Conference 48 - Occult Compensation

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

Number 48

Occult Compensation

So much of this treatise on Justice has had to do with Injustice, or Sins against Justice. We are supposed to be treating of the Virtue of Justice, that is, just deeds. Why spend so much time on Sin?

I think St. Teresa provides the justification, since, on more than one occasion in her writings, when speaking about certain virtues, she interrupted her discourse to explain why it was that she could talk about them with sure confidence. She stated that it was because she saw in herself the very opposite of the virtues she had been speaking about, that she knew what constituted that virtue. So in the same way, by getting to know quite specifically what is not Justice, we can acquire quite accurate knowledge of what kind of conduct is just and does Justice.

Having barely managed to include in last month’s conference the material under Article I of Question 3 of the current Part, Section and Chapter in the Treatise on Justice, we go on to:

Article II – Occult Compensation…

The word compensation as used in this article is not to be understood in its proper, or legal sense, by means of which an acknowledged and agreed upon debt is paid and extinguished, but in an improper or extra-legal sense, by means of which a creditor withholds or takes from the goods of the debtor something that is “owed” him. It is something the “creditor” has recourse to, secretly, when the “debtor” will not acknowledge and satisfy the debt. Concerning this, there are the following Principles:

Principle I – Generally speaking, Occult Compensation is unlawful (illicit), and therefore a sin.

This principle is based on the fact that, given our fallen human nature, we very easily tend to magnify and exaggerate our own personal rights, and to diminish and extenuate the rights of others. Therefore, if it were always permissible to vindicate one’s rights (in regard to the payment of debts) on one’s own authority, without having recourse to the judicial system, the doors would be thrown wide open to thievery and other disorders in human society. Thus generally speaking, one is obliged to have recourse to a court of law in order to obtain satisfaction from a recalcitrant debtor.

Principle II – By way of exception, Occult Compensation is permissible in some circumstances and subject to certain conditions.

One such circumstance would occur when it is “morally impossible” to have recourse to a judge. Clearly, this would happen so infrequently that it could not bring about the public disorder mentioned above. The expression “when morally impossible” also translates into “when there is no lawful alternative available”.

These are certain conditions that on those rare occasions justify the use of Occult Compensation.

1. That the “debt” to be satisfied be one that is owed in strict justice. It cannot be a debt that has its origin in charity, gratitude, religion, fidelity to a promise, or some other “moral obligation”, such as friendship, blood relationship, and (non-extreme) poverty.

2. The creditor must be ”morally certain” that the debt exists. When we say “morally certain” we mean the kind of certainty that is required to convince a “just and prudent” person of the existence of the debt. That is, the certainty must be based upon evidence and reasoning that suffice to remove doubt from such a person.

3. The value of the “compensation” must strictly “equal” the amount of the debt. Or, in the case of material things, the “goods” taken are to be of the same nature, kind and quantity.

4. There must be no other lawful way of satisfying the debt that does not entail grave inconvenience.

Grave inconvenience is present when other lawful means:

(a) Would require a disproportionately great expense;

(b) Would result in interpersonal quarrels;

(d) Are clearly foreseen to be useless.

Among (d) is included the situation wherein a debt has not ripened, but it is foreseen that, when it does, there is moral certainty that the debt will not be paid.

5. Care must be taken that spiritual or temporal harm does not befall either the debtor or some innocent third person as a result of the Occult Compensation.

Examples of the possible harm would be:

Temporal (or material): Suddenly the debtor awakens to his obligation and pays the debt, resulting in his having paid twice.

Spiritual: the debtor may be guilty of bad faith in not acknowledging the debt, and if he were unaware that it has been extinguished through occult compensation, he would continue in that bad faith.

Harm to a third party: As a result of the occult compensation, suspicion may be thrown upon a servant or employee of the debtor; or, upon someone to whom the goods in question had been entrusted or consigned.

Of the five conditions enumerated above, the first three arise out of commutative justice, the fourth out of legal justice, and the fifth arises, most often, out of charity.

Chapter IV – Concerning Injuries (Injustices) to the Goods of Good Name and Honor that are inflicted verbally.

Question 1 – Rash Judgment and Suspicion…

My author says that in general rash judgment occurs when someone makes a statement concerning the secret affairs of a particular person, or concerning a vaguely known subject, based on reasons that are dubious and conjectural. As it applies to the virtue of Justice, it is attributing evil to another (judging another to be guilty of something sinful) on the basis of insufficient evidence.

He goes on to say that one may rise to the making of a rash judgment through various “steps” or degrees of suspicion:

First, when one entertains a doubt about the honesty or moral integrity of another, that is, when for inadequate reasons, one “suspends” making the internal judgment that this is a good person.

As used here, the doubt is not a true one, that is, the mere absence of drawing a conclusion, realizing that there is insufficient evidence to support a conclusion one way or the other. Rather, as used here, doubt means something positive, the actual wanting to be uncertain about the good character of another. It is an “uncertainty” that is deliberately fostered.

Second, when one harbors a suspicion, namely, when for slight reasons and with a large possibility of being in error, one is strongly inclined to judge that another has done something evil.

Third, when one forms the opinion that another has committed an evil deed, that is, even though one knows that the insufficient evidence does not honestly support the making of a judgment of wrongdoing.

Fourth, the rash judgment finally occurs when, still without sufficient evidence, one transforms the “opinion” into a firm and certain conviction, that the person in question is guilty of sin.

