Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologiae

Objection 1: It would seem that a man is bound to restore what he has not taken. For he that has inflicted a loss on a man is bound to remove that loss. Now it happens sometimes that the loss sustained is greater than the thing taken: for instance, if you dig up a man's seeds, you inflict on the sower a loss equal to the coming harvest, and thus you would seem to be bound to make restitution accordingly. Therefore a man is bound to restore what he has not taken.

Objection 2: Further, he who retains his creditor's money beyond the stated time, would seem to occasion his loss of all his possible profits from that money, and yet he does not really take them. Therefore it seems that a man is bound to restore what he did not take.

Objection 3: Further, human justice is derived from Divine justice. Now a man is bound to restore to God more than he has received from Him, according to Mt. 25:26, "Thou knewest that I reap where I sow not, and gather where I have not strewed." Therefore it is just that one should restore to a man also, something that one has not taken.

On the contrary, Restitution belongs to justice, because it re-establishes equality. But if one were to restore what one did not take, there would not be equality. Therefore it is not just to make such a restitution.

I answer that, Whoever brings a loss upon another person, seemingly, takes from him the amount of the loss, since, according to the Philosopher (Ethic. v, 4) loss is so called from a man having "less"* than his due. Therefore a man is bound to make restitution according to the loss he has brought upon another.

Now a man suffers a loss in two ways. First, by being deprived of what he actually has; and a loss of this kind is always to be made good by repayment in equivalent: for instance if a man damnifies another by destroying his house he is bound to pay him the value of the house. Secondly, a man may damnify another by preventing him from obtaining what he was on the way to obtain. A loss of this kind need not be made good in equivalent; because to have a thing virtually is less than to have it actually, and to be on the way to obtain a thing is to have it merely virtually or potentially, and so were he to be indemnified by receiving the thing actually, he would be paid, not the exact value taken from him, but more, and this is not necessary for salvation, as stated above. However he is bound to make some compensation, according to the condition of persons and things.

From this we see how to answer the First and Second Objections: because the sower of the seed in the field, has the harvest, not actually but only virtually. In like manner he that has money has the profit not yet actually but only virtually: and both may be hindered in many ways.

Reply to Objection 3: God requires nothing from us but what He Himself has sown in us. Hence this saying is to be understood as expressing either the shameful thought of the lazy servant, who deemed that he had received nothing from the other, or the fact that God expects from us the fruit of His gifts, which fruit is from Him and from us, although the gifts themselves are from God without us.

Articulus 4

Argumentum 1

Ad quartum sic proceditur. Videtur quod aliquis debeat restituere quod non abstulit. Ille enim qui damnum alicui infert tenetur damnum removere. Sed quandoque aliquis damnificat aliquem ultra id quod accepit, puta cum aliquis effodit semina, damnificat eum qui seminavit in tota messe futura; et sic videtur quod teneatur ad eius restitutionem. Ergo aliquis tenetur ad restitutionem eius quod non abstulit.

Argumentum 2

Praeterea, ille qui detinet pecuniam creditoris ultra terminum praefixum videtur eum damnificare in toto eo quod lucrari de pecunia posset. Quod tamen ipse non aufert. Ergo videtur quod aliquis teneatur restituere quod non abstulit.

Argumentum 3

Praeterea, iustitia humana derivatur a iustitia divina.

Sed deo debet aliquis restituere plus quam ab eo accepit, secundum illud Matth. XXV, sciebas quod meto ubi non semino, et congrego ubi non sparsi.

Ergo iustum est ut etiam restituat homini aliquid quod non accepit.

Sed Contra

Sed contra est quod recompensatio ad iustitiam pertinet inquantum aequalitatem facit. Sed si aliquis restitueret quod non accepit, hoc non esset aequale.

Ergo talis restitutio non est iustum quod fiat.

Corpus

Respondeo dicendum quod quicumque damnificat aliquem videtur ei auferre id in quo ipsum damnificat, damnum enim dicitur ex eo quod aliquis minus habet quam debet habere, secundum philosophum, in V ethic..

Et ideo homo tenetur ad restitutionem eius in quo aliquem damnificavit. Sed aliquis damnificatur dupliciter. Uno modo, quia aufertur ei id quod actu habebat. Et tale damnum semper est restituendum secundum recompensationem aequalis, puta si aliquis damnificet aliquem diruens domum eius, tenetur ad tantum quantum valet domus. Alio modo damnificat aliquis aliquem impediendo ne adipiscatur quod erat in via habendi. Et tale damnum non oportet recompensare ex aequo. Quia minus est habere aliquid virtute quam habere actu.

Qui autem est in via adipiscendi aliquid habet illud solum secundum virtutem vel potentiam. Et ideo si redderetur ei ut haberet hoc in actu, restitueretur ei quod est ablatum non simplum, sed multiplicatum, quod non est de necessitate restitutionis, ut dictum est.

Tenetur tamen aliquam recompensationem facere, secundum conditionem personarum et negotiorum.

Ad 1

Et per hoc patet responsio ad primum et secundum. Nam ille qui semen sparsit in agro nondum habet messem in actu, sed solum in virtute; et similiter ille qui habet pecuniam nondum habet lucrum in actu, sed solum virtute; et utrumque potest multipliciter impediri.

Ad 3

Ad tertium dicendum quod deus nihil requirit ab homine nisi bonum quod ipse in nobis seminavit.

Et ideo verbum illud vel intelligitur secundum pravam existimationem servi pigri, qui existimavit se ab alio non accepisse. Vel intelligitur quantum ad hoc quod deus requirit a nobis fructus donorum, qui sunt et ab eo et a nobis, quamvis ipsa dona a deo sint sine nobis.