Restoring Property And Good Names, Etc.

[Resurrexi]

Must one be in a state of grace when he restores the property of one he has stolen, restores the good name he has blackened, or remedies the scandal he has made?

[Starets]

No

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Staretz' post='1215558' date='Mar 18 2007, 02:36 PM']No[/quote]

Do you have any authoritative document to back that up?

[Starets]

Does common sense need an autoritative document to back it up?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1215503' date='Mar 18 2007, 02:32 PM']Must one be in a state of grace when he restores the property of one he has stolen, restores the good name he has blackened, or remedies the scandal he has made?[/quote]

I've researched this topic a great deal and I think I can give you an authoritative answer. I'll post (with research & quotes) tonight between 8:30 and 11PM (eastern). I'm excited!

[Ziggamafu]

btw: the answer is no.

[Ziggamafu]

It is interesting. I have access to all of the Church Fathers and a great deal (perhaps most?) of the documents and canons of papal / council history. I own several Catechisms and have research moral theology a great deal. If there is one issue that is likely vital to our salvation and is barely discussed, it is reparation and restitution for the physical / monetary damage our sins have caused other people. It seems that everywhere you look, the sincere and ongoing attempt of reparation (at a bare minimum) is nothing less than a grave obligation. If you spend enough time, you will eventually run into something (more or less authoritative) that does explicitly define reparation for damages to be a grave obligation, even after confession and a plenary indulgence (which merely take care of the spiritual damage). It usually takes a lot of reading and research to find an authoritative book or document that spends more than a sentence or paragraph on the subject. After literally more than a year of my own research, I found a book that seems (for me personally) to be the holy grail of this topic.

[b][i]MORAL THEOLOGY[/i], by Fr. Heribert Jone[/b] (translated and adapted by Fr. Urban Adelman, O.F.M. Cap., J.C.D.) and published by TAN was originally written in German and went through 18 editions and seven translations. The last edition was printed in 1962. It has a Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. [u]The book devotes 22 pages to the specific topic of restitution and there are other places where reparation's necessity (and how it is to be gone about) is brought up. What is especially cool is that the author give examples and is pretty exhaustive about what one's obligations are in virtually any conceivable circumstance.[/u] I'll quote a couple passages here (without his emphasis of italics and bold, but throwing in a few of my own where I think it's important):

[quote]Book II, Part II, Section VII, Chapter IV: Restitution, Article I:
335. I: Restitution is an act by which the goods which a man lost through violation of commutative justice are restored to him. Since commutative justice is not violated there is no obligation of restitution is, for instance, children, unmindful of their obligation of love, neglect their parents, or if a person defaults in the payment of his taxes. Neither is there such a duty if that which belongs to another cannot be restored to him. Therefore, one is practically not obliged to compensate with money a violation of another's honor or the sin of adultery from which no child is born, etc. But should the court sentence one to pay an "equitable compensation" he would be obliged in conscience to do so. If no damage results from the injustice, restitution need not be made. Thus, he who kills the father of a family who would shortly have died of an illness or who, by his habits of dissipation, was a burden to his dependents, need not make restitution to the family. -- However, one would have to make reparation even if the damage would otherwise have been caused by a third party.
336. II: [b]The obligation of restitution is a grave one, but admits of lightness of matter. Whoever cannot at all, or cannot immediately make restitution must at least have the intention to do so whenever this is possible.[/b] -- If only a trifling amount is involved the duty to restore is a venial one even if committing the damage one sinned gravely by reason of an erroneous conscience. On the other hand one is gravely obliged to give back a valuable object which he still possesses, even if he only sinned venially in stealing, e.g., by thinking it was of little value.
III: The grounds, or so called "roots" of restitution are: wrongful possession of another's goods and unjust damage. Both may exist simultaneously as, for example, a robbed man besides losing the money stolen from him (which is in the unjust possession of a thief), likewise suffers the loss of the profit he could make with the money.

...

Article V: Making restitution
365. V. Time of restitution. Restitution must be made as soon as possible and in full. [b]If total restitution cannot be made immediately, one is obliged at least to a partial restitution. -- Postponement of restitution becomes a mortal sin only when the creditor suffers a new grave loss thereby. [/b]Whoever wishes to postpone restitution until his death generally sins seriously on account of the danger of its not being made at all. [b][u]One should not readily disturb the good faith of a person, but earnestly induce him to make a will wherein he fulfills his obligations of justice.[/u][/b] -- [b]One may postpone restitution for a long time if the loss sustained by immediate payment is much greater than that which his creditor suffers by the postpayment.[/b] In such a case the debtor need not compensate for the creditor's additional loss through postponement.

