing their labor and work are indeed bound from charity to guard the goods of the family and to impede damages, but that they are obligated to this from justice cannot be certainly demonstrated, unless the care and custody of some thing has been committed to them for a special reason. For from the fact that special servants are hired for guarding domestic goods, who are also called by a peculiar name, it seems possible to infer that the others are hired only for furnishing their labor to the family. Therefore, because the obligation is not certainly established, it is not to be imposed upon them, unless civil law enjoins it upon servants.

There are those who contend, Diana and Pontius, that servants are held from justice to impede damages, whether these are inflicted upon the master by outsiders or by other servants. Their reason is that, by reason of service itself, domestic goods are committed to the servants to be guarded. Others, on the contrary, teach, Salmanticenses and Tamburini, that servants are obligated to impede those damages which are inflicted by outsiders, but not those which are inflicted by members of the household; for by the fact that they are admitted into the family they are judged indeed to assume the obligation of defending the goods of the family against outsiders, but not also against other members of the household. Nevertheless, the opinions of these authors do not exceed probability.¹

¹ Cf. Lessius, De iustitia, l. 2, c. 13, n. 75; Lugo, De iustitia, disp. 19, n. 105 ss.

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.

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.

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.

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

158. The things which have been said of masters and servants must be understood, with due proportion, of patrons and workers, as we have already said, whether these are craftsmen or tenants, who for some definite time, or for some determined work, labor for the utility of others. Moreover, the first duty of all is that they enter a just pact, with due equality preserved between labor and stipend. Then the contract entered must be faithfully observed. Accordingly, the worker ought to furnish the promised work; the patron is bound to pay the promised wage. Patrons and workers can indeed enter a contract of hiring of work or labor for a fitting wage. They can also enter between themselves a contract of partnership, so that the patrons confer capital into the partnership, the workers labor, and then receive proportionate fruit. Each contract is lawful; but neither can patrons compel workers, nor workers patrons, to one rather than to the other; the matter must be determined by free convention of patrons and workers.

159. Masters and patrons are bound per se not to burden workers with longer and graver labors, nor to expose them to dangerous labors, unless the reason of the common good requires otherwise and due precautions are employed.

They are bound to treat workers well, with urbanity and Christian charity. Besides, they must leave them liberty of fulfilling the offices of religion, and therefore by no means ought to compel them to work on Sundays and feast days, unless grave necessity urges; and then at least they must grant them time, as far as can be done, for hearing Mass.

They are bound to pay a just wage, according to the pacts entered, and at its time. They are bound not unjustly to impede them from laboring, and from being able suitably to sustain themselves by their labor. Likewise, from charity they ought to succor them when they are placed in necessity, before other outside poor persons, since the workers are more joined to them and are of no small utility; for the profit which they receive is owed in great part to the labor of workers.

Masters and patrons, as superiors, are bound to avert dangers of body and soul from workshops in which many workers labor. Of body, by providing for their health with suitable safeguards; of soul, by prohibiting blasphemies, shameful conversations, perverse journals, obscene images, and that men and women, especially the younger, not be together promiscuously.

160. Workers in turn are bound with due skill and diligence to furnish the promised work, with the conditions of the freely entered convention observed. Conditions, that is, lawful and just. Therefore, if they do not labor during the time established by the contract, or if in labor they do not employ at least ordinary and moderate diligence, they are bound to restitution, and must also repair the damage that followed. Nor indeed in any way can they, against the aforesaid just contract, cease from labor, with damage to the master, and much less induce other workers to the same cessation, in order to obtain a diminution of the time of labor and an increase of salary. This is manifest injustice. When the time of the contract has elapsed, and the promised work has been furnished, if they wish to renew the contract under better conditions, lawful and just, and cannot obtain this otherwise by lawful and just means, then they surely can, if they wish, cease from work, yet without impeding by threats and force others willing to labor, and without disturbing public order.

And here it must be noted that the better conditions which workers can demand in entering a new contract can be unjust and just. Patrons are not bound to accept unjust ones; but they are not always bound to accept just ones; for if they also offer just conditions, they are evidently not then bound to accept the just conditions which the workers propose; and those same workers cannot impede other workers willing to labor under those just conditions of the patrons.

