Conference 42 - Justice and Injustice in Involuntary Exchanges

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

Number 42

Justice & Injustice in Involuntary Exchanges

We now go on to Section B of the treatise on Commutative Justice, which is entitled Justice and Injustice in Involuntary Exchanges. By “involuntary exchanges” is meant those “deeds” by means of which a harm, a loss, or a detriment is inflicted upon another against the other’s will (obviously). This can happen in one of several ways: When one uses what belongs to another, or, for personal gain, makes use of the Name or the Works of another, all without the other’s permission. And these may be done secretly, through Fraud, or manifestly, by Violence. The harm, loss or detriment includes not only that perpetrated against the other himself, but also against someone closely joined to that “other”. Finally the injustice can be committed not only by “actions” but also through speech.

My author identifies four types of goods concerning which it is possible to talk about Commutative Justice and the violations thereof. We had occasion to name them quite a few conferences ago:

(1) Internal Goods of Life or of the Body, either of the “other” or someone closely joined to him.

(2) The Goods of Marriage, that is, the Internal Goods of one’s spouse;

(3) External Goods of Fortune, and

(4) Mixed Goods of Fame and Honor.

Thus, we will have occasion to speak during this section of the harm done to another that afflicts either his soul (his spiritual well being) or his body; of the harm done to a member of one’s family through adultery or rape; and to his goods of external fortune through theft (by stealth) or robbery (openly).

Harm to one’s honor and good name is inflicted in words by detraction (hiddenly) or by contemptuous speech (openly).

With that brief introduction we go on to Chapter I of this Section B, which is entitled: Injuries to Internal Goods of Life and of the Body, of which the First Question is:

Injuries to the Spiritual Good of the Soul…

By spiritual goods are understood not only the supernatural, which are ordained immediately toward eternal salvation, and which include divine grace, the theological virtues, infused moral virtues, the sacraments, the clerical and religious states, etc., but also the natural, such as reason, free will, intellectual capabilities, talents and gifts, the natural sciences, arts, and other things of that kind. The reason there can be injuries (really, Injuria = injustices) in regard to all these spiritual goods, is that we human beings have rights concerning them: to acquire them, augment them, exercise them and put them to profitable use.

Because these are rights in the strict sense, when they are interfered with or “damaged” in some way, they can, in certain circumstances, give rise to the obligation to make restitution. Hence we can say:

(1) Whoever, by unjust means (by fraud, force or by instilling fear) has inflicted spiritual harm upon another, thereby preventing the attainment of a spiritual good (e.g., entering religious life), is obliged to make restitution to the extent possible. If the spiritual good is still attainable, reparation is made by removing the fraud, force or fear. If the spiritual good in question is no longer attainable, restitution in the strict sense no longer is possible. In any event, an attempt must be made to restore to the injured person a spiritual good identical to or comparable to what would have been attained absent the injury (injustice).

(2) Whoever is obliged in justice (in virtue of one’s office of a contract, or of having accepted a stipend), to instruct, counsel, correct, confer a sacrament or offer a Mass, etc., and neglects to do so, is obliged, to the extent possible, to make restitution. The restitution would extend not only to the “spiritual goods or services” omitted, but also to the loss of ancillary “spiritual goods” that might have been attained had the goods or services been “timely delivered”.

(3) Whoever, without violating a duty in justice to do otherwise, does spiritual harm to another, or prevents him from attaining spiritual benefit, by means of bad example or bad advice or other similar means, is not obliged to make some kind of reparation out of justice, but is obliged to do so out of charity. The reason being that to one who knows he is being harmed and consents thereto, no injury (or injustice) is done. Where there is no “injustice” there is no reparation “owed”. “Charity” obliges because one’s LOVE for what is good and proper “urges” the charitable person from within “freely” to restore to its original “wholeness”, what he or she may have damaged.