Article VI: Causes which excuse from restitution
366. I: Voluntary renunciation on the part of the creditor, on condonation or remission by the Holy See free one from the obligation of making restitution. Renunciation may be expressed or implicit, and sometimes even presumed, e.g., by the wife or children of the injured party or by servants, workmen or the poor who are guilty of petty thefts; likewise, if one is caught stealing and is reproved or punished and nothing is said about restitution. Equivilent is the voluntary settlement between creditor and debtor. Remission on the part of the Holy See is obtained by one who has good reason to be freed from the obligation of restoring church property. In those cases where restitution may be made to pious causes the Sacred Penitentiary has the faculty to remit at least part of the obligation.
II. [b]Physical or moral impossibility postpones the obligation of restitution and even remits it when such impossability is perpetual.[/b] Restitution is morally impossible if the debtor would thereby be constituted in really grave or very grave need (if by nonpayment the creditor would suffer grave need). Likewise, if the debtor would thus lose the social status he has justly (not by cunning and cheating, etc) acquired; [b]and finally, if he would thereby suffer some loss of a higher order, e.g., life, liberty, reputation, etc. [/b][/quote]

...phew, I HATE transcribing.

[Ziggamafu]

It is interesting. I have access to all of the Church Fathers and a great deal (perhaps most?) of the documents and canons of papal / council history. I own several Catechisms and have research moral theology a great deal. If there is one issue that is likely vital to our salvation and is barely discussed, it is reparation and restitution for the physical / monetary damage our sins have caused other people. It seems that everywhere you look, the sincere and ongoing attempt of reparation (at a bare minimum) is nothing less than a grave obligation. If you spend enough time, you will eventually run into something (more or less authoritative) that does explicitly define reparation for damages to be a grave obligation, even after confession and a plenary indulgence (which merely take care of the spiritual damage). It usually takes a lot of reading and research to find an authoritative book or document that spends more than a sentence or paragraph on the subject. After literally more than a year of my own research, I found a book that seems (for me personally) to be the holy grail of this topic.

[b][i]MORAL THEOLOGY[/i], by Fr. Heribert Jone[/b] (translated and adapted by Fr. Urban Adelman, O.F.M. Cap., J.C.D.) and published by TAN was originally written in German and went through 18 editions and seven translations. The last edition was printed in 1962. It has a Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. [u]The book devotes 22 pages to the specific topic of restitution and there are other places where reparation's necessity (and how it is to be gone about) is brought up. What is especially cool is that the author give examples and is pretty exhaustive about what one's obligations are in virtually any conceivable circumstance.[/u] I'll quote a couple passages here (without his emphasis of italics and bold, but throwing in a few of my own where I think it's important):

[quote]Book II, Part II, Section VII, Chapter IV: Restitution, Article I:
335. I: Restitution is an act by which the goods which a man lost through violation of commutative justice are restored to him. Since commutative justice is not violated there is no obligation of restitution is, for instance, children, unmindful of their obligation of love, neglect their parents, or if a person defaults in the payment of his taxes. Neither is there such a duty if that which belongs to another cannot be restored to him. Therefore, one is practically not obliged to compensate with money a violation of another's honor or the sin of adultery from which no child is born, etc. But should the court sentence one to pay an "equitable compensation" he would be obliged in conscience to do so. If no damage results from the injustice, restitution need not be made. Thus, he who kills the father of a family who would shortly have died of an illness or who, by his habits of dissipation, was a burden to his dependents, need not make restitution to the family. -- However, one would have to make reparation even if the damage would otherwise have been caused by a third party.
336. II: [b]The obligation of restitution is a grave one, but admits of lightness of matter. Whoever cannot at all, or cannot immediately make restitution must at least have the intention to do so whenever this is possible.[/b] -- If only a trifling amount is involved the duty to restore is a venial one even if committing the damage one sinned gravely by reason of an erroneous conscience. On the other hand one is gravely obliged to give back a valuable object which he still possesses, even if he only sinned venially in stealing, e.g., by thinking it was of little value.
III: The grounds, or so called "roots" of restitution are: wrongful possession of another's goods and unjust damage. Both may exist simultaneously as, for example, a robbed man besides losing the money stolen from him (which is in the unjust possession of a thief), likewise suffers the loss of the profit he could make with the money.

...

Article V: Making restitution
365. V. Time of restitution. Restitution must be made as soon as possible and in full. [b]If total restitution cannot be made immediately, one is obliged at least to a partial restitution. -- Postponement of restitution becomes a mortal sin only when the creditor suffers a new grave loss thereby. [/b]Whoever wishes to postpone restitution until his death generally sins seriously on account of the danger of its not being made at all. [b][u]One should not readily disturb the good faith of a person, but earnestly induce him to make a will wherein he fulfills his obligations of justice.[/u][/b] -- [b]One may postpone restitution for a long time if the loss sustained by immediate payment is much greater than that which his creditor suffers by the postpayment.[/b] In such a case the debtor need not compensate for the creditor's additional loss through postponement.