161. Therefore workers act unjustly if, contrary to the pacts entered, they cease from labor; and much more if by threats and force they compel other workers also to desist from labor; but most of all if they disturb the peace of the city; so that by these means they themselves may furnish the smallest work with the recompense of the greatest wage. - Patrons likewise would act unjustly if, contrary to the pacts entered, they dismissed workers; and much more if they also compelled others by threats and force to dismiss them, so that workers may furnish the greatest work for the recompense of the smallest wage. - To impede this struggle between patrons and workers, it is necessary that patrons embrace workers with Christian charity, and that workers tolerate labor with Christian patience and revere patrons.

162. In this matter the civil prince can furnish many things rightly and usefully by his authority: "If it ever should happen that some disturbance threatens because of a withdrawal of craftsmen, or works interrupted by agreement; that the natural bonds of the family are relaxed among proletarians; that religion is violated in the workers, by not sufficiently granting convenience for the offices of piety; if danger threatens integrity of morals in workshops from sex mixed together or other pernicious enticements of sin; or if the masterly order presses the order of workers with unjust burdens, or afflicts them with conditions foreign to the person and to human dignity; if health is harmed by immoderate work, and not accommodated to sex and age: in these causes the force and authority of the laws must plainly be employed within definite limits. These limits are determined by the same cause which demands the help of the laws: namely, no more is to be undertaken by laws, nor is progress to be made farther, than the healing of inconveniences or the repulsion of danger requires." Leo XIII, encyclical letter de Conditione Opificum.

163. For determining the just quantity of salary, attention must be paid not only to free convention, but also to the nature of labor. Now indeed "to labor is to exercise oneself for the sake of obtaining things which are for the various uses of life, and especially necessary for the protection of oneself. In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread. Therefore labor in man has two notes, as it were, implanted by nature: namely that it be personal, because the active force inheres in the person and is entirely proper to him by whom it is exercised and for whose utility it is born; then that it be necessary for this reason, that the fruit of labors is needed by man for protecting life; but nature itself of things, which must especially be obeyed, commands that life be protected. Now, if it is considered only from that part by which it is personal, there is no doubt that it is free to the craftsman to define more narrowly the measure of the stipulated wage; for as he gives his works by will, so also by will he can be content with a small wage for the works, or plainly with none. But one must judge far otherwise if with the reason of personality there is joined the reason of necessity, separable from it in thought, indeed, but not in reality. In fact, to remain in life is the common duty of individuals, which it is a crime to fail. Hence there necessarily arises the right of finding things by which life is sustained: but the faculty of these things is supplied to every lowest man only by the wage acquired by labor. Therefore let it be that the worker and the master freely consent to the same agreement, and by name to the measure of salary; nevertheless there is always underlying something from natural justice, and this greater and older than the free will of those making the pact, namely, that the wage ought not to be unequal to nourishing the worker, frugal indeed and well behaved. But if the worker, compelled by necessity or moved by fear of a worse evil, accepts a harsher condition, which, even though he does not wish it, must be accepted, because it is imposed by the master or by the contractor of works, that indeed is to undergo force, against which justice cries out."

164. But since the price of things which are necessary for life is various, it is clear that the just wage to be paid to the worker is to be attended not only from the labor furnished, according to common estimation, but also from this varying price of things. Therefore the just wage of workers depends on various causes.

The work which is furnished by workers for the convenience and utility of others is the work of a human person, proceeding from human liberty; hence, although it is considered as a certain quasi-thing, it is something nobler than merchandise, and it assumes the nature of merit and of right to reward. Therefore the wage which is rendered to them, and which is usually called salary and stipend, although it is considered as a certain price, exceeds the price of things, and takes to itself the nature of reward and remuneration. But that work, from the provident disposition itself of nature, must be furnished by the worker so that by that work he may procure for himself the things necessary for life. Therefore the salary which is given to the worker for his work furnished is not as it were an exchange of thing with thing, of merchandise with price; nor consequently is it given only for the work itself furnished for the utility of another, but it is also given for the person himself, for the necessity of the person, for the merit of the person.