Certain general principles flow from the above:

A. With regard to all internal goods:

(1) Whoever, by administering a drug or other medication to an unwilling individual, deprives him of the use of his reason, memory, or free will, is guilty of a grave injustice and is obliged to use the necessary means, if they exist, by which the use of the lost faculties will be restored, and to make reparation for any consequent harm suffered by the injured party, provided that the guilty party is at least vaguely aware of the consequent harm.

(2) The same holds true for anyone, who by force, fraud or by instilling fear, prevents another from pursuing studies in letters, the arts or some profession, or prevents on from exercising or using those already acquired.

B. With regard to the intellect:

(1) Whoever teaches a “practical error or untruth” to another, as a result of which some other evil (in addition to the error) befalls the innocent party, is obliged to retract the error or untruth and to make compensation for all the harm done to that other, or to some third party, provided that the resulting harm is at least vaguely foreseen.

(2) If the error is merely “speculative”, that is, one that does not ordinarily make a “practical” difference in the life of the one deceived, then there is no obligation per se to retract or correct the error. If, however, the error does “happen” to result in some kind of loss or harm, then, (per accidens, of course), some kind of reparation would be due.

What would be the “errors” that do make a practical difference in our lives? Among them would be the defined dogmas of our Catholic Faith (in the supernatural realm) and the fundamental, universal principles or “axioms” of human reason, together with basic factual knowledge (in the realm of natural science).

C. With regard to the Will:

(1) Whoever, by means of force, fraud or by instilling fear, induces another to enter upon a sinful way of life, or prevents another from accepting the grace to embrace and pursue a more devout way of life, is required in justice to make restitution (reparation), which includes not only withdrawing the unjust, harmful influence, but also positively helping the injured party to return to the good, or better, moral conduct.

(2) Whoever, by bad example or advice, or by means of importuning, achieves the very same harmful effects as those just listed, is not obliged to make reparation, unless the offender happens also to be the injured party’s superior, which superior has the obligation in virtue of his office to “lead” his subordinates to good and better lives. In the event the injured party is induced to sin against justice, then the person so inducing him under this heading is obliged to make restitution, but not to the one who is the direct victim of the bad example, etc. but to the third party injured by the injustice.

All that having been said, my textbook takes up the question of hypnotism, since by means of it, the hypnotist does indeed seem to take over the subject’s mind and will. This is how its author understands hypnotism: the inducement of a “peculiar” (or not normal) state similar to sleep, in which the hypnotized subject carries out, in amazingly accurate fashion, the suggestions or commands of the hypnotist. At the word of the hypnotist, the subject can be made immune to pain or pleasure (insensitive) or made to experience pain or pleasure in the total absence of any physical stimuli. In this state, as you know, “post-hypnotic” suggestions can be made, to be performed at a certain stated time, and in a specifically detailed manner, and the subject carries them out, again, with amazing accuracy. Also, as you know, under hypnosis a subject can be made to remember facts and events from the distant past that are buried in the memory, impervious to conscious recall, and even be made to regress to years of early childhood, and respond to questions with the voice and mannerisms of a little child.

It is also believed, at least by the author of my textbook, that while under hypnosis a subject can easily be influenced by extraneous evil powers and spirits. Therefore, the question is asked: Is it morally permissible to practice hypnotism, or to allow oneself to be hypnotized? As you must have suspected, the answer is: It depends upon the circumstances!

The three main “circumstances” to consider are (1) the subject who is to be placed in a hypnotic state, (2) the hypnotist who induces the hypnosis, and (3) the purpose for which the hypnosis is being used.

With regard to the first, there are some individuals who are so profoundly influenced by the suggestions of strong and very assertive personalities that they can easily be induced to do things that are illicit or immoral, things they would ordinarily not do while in control of themselves. Some can even be brought back into a hypnotic state even against their will. Only with the gravest cautions and safeguards should persons of this type allow themselves to be hypnotized.

Then, of course, there are others who, for some reason, just cannot be hypnotized, probably because they are unable to “surrender” their will to that of another, not even to a reputable, upright hypnotist, nor to relinquish “self-control” in any way.