The author asks the question: How can one possibly arrive at certainty in judging based on “insufficient” evidence?

He responds by saying that this certitude is not that based upon objectively sufficient evidence, that is, one that is a product of the intellect alone. Rather, it is a certainty that is commanded by the will. It is an act of the will, or the desire, to attribute evil to another, that causes the objectively insufficient grounds to become subjectively sufficient.

He goes on to say that the influence of the will can be even greater than that just mentioned. It is possible for the will even to command that the “intellect” refuse (i) to consider other evidence that would require the retraction of the rash judgment, or (ii) to acknowledge the weight or persuasive power of that other evidence.

Clearly, then, rash judgment not only is a violation of “commutative justice”, it is also a sin of “imprudence”.

St. Thomas Aquinas has speculated upon the phenomenon of rash judgment seeking to discover what it is about a person that might cause him to tend to fall into this sin. He comes up with the following “possibilities”:

(a) It could be that such a person knows himself to be evil, and therefore finds it easy to attribute an evil conscience to others as well. As the old saying goes: We judge others by ourselves!

(b) It could be, too, that one harbors animosity (bad will) toward someone who has angered him or whom he envies, and therefore is “eager” to cling to anything that might justify his attributing evil to that person.

(c) It could be the result of long experience that led Aristotle to assert: “the elderly are the ones who most tend to be suspicious [of the goodness] of others, since, over many years, they have had many, many personal experiences of the faults of others”.

St. Thomas continues: The first two possibilities pertain to perversity in one’s affections. The third diminishes the degree of rashness (temerity) because experience really does help one to judge aright.

What then, can we say about the sinfulness of Rash Judgment?

According to my textbook, strictly speaking, it is a sin against Justice, and, considered in the abstract, is a serious sin.

1. Strictly speaking. The judgment must be firm and “certain” (4^th step in the series listed above). Anything less would not be seriously sinful.

2. Rash. The judgment must be knowingly and deliberately formed and adhered to, that is, with awareness of the objective insufficiency of the evidence.

3. A sin against [commutative] Justice. It does unwarranted harm to one’s neighbor. Even internal acts of intellect and will can do harm to one’s peers, since they normally lead to external manifestation in speech and conduct.

4. Considered in the abstract, a serious sin. One of the most precious goods a human being can possess is a good name, and the honor and respect that go with it.

Everyone has a strict right to a good name, that is, to be thought well of by others, unless and until he has been “proved” to be unworthy of respect and esteem. (Of course, as Christians, we are obliged to treat every human being with honor, esteem and manifest good will because of the dignity of each one as made in the “natural” image and likeness of God, and because Jesus has shed His Blood for all human beings without exception. Of course, this “obligation” proceeds from Charity, not from considerations of commutative Justice).

Also, mutual respect and esteem among peers is absolutely essential for that tranquil order in human relationships without which we could not live in peace and enjoy the “climate” within which we are able to tend toward perfection as human beings and as children of God.

Thus, as we saw earlier, “gravity” is equated with “value”, and that is why, considered in itself, rash judgment is something grievous. However since it may be committed with slight or imperfect deliberation and awareness, or when the degree of “rashness” is slight, it is very often only a venial sin.

To sum up, rash judgment is a serious sin only when the following three conditions are verified:

(a) Perfect deliberation: there must be full awareness of both the gravity of the matter and the objective insufficiency of the evidence upon which the judgment is based.

(b) The degree of rashness must be grave: there must be a notable insufficiency of the evidence to support the judgment. Also, the harm done to the victim’s name must also be notably great.

(c) The gravity of harm to the victim’s good name depends upon the status of the “victim”. To judge rashly that a “shady character” is guilty of perjury is not nearly as grievous as it would be rashly to conclude that a “Bishop” is guilty of perjury.

What then, is required in order to prevent a judgment from being rash?

Why, those things that go to make up a just judgment! According to St. Thomas, they are:

(1) Authority in the one who judges;

(2) The proper exercise of prudence (reaching a logical and fair conclusion based upon an accurate and complete understanding of the situation); and

(3) Uprightness in the one making the judgment. All three of these are lacking in the one guilty of a rash judgment:

Authority would be lacking because a private individual is not entrusted with the office of judge, and because the judgment is carried out (i) without the necessity of making a judgment, and (ii) improperly (without “due process”).

Accurate and complete knowledge of the facts would be lacking because, by hypothesis, the judgment is reached without a proper knowledge or consideration of all the relevant evidence (i.e., based on insufficient evidence).

Uprightness (moral integrity) would be lacking because the judgment is subjective, and very often “inspired” by prejudice, envy, hostility (if not hatred), or even perversity (personal malice).

No wonder Holy Scripture warns so frequently against judging one’s neighbor, implying that all such judging is unfounded and rash (Matt. 7:1,2; Luke 6:37; Romans 2:1; James 4:11).

Some practical advice: We ought never forget that the human intellect is so constituted [by God] that it spontaneously and automatically processes data that is presented to it and comes up with a conclusion or judgment. We simply cannot prevent it from doing so. Thus, the mere fact that judgments arise in our minds does not mean that we have made a rash judgment. For such a judgment to become rash would require the intervention of the will, that is, one would have to accept the judgment and assent to it (as stated above). Therefore, the best thing to do at all times is to reject those judgments, reminding ourselves that ONLY GOD knows the whole story, and besides we are not so good and holy that we can presume to sit in judgment on others.

<<<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.