Article VI: Causes which excuse from restitution
366. I: Voluntary renunciation on the part of the creditor, on condonation or remission by the Holy See free one from the obligation of making restitution. Renunciation may be expressed or implicit, and sometimes even presumed, e.g., by the wife or children of the injured party or by servants, workmen or the poor who are guilty of petty thefts; likewise, if one is caught stealing and is reproved or punished and nothing is said about restitution. Equivilent is the voluntary settlement between creditor and debtor. Remission on the part of the Holy See is obtained by one who has good reason to be freed from the obligation of restoring church property. In those cases where restitution may be made to pious causes the Sacred Penitentiary has the faculty to remit at least part of the obligation.
II. [b]Physical or moral impossibility postpones the obligation of restitution and even remits it when such impossability is perpetual.[/b] Restitution is morally impossible if the debtor would thereby be constituted in really grave or very grave need (if by nonpayment the creditor would suffer grave need). Likewise, if the debtor would thus lose the social status he has justly (not by cunning and cheating, etc) acquired; [b]and finally, if he would thereby suffer some loss of a higher order, e.g., life, liberty, reputation, etc. [/b][/quote]

...phew, I HATE transcribing.

[Ziggamafu]

Also, from the Baltimore Catechism:

[quote]Q. 1301. Are we bound to restore ill-gotten goods?
A. We are bound to restore ill-gotten goods, or the value of them, as far as we are able; otherwise we cannot be forgiven.

Q. 1302. What must we do if we cannot restore all we owe, or if the person to whom we should restore be dead?
A. If we cannot restore all we owe, we must restore as much as we can, and if the person to whom we should restore be dead we must restore to his children or heirs, and if these cannot be found we may give alms to the poor.

Q. 1303. What must one do who cannot pay his debts and yet wishes to receive the Sacraments?
A. One who cannot pay his debts and yet wishes to receive the Sacraments must sincerely promise and intend to pay them as soon as possible, and must without delay make every effort to do so.

Q. 1304. Are we obliged to repair the damage we have unjustly caused?
A. We are bound to repair the damage we have unjustly caused.

381. Q. What must they do who have lied about their neighbor and seriously injured his character?

A. They who have lied about their neighbor and seriously injured his character must repair the injury done as far as they are able, otherwise they will not be forgiven. [/quote]And from the Catechism of Pope Pius X:

[quote]120 Q: Besides his penance, what else must the penitent do after confession?

A: Besides performing his penance after confession, the penitent, if he has justly injured another in his goods or reputation, or if he has given him scandal, must as soon as possible, and as far as he is able, restore him his goods, repair his honor, and remedy the scandal.
121 Q: How can the scandal given be remedied?

A: The scandal given can be remedied by removing the occasion of it and by edifying by word and example those whom we have scandalized.
122 Q: How should we make satisfaction to one whom we have offended?

13 Q: Is it a grave sin to steal?

A: It is a grave sin against justice when the matter is grave; for it is most important for the good of individuals, of families, and of society that each one's right to his property should be respected.
14 Q: When is stolen matter grave?

A: When that which is taken is considerable, as also when serious loss is inflicted on another by taking that which in itself is of little value.

16 Q: Is it enough for one who has sinned against the Seventh Commandment to confess his sin?

A: It is not enough for one who has sinned against the Seventh Commandment to confess his sin; he must also do his best to restore what belongs to others, and to repair the loss he has caused.
17 Q: What is meant by repairing the losses caused?

A: Repairing the losses caused means the compensation which must be made to another for the goods or profits lost owing to the theft or other acts of injustice committed to his detriment.
18 Q: To whom must stolen property be restored?

A: To him from whom it has been stolen; to his heirs, if he is dead; or if this is really impossible the value of it should be devoted to the poor or to some charity.

A: We should make satisfaction to one whom we have offended, by asking his pardon, or by some other suitable reparation.[/quote]

...I actually didn't find what I was looking for (from the Baltimore Catechism), even though I just read it earlier this afternoon. But I must go to bed now. Later.

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Ziggamafu' post='1215680' date='Mar 18 2007, 09:09 PM']It is interesting. I have access to all of the Church Fathers and a great deal (perhaps most?) of the documents and canons of papal / council history. I own several Catechisms and have research moral theology a great deal. If there is one issue that is likely vital to our salvation and is barely discussed, it is reparation and restitution for the physical / monetary damage our sins have caused other people. It seems that everywhere you look, the sincere and ongoing attempt of reparation (at a bare minimum) is nothing less than a grave obligation. If you spend enough time, you will eventually run into something (more or less authoritative) that does explicitly define reparation for damages to be a grave obligation, even after confession and a plenary indulgence (which merely take care of the spiritual damage). It usually takes a lot of reading and research to find an authoritative book or document that spends more than a sentence or paragraph on the subject. After literally more than a year of my own research, I found a book that seems (for me personally) to be the holy grail of this topic.

[b][i]MORAL THEOLOGY[/i], by Fr. Heribert Jone[/b] (translated and adapted by Fr. Urban Adelman, O.F.M. Cap., J.C.D.) and published by TAN was originally written in German and went through 18 editions and seven translations. The last edition was printed in 1962. It has a Nihil Obstat, Imprimi Potest, and Imprimatur. [u]The book devotes 22 pages to the specific topic of restitution and there are other places where reparation's necessity (and how it is to be gone about) is brought up. What is especially cool is that the author give examples and is pretty exhaustive about what one's obligations are in virtually any conceivable circumstance.[/u] I'll quote a couple passages here (without his emphasis of italics and bold, but throwing in a few of my own where I think it's important):
...phew, I HATE transcribing.[/quote]


That's awesome! thanks!