With regard to (2) the hypnotist, he is to be a professionally trained person, usually a medical doctor or psychologist, known for his upright, moral integrity, whose use of hypnosis is restricted to a good and honest purpose.

With regard to (3) purpose, good and sufficient reasons for undergoing or using hypnosis would include, for example, the overcoming of irrational fears (phobias) and addictions, removing or diminishing evil propensities, e.g., temptations to suicide, and to aid in the cure of certain forms of mental illness, etc.

Among the safeguards that should be used to prevent the subject from being harmed physically, emotionally or spiritually from hypnosis is the presence of a trustworthy witness, when, of course, confidentiality makes this possible.

The Second Question – Suicide…

Having treated of Injustices that do harm to the Internal Goods of the spirit or soul, we turn to the kinds of injustices that harm or damage the body. We said at the beginning of this Section B that we would be dealing with voluntary as well as involuntary “exchanges” between individuals. So it requires a stretch of the imagination to include the subject of suicide here. Likewise it is not normal to think of a person committing an act of injustice against oneself, because commutative justice, by its very terms requires that the “exchanges” take place between distinct persons. Nevertheless, since suicide is of itself, that is objectively, a very serious sin which does the greatest bodily harm; and because we have to think of the individual, on the one hand, as dealing with himself for himself, and, on the other, as dealing with himself as the “steward” of the gift of bodily life which God has conferred upon him, this is the logical place in the treatise to consider it.

For the purposes of moral theology, my textbook gives us a rather broad “description” of what is meant by suicide. I translate the entire paragraph:

“Suicide” is an act or an omission which of its nature causes death. It may be direct or indirect. Direct suicide is that in which death is the intended outcome of the act or omission. Suicide is indirect when death is not the intended outcome, but is foreseen to be very highly probable result of a particular act or omission. It is one thing to kill oneself; it is another to expose oneself to the danger of near certain death. According to this understanding, no one seems to doubt that the “indirect” suicide is lawful, given certain circumstances and a proportionately grave reason. There have been in the past, however, certain individuals who have attempted to show that direct suicide is also licit under certain conditions and for a proportionately grave reason. Among them were not only the Greek philosophers, especially the stoics and the epicureans, but also more recently, the positivists and materialists. Thus it has happened, that, as Faith diminishes, suicide has gradually resurfaced as a morally viable option. Apologies in its favor have appeared in books and in theatres. Catholic doctrine tells us otherwise.

Thus we have the General Principle: Suicide, directly intended on one’s own authority, in itself and of its nature, is a grievous sin. It not only inflicts an unwarranted injury upon the individual himself and to society, but also violates God’s rights.

In detail:

(a) “On one’s own authority”

The inclusion of this phrase, surprised me, but the author of my textbook explains that God and lawful public authority (which governs as the agent of God –as St. Paula tells us-) may very well command that an individual commit suicide. [I do believe that in ancient times the City of Athens ordered Socrates to drink the poison hemlock, which he did, and died]. But would God ever command anyone to do something or omit doing something that would directly cause his or her death?

My textbook states that we can never be absolutely sure that God will never inspire or command such a thing, and so he includes this phrase so as not to exclude that possibility. But it occurs to me that Our Lord did say “I lay down My life of my own accord. No one takes it from Me”. Yet He also says, “I have the power (authority?) To lay it down, and the power to take it up again”. Also, since God did command Abraham to sacrifice Isaac (whom Abraham loved more than himself), He certainly has the right to command anyone to commit suicide.

(b) in itself…a grievous sin

This phrase appears in the “definition” because it is entirely possible that someone may in good faith mistakenly be convinced that reasons exist which give him the “right” to take his own life.

1. No steward or trustee has the right to destroy what has been given him to manage and develop and increase.

2. No one has the “right” to remove himself from the Society (or community) into which God has inserted him, and whose being and doing is intended by God to subserve the good of the society. Thus, it is a violation of Legal Justice.

3. God alone has supreme dominion over all human life, which He created in His image and likeness.

We’ll continue with suicide next time…

<<<home page

index to Virtues>>>

* * * * * * * * * * *

MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.