165. Therefore the wage of works ought to suffice for the worker to be nourished, from the intention itself of nature, which supplies industry and labor to man for seeking those things which are necessary to himself for life. Hence primarily the justice of the wage is to be estimated which consequently, since it ought to suffice for daily sustenance, 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 in it there is comprehended, with due proportion, with the whole time of human life inspected, and the condition of workers in civil society, both food and dwelling and clothing and other things, in the various necessities occurring in human life from sickness, from old age, etc., altogether indispensable for life itself. And these things besides are to be estimated with due moderation; for the worker is supposed not to be vicious and a squanderer, but well behaved and frugal. But the daily office is to be understood only morally, and likewise suitably to the labor itself to be exercised, harder or lighter. Hence, as it certainly does not comprehend the twenty-four hours of the day, so neither is it confined to one or another hour. But since those things which are necessary for life have varying price according to varying time and place, hence also the just salary of workers will be various according to the various circumstances of times and places.

And from this again it is clear that the work of man is not properly merchandise, nor properly is its wage a price. Nevertheless there is no doubt that that work 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 taken as a quasi-price. Hence the wage of works is estimated variously also under this head, according to the various customs of regions, from the works themselves, that is, from their intrinsic excellence, general necessity, utility, labor, and danger. Hence it is estimated differently in physicians, schoolmasters, painters; differently in architects, masons, diggers. But by no means is it estimated from their peculiar necessity and utility; for this pertains to the hirer, for example, if the boy to be instructed is endowed with great talent.

166. Therefore, as prices of things, so again wages of works can be increased and diminished. But they are increased and diminished from those same causes by which prices of things increase and decrease: from the fact that there are many who furnish works, few who hire them; from their daily duration, longer or shorter; from the labor expended in them; from the danger which is incurred in them; from the required skill; from the spontaneous offering of them. Consequently the wage of works will be just if it at least reaches the lowest wage which, in such a place and time, is customarily given to such workers. - And if one furnishing his works furnishes them to another or to others as a quasi-partner, it is equitable that he also receive something from the profits.

But the wage of works 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 inspects the 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 locator furnishes them with greater labor, time, and danger than others; or because he is in want, has a wife, and also has children; whence that absurd family salary is exploded. This is besides exploded also from the very established breadth of the just wage of workers, if these, namely, are well behaved and frugal, and live with due parsimony, which at the beginning is indeed necessary, and then ends in a small patrimony to be acquired.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

1. Titius, a carpenter, very often ceases from daily labor, because labor greatly displeases him, although he has strong powers. Hence he often indulges in leisure, and is content to sustain himself very sparingly; and, when he has nothing by which he may be sustained, he prefers asking alms along the public ways, or stealing the things of others, to labor.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. Titius cannot be excused from sin. For the obligation of labor is present for him, both from the necessary providence to be had for himself, so that by a licit means he may procure for himself those things which are necessary for an honorable support of life, and for avoiding leisure, which is the occasion of so many sins.

The Angelic Doctor says aptly: “Judgment concerning each thing must be taken according to the end to which it is ordered. Now manual labor is found to be useful for three things. First, for removing leisure; whence Jerome to Rusticus the Monk: always do some work, that the devil may find you occupied.... Secondly, for taming the body; whence in 2 Cor. 6:5 it is joined with other mortifications of the flesh, where it is said: In labors, namely of works, because he worked with his own hands, and he adds: in watchings and fastings, etc. Thirdly, it is ordered to seeking livelihood, Acts 20:34: To those things which were necessary for me and for those who were with me, these hands ministered.

“If therefore manual labor is considered according as it is ordered to removing leisure or to taming the body, in this way there is the same judgment concerning manual labor and concerning other exercises ordered to the same things. For it is not necessary that leisure be removed by this or that occupation; but for removing leisure it suffices that one withdraw from leisure by any licit occupation; and thus the occupation of manual labor is not in precept, this end being considered.

“And the reason is similar concerning manual labor according as it is ordered to taming the body; because by many exercises the body can be tamed, such as watchings, fastings, and many things of this sort. Whence none of them, insofar as it is ordered to such an end, is in precept specifically, although in general it is in precept to tame the body by some exercise by which deadly concupiscences are restrained.

