Respondeo dicendum quod hoc quod dicitur contrapassum importat aequalem recompensationem passionis ad actionem praecedentem. Quod quidem propriissime dicitur in passionibus iniuriosis quibus aliquis personam proximi laedit, puta, si percutit, quod repercutiatur. Et hoc quidem iustum determinatur in lege, Exod. XXI, reddet animam pro anima, oculum pro oculo, et cetera. Et quia etiam auferre rem alterius est quoddam facere, ideo secundario etiam in his dicitur contrapassum, prout scilicet aliquis qui damnum intulit, in re sua ipse etiam damnificatur. Et hoc etiam iustum continetur in lege, Exod. XXII, si quis furatus fuerit bovem aut ovem, et occiderit vel vendiderit, quinque boves pro uno bove restituet, et quatuor oves pro una ove. Tertio vero transfertur nomen contrapassi ad voluntarias commutationes, in quibus utrinque est actio et passio, sed voluntarium diminuit de ratione passionis, ut dictum est. I answer that, Retaliation (contrapassum) denotes equal passion repaid for previous action; and the expression applies most properly to injurious passions and actions, whereby a man harms the person of his neighbor; for instance if a man strike, that he be struck back. This kind of just is laid down in the Law (Exod 21:23, 24): He shall render life for life, eye for eye, etc. And since also to take away what belongs to another is to do an unjust thing, it follows that second retaliation consists in this also, that whosoever causes loss to another, should suffer loss in his belongings. This just loss is also found in the Law (Exod 22:1): If any man steal an ox or a sheep, and kill or sell it, he shall restore five oxen for one ox and four sheep for one sheep. Third retaliation is transferred to voluntary commutations, where action and passion are on both sides, although voluntariness detracts from the nature of passion, as stated above (Q. 59, A. 3). In omnibus autem his debet fieri, secundum rationem iustitiae commutativae, recompensatio secundum aequalitatem, ut scilicet passio recompensata sit aequalis actioni. Non autem semper esset aequalis si idem specie aliquis pateretur quod fecit. Nam primo quidem, cum quis iniuriose laedat alterius personam maiorem, maior est actio quam passio eiusdem speciei quam ipse pateretur. Et ideo ille qui percutit principem non solum repercutitur, sed multo gravius punitur. Similiter etiam cum quis aliquem involuntarium in re sua damnificat, maior est actio quam esset passio si sibi sola res illa auferretur, quia ipse qui damnificavit alium, in re sua nihil damnificaretur. Et ideo punitur in hoc quod multiplicius restituat, quia etiam non solum damnificavit personam privatam, sed rempublicam, eius tutelae securitatem infringendo. Similiter etiam nec in commutationibus voluntariis semper esset aequalis passio si aliquis daret rem suam, accipiens rem alterius, quia forte res alterius est multo maior quam sua. Et ideo oportet secundum quandam proportionatam commensurationem adaequare passionem actioni in commutationibus, ad quod inventa sunt numismata. Et sic contrapassum est commutativum iustum. In distributiva autem iustitia locum non habet. Quia in distributiva iustitia non attenditur aequalitas secundum proportionem rei ad rem, vel passionis ad actionem, unde dicitur contrapassum, sed secundum proportionalitatem rerum ad personas, ut supra dictum est. In all these cases, however, repayment must be made on a basis of equality according to the requirements of commutative justice, namely that the meed of passion be equal to the action. Now there would not always be equality if passion were in the same species as the action. Because, in the first place, when a person injures the person of one who is greater, the action surpasses any passion of the same species that he might undergo, wherefore he that strikes a prince, is not only struck back, but is much more severely punished. In like manner when a man despoils another of his property against the latter’s will, the action surpasses the passion if he be merely deprived of that thing, because the man who caused another’s loss, himself would lose nothing, and so he is punished by making restitution several times over, because not only did he injure a private individual, but also the common weal, the security of whose protection he has infringed. Nor again would there be equality of passion in voluntary commutations, were one always to exchange one’s chattel for another man’s, because it might happen that the other man’s chattel is much greater than our own: so that it becomes necessary to equalize passion and action in commutations according to a certain proportionate commensuration, for which purpose money was invented. Hence retaliation is in accordance with commutative justice: but there is no place for it in distributive justice, because in distributive justice we do not consider the equality between thing and thing or between passion and action (whence the expression contrapassum), but according to proportion between things and persons, as stated above (A. 2). Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illa forma divini iudicii attenditur secundum rationem commutativae iustitiae, prout scilicet recompensat praemia meritis et supplicia peccatis. Reply Obj. 1: This form of the Divine judgment is in accordance with the conditions of commutative justice, insofar as rewards are apportioned to merits, and punishments to sins. Ad secundum dicendum quod si alicui qui communitati servisset retribueretur aliquid pro servitio impenso, non esset hoc distributivae iustitiae, sed commutativae. In distributiva enim iustitia non attenditur aequalitas eius quod quis accipit ad id quod ipse impendit, sed ad id quod alius accipit, secundum modum utriusque personae. Reply Obj. 2: When a man who has served the community is paid for his services, this is to be referred to commutative, not distributive, justice. Because distributive justice considers the equality, not between the thing received and the thing done, but between the thing received by one person and the thing received by another according to the respective conditions of those persons. Ad tertium dicendum quod quando actio iniuriosa est voluntaria, excedit iniuria, et sic accipitur ut maior res. Unde oportet maiorem poenam ei recompensari non secundum differentiam quoad nos, sed secundum differentiam rei. Reply Obj. 3: When the injurious action is voluntary, the injury is aggravated and consequently is considered as a greater thing. Hence it requires a greater punishment in repayment, by reason of a difference, not on our part, but on the part of the thing. Quaestio 62 Question 62 De restitutione Restitution Deinde considerandum est de restitutione. Et circa hoc quaeruntur octo. We must now consider restitution, under which head there are eight points of inquiry: Primo, cuius actus sit. (1) Of what is it an act? Secundo, utrum necesse sit ad salutem omne ablatum restitui. (2) Whether it is always of necessity for salvation to restore what one has taken away? Tertio, utrum oporteat multiplicatum illud restituere. (3) Whether it is necessary to restore more than has been taken away? Quarto, utrum oporteat restitui id quod quis non accepit. (4) Whether it is necessary to restore what one has not taken away? Quinto, utrum oporteat restitui ei a quo acceptum est. (5) Whether it is necessary to make restitution to the person from whom something has been taken? Sexto, utrum oporteat restituere eum qui accepit. (6) Whether the person who has taken something away is bound to restore it? Septimo, utrum aliquem alium. (7) Whether any other person is bound to restitution? Octavo, utrum sit statim restituendum. (8) Whether one is bound to restore at once? Articulus 1 Article 1 Utrum restitutio sit actus iustitiae commutativae Whether restitution is an act of commutative justice? Ad primum sic proceditur. Videtur quod restitutio non sit actus iustitiae commutativae. Iustitia enim respicit rationem debiti. Sed sicut donatio potest esse eius quod non debetur, ita etiam et restitutio. Ergo restitutio non est actus alicuius partis iustitiae. Objection 1: It would seem that restitution is not an act of commutative justice. For justice regards the notion of what is due. Now one may restore, even as one may give, that which is not due. Therefore restitution is not the act of any part of justice. Praeterea, illud quod iam transiit et non est, restitui non potest. Sed iustitia et iniustitia sunt circa quasdam actiones et passiones, quae non manent, sed transeunt. Ergo restitutio non videtur esse actus alicuius partis iustitiae. Obj. 2: Further, that which has passed away and is no more cannot be restored. Now justice and injustice are about certain actions and passions, which are unenduring and transitory. Therefore restitution would not seem to be the act of a part of justice. Praeterea, restitutio est quasi quaedam recompensatio eius quod subtractum est. Sed aliquid potest homini subtrahi non solum in commutatione, sed etiam in distributione, puta cum aliquis distribuens minus dat alicui quam debeat habere. Ergo restitutio non magis est actus commutativae iustitiae quam distributivae. Obj. 3: Further, restitution is repayment of something taken away. Now something may be taken away from a man not only in commutation, but also in distribution, as when, in distributing, one gives a man less than his due. Therefore restitution is not more an act of commutative than of distributive justice. Sed contra, restitutio ablationi opponitur. Sed ablatio rei alienae est actus iniustitiae circa commutationes. Ergo restitutio eius est actus iustitiae quae est in commutationibus directiva. On the contrary, Restitution is opposed to taking away. Now it is an act of commutative injustice to take away what belongs to another. Therefore to restore it is an act of that justice which directs commutations. Respondeo dicendum quod restituere nihil aliud esse videtur quam iterato aliquem statuere in possessionem vel dominium rei suae. Et ita in restitutione attenditur aequalitas iustitiae secundum recompensationem rei ad rem, quae pertinet ad iustitiam commutativam. Et ideo restitutio est actus commutativae iustitiae, quando scilicet res unius ab alio habetur, vel per voluntatem eius, sicut in mutuo vel deposito; vel contra voluntatem eius, sicut in rapina vel furto. I answer that, To restore is seemingly the same as to reinstate a person in the possession or dominion of his thing, so that in restitution we consider the equality of justice attending the payment of one thing for another, and this belongs to commutative justice. Hence restitution is an act of commutative justice, occasioned by one person having what belongs to another, either with his consent, for instance on loan or deposit, or against his will, as in robbery or theft. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod illud quod alteri non debetur non est, proprie loquendo, eius, etsi aliquando eius fuerit. Et ideo magis videtur esse nova donatio quam restitutio cum quis alteri reddit quod ei non debet. Habet tamen aliquam similitudinem restitutionis, quia res materialiter est eadem. Non tamen est eadem secundum formalem rationem quam respicit iustitia, quod est esse suum alicuius. Unde nec proprie restitutio dicitur. Reply Obj. 1: That which is not due to another is not his properly speaking, although it may have been his at some time: wherefore it is a mere gift rather than a restitution, when anyone renders to another what is not due to him. It is however somewhat like a restitution, since the thing itself is materially the same; yet it is not the same in respect of the formal aspect of justice, which considers that thing as belonging to this particular man: and so it is not restitution properly so called. Ad secundum dicendum quod nomen restitutionis, inquantum importat iterationem quandam, supponit rei identitatem. Et ideo secundum primam impositionem nominis, restitutio videtur locum habere praecipue in rebus exterioribus, quae manentes eaedem et secundum substantiam et secundum ius dominii, ab uno possunt ad alium devenire. Sed sicut ab huiusmodi rebus nomen commutationis translatum est ad actiones vel passiones quae pertinent ad reverentiam vel iniuriam alicuius personae, seu nocumentum vel profectum; ita etiam nomen restitutionis ad haec derivatur quae, licet realiter non maneant, tamen manent in effectu, vel corporali, puta cum ex percussione laeditur corpus; vel qui est in opinione hominum, sicut cum aliquis verbo opprobrioso remanet homo infamatus, vel etiam minoratus in suo honore. Reply Obj. 2: Insofar as the word restitution denotes something done over again, it implies identity of object. Hence it would seem originally to have applied chiefly to external things, which can pass from one person to another, since they remain the same both substantially and in respect of the right of dominion. But, even as the term commutation has passed from such like things to those actions and passions which confer reverence or injury, harm or profit on another person, so too the term restitution is applied, to things which though they be transitory in reality, yet remain in their effect; whether this touch his body, as when the body is hurt by being struck, or his reputation, as when a man remains defamed or dishonored by injurious words. Ad tertium dicendum quod recompensatio quam facit distribuens ei cui dedit minus quam debuit, fit secundum comparationem rei ad rem, ut si quanto minus habuit quam debuit, tanto plus ei detur. Et ideo iam pertinet ad iustitiam commutativam. Reply Obj. 3: Compensation is made by the distributor to the man to whom less was given than his due, by comparison of thing with thing, when the latter receives so much the more according as he received less than his due: and consequently it pertains to commutative justice. Articulus 2 Article 2 Utrum sit necessarium ad salutem quod fiat restitutio eius quod ablatum est Whether restitution of what has been taken away is necessary for salvation? Ad secundum sic proceditur. Videtur quod non sit necessarium ad salutem quod fiat restitutio eius quod ablatum est. Quod enim est impossibile non est de necessitate salutis. Sed aliquando impossibile est restituere id quod est ablatum, puta cum aliquis abstulit alicui membrum vel vitam. Ergo non videtur esse de necessitate salutis quod aliquis restituat quod alteri abstulit. Objection 1: It would seem that it is not necessary to restore what has been taken away. For that which is impossible is not necessary for salvation. But sometimes it is impossible to restore what has been taken, as when a man has taken limb or life. Therefore it does not seem necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from another. Praeterea, committere aliquod peccatum non est de necessitate salutis, quia sic homo esset perplexus. Sed quandoque illud quod aufertur non potest restitui sine peccato, puta cum aliquis alicui famam abstulit verum dicendo. Ergo restituere ablatum non est de necessitate salutis. Obj. 2: Further, the commission of a sin is not necessary for salvation, for then a man would be in a dilemma. But sometimes it is impossible, without sin, to restore what has been taken, as when one has taken away another’s good name by telling the truth. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken from another. Praeterea, quod factum est non potest fieri ut factum non fuerit. Sed aliquando alicui aufertur honor suae personae ex hoc ipso quod passus est aliquo iniuste eum vituperante. Ergo non potest sibi restitui quod ablatum est. Et ita non est de necessitate salutis restituere ablatum. Obj. 3: Further, what is done cannot be undone. Now sometimes a man loses his personal honor by being unjustly insulted. Therefore that which has been taken from him cannot be restored to him: so that it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken. Praeterea, ille qui impedit aliquem ab aliquo bono consequendo videtur ei auferre, quia quod modicum deest, quasi nihil deesse videtur, ut philosophus dicit, in II Physic. Sed cum aliquis impedit aliquem ne consequatur praebendam vel aliquid huiusmodi, non videtur quod teneatur ei ad restitutionem praebendae, quia quandoque non posset. Non ergo restituere ablatum est de necessitate salutis. Obj. 4: Further, to prevent a person from obtaining a good thing is seemingly the same as to take it away from him, since to lack little is almost the same as to lack nothing at all, as the Philosopher says (Phys. ii, 5). Now when anyone prevents a man from obtaining a benefice or the like, seemingly he is not bound to restore the benefice, since this would be sometimes impossible. Therefore it is not necessary for salvation to restore what one has taken. Sed contra est quod Augustinus dicit, non dimittitur peccatum, nisi restituatur ablatum. On the contrary, Augustine says (Ep. ad Maced. cxliii): Unless a man restore what he has purloined, his sin is not forgiven. Respondeo dicendum quod restitutio, sicut dictum est, est actus iustitiae commutativae, quae in quadam aequalitate consistit. Et ideo restituere importat redditionem illius rei quae iniuste ablata est, sic enim per iteratam eius exhibitionem aequalitas reparatur. Si vero iuste ablatum sit, inaequalitas erit ut ei restituatur, quia iustitia in aequalitate consistit. Cum igitur servare iustitiam sit de necessitate salutis, consequens est quod restituere id quod iniuste ablatum est alicui, sit de necessitate salutis. I answer that, Restitution as stated above (A. 1) is an act of commutative justice, and this demands a certain equality. Wherefore restitution denotes the return of the thing unjustly taken; since it is by giving it back that equality is reestablished. If, however, it be taken away justly, there will be equality, and so there will be no need for restitution, for justice consists in equality. Since therefore the safeguarding of justice is necessary for salvation, it follows that it is necessary for salvation to restore what has been taken unjustly. Ad primum ergo dicendum quod in quibus non potest recompensari aequivalens, sufficit quod recompensetur quod possibile est, sicut patet de honoribus qui sunt ad Deum et ad parentes, ut philosophus dicit, in VIII Ethic. Et ideo quando id quod est ablatum non est restituibile per aliquid aequale, debet fieri recompensatio qualis possibilis est. Puta, cum aliquis alicui abstulit membrum, debet ei recompensare vel in pecunia vel in aliquo honore, considerata conditione utriusque personae, secundum arbitrium probi viri. Reply Obj. 1: When it is impossible to repay the equivalent, it suffices to repay what one can, as in the case of honor due to God and our parents, as the Philosopher states (Ethic. viii, 14). Wherefore when that which has been taken cannot be restored in equivalent, compensation should be made as far as possible: for instance if one man has deprived another of a limb, he must make compensation either in money or in honor, the condition of either party being duly considered according to the judgment of a good man. Ad secundum dicendum quod aliquis potest alicui famam tripliciter auferre. Uno modo, verum dicendo et iuste, puta cum aliquis crimen alicuius prodit ordine debito servato. Et tunc non tenetur ad restitutionem famae. Alio modo, falsum dicendo et iniuste. Et tunc tenetur restituere famam confitendo se falsum dixisse. Tertio modo, verum dicendo sed iniuste, puta cum aliquis prodit crimen alterius contra ordinem debitum. Et tunc tenetur ad restitutionem famae quantum potest, sine mendacio tamen, utpote quod dicat se male dixisse, vel quod iniuste eum diffamaverit. Vel, si non possit famam restituere, debet ei aliter recompensare, sicut et in aliis dictum est. Reply Obj. 2: There are three ways in which one may take away another’s good name. First, by saying what is true, and this justly, as when a man reveals another’s sin, while observing the right order of so doing, and then he is not bound to restitution. Second, by saying what is untrue and unjustly, and then he is bound to restore that man’s good name, by confessing that he told an untruth. Third, by saying what is true, but unjustly, as when a man reveals another’s sin contrarily to the right order of so doing, and then he is bound to restore his good name as far as he can, and yet without telling an untruth; for instance by saying that he spoke ill, or that he defamed him unjustly; or if he be unable to restore his good name, he must compensate him otherwise, the same as in other cases, as stated above (ad 1).