Part III (Secunda Secundae) Part 103 (1/2)

21:2, ”Flee from sin as from the face of a serpent.” Consequently one is bound to immediate rest.i.tution, if possible, or to ask for a respite from the person who is empowered to grant the use of the thing.

Reply Obj. 1: Although the precept about the making of rest.i.tution is affirmative in form, it implies a negative precept forbidding us to withhold another's property.

Reply Obj. 2: When one is unable to restore at once, this very inability excuses one from immediate rest.i.tution: even as a person is altogether excused from making rest.i.tution if he is altogether unable to make it. He is, however, bound either himself or through another to ask the person to whom he owes compensation to grant him a remission or a respite.

Reply Obj. 3: Whenever the omission of a circ.u.mstance is contrary to virtue that circ.u.mstance must be looked upon as determinate, and we are bound to observe it: and since delay of rest.i.tution involves a sin of unjust detention which is opposed to just detention, it stands to reason that the time is determinate in the point of rest.i.tution being immediate.

_______________________

QUESTION 63

OF RESPECT OF PERSONS (In Four Articles)

We must now consider the vices opposed to the aforesaid parts of justice. First we shall consider respect of persons which is opposed to distributive justice; secondly we shall consider the vices opposed to commutative justice.

Under the first head there are four points of inquiry:

(1) Whether respect of persons is a sin?

(2) Whether it takes place in the dispensation of spiritualities?

(3) Whether it takes place in showing honor?

(4) Whether it takes place in judicial sentences?

_______________________

FIRST ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 63, Art. 1]

Whether Respect of Persons Is a Sin?

Objection 1: It would seem that respect of persons is not a sin. For the word ”person” includes a reference to personal dignity [*Cf. I, Q. 29, A. 3, ad 2]. Now it belongs to distributive justice to consider personal dignity. Therefore respect of persons is not a sin.

Obj. 2: Further, in human affairs persons are of more importance than things, since things are for the benefit of persons and not conversely. But respect of things is not a sin. Much less, therefore, is respect of persons.

Obj. 3: Further, no injustice or sin can be in G.o.d. Yet G.o.d seems to respect persons, since of two men circ.u.mstanced alike He sometimes upraises one by grace, and leaves the other in sin, according to Matt. 24:40: ”Two shall be in a bed [Vulg.: 'field'] [*'Bed' is the reading of Luke 17:34], one shall be taken, and one shall be left.”

Therefore respect of persons is not a sin.

_On the contrary,_ Nothing but sin is forbidden in the Divine law.

Now respect of persons is forbidden, Deut. 1:17: ”Neither shall you respect any man's person.” Therefore respect of persons is a sin.

_I answer that,_ Respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice. For the equality of distributive justice consists in allotting various things to various persons in proportion to their personal dignity. Accordingly, if one considers that personal property by reason of which the thing allotted to a particular person is due to him, this is respect not of the person but of the cause.

Hence a gloss on Eph. 6:9, ”There is no respect of persons with G.o.d [Vulg.: 'Him'],” says that ”a just judge regards causes, not persons.” For instance if you promote a man to a professors.h.i.+p on account of his having sufficient knowledge, you consider the due cause, not the person; but if, in conferring something on someone, you consider in him not the fact that what you give him is proportionate or due to him, but the fact that he is this particular man (e.g. Peter or Martin), then there is respect of the person, since you give him something not for some cause that renders him worthy of it, but simply because he is this person. And any circ.u.mstance that does not amount to a reason why this man be worthy of this gift, is to be referred to his person: for instance if a man promote someone to a prelacy or a professors.h.i.+p, because he is rich or because he is a relative of his, it is respect of persons. It may happen, however, that a circ.u.mstance of person makes a man worthy as regards one thing, but not as regards another: thus consanguinity makes a man worthy to be appointed heir to an estate, but not to be chosen for a position of ecclesiastical authority: wherefore consideration of the same circ.u.mstance of person will amount to respect of persons in one matter and not in another. It follows, accordingly, that respect of persons is opposed to distributive justice in that it fails to observe due proportion. Now nothing but sin is opposed to virtue: and therefore respect of persons is a sin.

Reply Obj. 1: In distributive justice we consider those circ.u.mstances of a person which result in dignity or right, whereas in respect of persons we consider circ.u.mstances that do not so result.

Reply Obj. 2: Persons are rendered proportionate to and worthy of things which are distributed among them, by reason of certain things pertaining to circ.u.mstances of person, wherefore such conditions ought to be considered as the proper cause. But when we consider the persons themselves, that which is not a cause is considered as though it were; and so it is clear that although persons are more worthy, absolutely speaking, yet they are not more worthy in this regard.

Reply Obj. 3: There is a twofold giving. One belongs to justice, and occurs when we give a man his due: in such like givings respect of persons takes place. The other giving belongs to liberality, when one gives gratis that which is not a man's due: such is the bestowal of the gifts of grace, whereby sinners are chosen by G.o.d. In such a giving there is no place for respect of persons, because anyone may, without injustice, give of his own as much as he will, and to whom he will, according to Matt. 20:14, 15, ”Is it not lawful for me to do what I will? ... Take what is thine, and go thy way.”

_______________________

SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 63, Art. 2]

Whether Respect of Persons Takes Place in the Dispensation of Spiritual Goods?

Objection 1: It would seem that respect of persons does not take place in the dispensation of spiritual goods. For it would seem to savor of respect of persons if a man confers ecclesiastical dignity or benefice on account of consanguinity, since consanguinity is not a cause whereby a man is rendered worthy of an ecclesiastical benefice.