“But according as it is ordered to seeking livelihood, in this way it seems to be in precept; whence it is said in 1 Thess. 4:2: Work with your hands, as we have commanded you; and not only in precept of positive law, but also of natural law. For those things are of the natural law to which man is inclined from his natural things. But as is evident from the very disposition of the body, man has a natural ordering to manual work, on account of which it is said, Job 5:7: Man is born to labor, and the bird to flying. But since nature has sufficiently provided other animals in those things which pertain to the sustaining of their life, in foods and arms and coverings, it has not provided man in these things, because he himself is endowed with reason, by which he will be able to provide for himself in all the aforesaid things; whence in place of all the aforesaid things there will be for him a hand, suitable for diverse works, by which he may carry out the conceptions of reason by diverse arts.

“It must be known, however, that the precept of the natural law is twofold. One is ordered to removing the defect of one individual person, either spiritual, as concerning the acts of the virtues, or bodily, as the precept which the Lord gave to man, Gen. 2:16: Of every tree that is in paradise, eat, etc. But another is ordered to removing the defect of the whole species, as that which is said in Gen. 1:28: Increase and multiply, and fill the earth; for in this is prescribed the act of generation, by which nature is preserved and multiplied.

“But there is this difference between these two kinds of precepts: that each one is held individually to observe the first precept of the natural law; but each one is not held individually to the second precept. For in those things which pertain to the species, all men are to be counted as if one man; for by participation in the species many men are one man. But just as one man has diverse members, by which he is occupied in diverse offices ordered to removing his own defect, which cannot all be exercised by one member, as the eye sees for the whole body and the foot carries the whole body; so it is fitting in those things which pertain to the whole species. For one man would not suffice for exercising all things which human society needs; and therefore it is fitting that diverse men be occupied in diverse offices, as is said in Rom. 12:4.... And this diversification of men in diverse offices happens first from divine providence, which so distributes the states of men that nothing necessary for life is ever found to be lacking; secondly also from natural causes, from which it happens that in diverse men there are diverse inclinations to diverse offices or to diverse modes of living.

“Because therefore by manual labor someone can assist both his own defect and another’s, since one man cannot be sufficient for himself in all things but needs another’s assistance, it is clear that the precept concerning manual labor is in some way contained under both kinds of the aforesaid precepts. For insofar as by the manual labor of one man assistance is given to the necessities of others, it thus pertains to the second kind of natural precepts; but insofar as someone by this assists his own necessities, it pertains to the first kind, as the precept concerning eating. But a precept which is ordered to removing a bodily defect does not oblige except when the defect exists; whence if there were someone who could live without food, he would not be obliged by the precept concerning eating. Thus therefore the precept concerning manual labor does not oblige someone individually, according as it is ordered to removing a common defect in some way, nor according as it is ordered to removing his own defect, unless the defect exists. And therefore he who has that by which he can live licitly is not held to work with his hands; but he who does not have the means by which he may otherwise live, or unless he acquire livelihood by some illicit business, is held to labor with his hands. And this is clear from the Apostle in three places, where he gives a precept concerning the working of hands. First, at Eph. 4:28, where, by prohibiting theft, he enjoins the working of hands: He who was stealing, let him now not steal, but rather let him labor with his hands. Secondly, in 1 Thess. 4:2, where he prescribes manual labor by prohibiting covetousness of the things of others: Work, he says, with your hands, as we have commanded you, that you may walk honorably toward those who are outside, and desire nothing of anyone. Thirdly, in 2 Thess. 3:2, where he prescribes the working of hands by prohibiting base businesses by which some were seeking livelihood: We hear, he says, that some among you walk restlessly, doing nothing, but acting curiously. The Gloss: Those who with foul care provide necessities for themselves; and he adds: But those who are of this sort, we denounce and beseech in the Lord Jesus Christ, that working with silence they eat their own bread.

“It must also be known that, just as sight is chief among the other senses, by reason of which all the other senses receive the name of sight...., so the hand, because it is necessary for very many works, is called the organ of organs.... And therefore by manual operation is understood not only what is done by the hands, but by any bodily instrument whatever; and briefly, whatever office a man does, by which he can licitly acquire livelihood, is comprehended under manual labor. For it does not seem reasonable that masters of mechanical art can live from their art, and masters of the liberal arts cannot live from their art. Similarly also advocates can live from the patronage which they furnish in cases; and it is similar concerning all other licit occupations. Therefore, because it is a precept, but does not oblige all, therefore etc.” St. Thomas, Quodl. 7, a. 17.

2. Lucretius the sculptor, an agreement having been made and a price fixed, promised Fulgentius the pastor that he would make a statue of St. Anthony. Since afterwards several other statues, and at a higher price, were committed to him by others to be made, he omitted making the statue of St. Anthony. But when Fulgentius complained, then Lucretius committed the statue to his friend Caius to be made.

It is asked: What as to the Case?

R. When an obligation consists in doing something and the debtor by contract does not do it, he is held to reparation of damages, and the creditor also has power to petition the judge that it be done at the expense of the debtor. C. I. 1218, 1220; C. G. 1142, 1144. But the debtor is permitted to furnish even through another those things which he owes, unless it matters to the creditor that it be done by him himself. C. I. 1239; C. G. 1237. Hence, if grave damage is present to Fulgentius because of the statue of St. Anthony not made, and it gravely matters to Fulgentius that that statue be made only by Lucretius, Lucretius, omitting to make it, sins gravely, because he fails faith in a grave matter, and is held to reparation of damages. C. I. 1218; C. G. 1142.

383. • Servants are bound to furnish to masters:

1. Reverence; for thus the Apostle, 1 Tim. 6. 1: Let servants reckon their masters worthy of all honor. From this they can sin even gravely who deride their masters, scorn them, or manifest their hidden defects.

2. Service and obedience in all those things to which they have bound themselves by force of the contract, and in those things which look to good morals; thus Ephes. 6. 5: Servants, obey 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 froward.

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

3. Fidelity; according to the words of Paul to Titus 2. 9: That servants 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 of things entrusted to them, who through their own fault allow them to become worse, who steal costly victuals, or those not accustomed to be given to them, whether for eating or for giving or selling to outsiders.

37. • Craftsmen and workmen are to be examined carefully by the Confessor; for very often they are silent in confession about the injustices and sins proper to their condition.

I. In general they are unjust by selling or hiring out their works for an unjust price; by not manifesting hidden defects of the works according to what was said about sale; by wasting time through culpable negligence; by turning other workers away from labor; by executing work badly, whether by too much haste or by omission of necessary things, etc.

II. But in particular the following especially are unjust:

1º Goldsmiths and silversmiths who adulterate gold and silver, pour lead into hollow spaces, buy diamonds from the ignorant below even the lowest just value, or sell counterfeit or artificial diamonds as if natural.

2º Clothmakers and wool-workers who mix wool of lesser price with good wool, and sell it for as much as if the whole material were of the same quality; who weave the beginning and end of a roll of cloth from much better wool; who use colored dyes deceptively; who, having been deceived in buying cloths, likewise deceive others by selling.

3º Millers who change grains, or mix with them foreign things of almost no value, such as beans, to increase the weight and mass; who for a wage retain something of the wheat or flour beyond the practice of the God-fearing.

4º Bakers who bake badly; who maliciously mix with wheat flour another from rye, barley, beans, etc.; who fraudulently diminish the weight.

5º Butchers who sell corrupted meats, or hand over worse quality for better.

6º Tailors and shoemakers who cut badly; who use corrupted or burned cloth or leather; who retain part of the cloth handed over to them, pretending that they used the whole in making the work.

7º Makers of hats who sell hats re-stuffed or dyed as new, or as if they had been standing in the shop for a longer time.

8º Printers who print copies in a greater number than was agreed upon, and retain them for themselves; who make adulterated editions against the right of one having a privilege ¹; who have unskilled correctors; who do not employ paper of the same quality as they promised in the prospectus, etc. - See St. Ligorius, n. 292.

¹ Nevertheless, one must inspect whether the laws granting a privilege of this sort can be held, or not, as merely penal, whether the editions which others attempt against the privilege are adulterated or not adulterated.

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.

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).

1. 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.

2. 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).

3. 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.

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).

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.

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

1081. • Craftsmen and workers must be carefully examined by the confessor: for generally in Confession they are silent about the injustices and sins proper to their condition.

I. In general they are unjust by selling or leasing their works at an unjust price; by not manifesting occult defects of their works according to the things said concerning sale; by wasting time through culpable negligence; by turning other workers away from labor; by executing the work badly, whether by excessive haste, or by omission of necessary things, etc.

II. But in particular the following chiefly are unjust:

1° Goldsmiths and silversmiths who adulterate gold and silver, pour lead among the empty spaces, buy diamonds or even below their just lowest value from the ignorant, or sell fabricated or artificial ones as natural.

2° Clothmakers and wool-workers who mix wool of lesser price with good wool, and sell it for as much as if the whole matter were of the same quality; who weave the beginning and end of a roll of cloth from much better wool; who use painted colors; who, deceived in buying cloths, likewise deceive others by selling.

3° Millers who change the grains, or mix with them extraneous things of almost no value, as beans, for increasing the weight and mass; who retain for salary something from the wheat or flour beyond the practice of the fearful.

4° Bakers who bake badly; who maliciously mix flour from rye, barley, beans, etc., with wheaten flour; who fraudulently diminish the weight.

5° Butchers who sell corrupted meats, or hand over a worse quality for a better.

6° Tailors and shoemakers who cut badly; who use cloth or leather corrupted or burnt; who retain part of the cloth handed over to themselves, pretending that they applied the whole in making the work.

7° Makers of hats who sell hats newly blocked or dyed as new, or as if they had existed in the shop for a longer time.

8° Printers who print copies in a greater number than was agreed, and retain these for themselves; who make adulterous editions against the right of one having a privilege; who have unskilled correctors; who do not apply paper of the same quality as they promised in the program, etc. ... - See St. Alphonsus.¹

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.

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:

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. 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.

4. 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."

5. 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.

Pius X, in the Motu Proprio of December 18, 1903, hands down the fundamental norms of Christian popular action, among which some clearly place before the eyes the duties of workers and of the wealthy.

1st. "The duties of justice, as regards the proletarian and worker, are these: that what has been freely and equitably agreed upon as to work, he render entirely and faithfully; that he harm the property in no way, that he not violate the person of the masters; in protecting his own interests, that he abstain from force and never stir up sedition." 2nd. "As regards capitalists and employers, the duties of justice are these: to furnish a just wage to workers; that they harm their just savings in nothing, neither by force nor by fraud nor by usurious arts (manifest or disguised usury); to grant them liberty for fulfilling their religious duties; not to expose them to corrupting seduction and dangers of scandal nor draw them away from the spirit of family and pursuit of thrift; not to impose more work than their strength can bear nor that kind which is at variance with age and sex." 3rd. "The duty of charity of the rich and fortunate is that they assist the poor and needy according to the Gospel precept, which precept indeed obliges so gravely that on the day of judgment an account of its observance will have to be rendered most severely." 4th. "Therefore let the poor not have their poverty as a reproach, nor disdain to accept the charity of the rich. Let them always place before their eyes Jesus the Redeemer, who, although he could have been born amid riches, made himself poor so that he might ennoble their poverty and render it rich with incomparable merits for heaven." 5th. "For resolving the worker question, capitalists and workers themselves can do much by institutes ordered to extending opportune remedies to the needy and to effecting that one order approach nearer to and be united with the other. Such are mutual aid societies, manifold private insurances, patronages for protecting children, but above all corporations of workers."

But if these principles ought to be dear to all, much more to those who are the example of the flock, as is clear from the Code:

All, and especially clerics, religious, and administrators of ecclesiastical goods, in the hiring of labor must assign to workers an honorable and just wage; take care that these same have leisure for piety for a suitable space of time; in no pact lead them away from domestic care and the pursuit of thrift, nor impose more work upon them than their strength can bear, nor that kind which is at variance with age and sex (Can. 1524).

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

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

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

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

4. What is to be said of the case?

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

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

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

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

See this question answered above, p. 290.

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

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

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