Art. 4: THE VICES OPPOSED TO COMMUTATIVE AND DISTRIBUTIVE JUSTICE
(_Summa Theologica_, II-II, qq. 63-78.)
1804. The Vice Opposed to Distributive Justice.—Favoritism (i.e., acceptance of persons, partiality) is defined as “a species of injustice which moves one to distribute the common goods or burdens of society, not according to merit or fitness, but according to some other and impertinent standard.”
(a) The common goods include offices, honors, functions, while the common burdens include taxes, contributions, and penalties.
(b) The common goods of which we now speak are those that belong to society and that must be portioned out to its members justly. Hence, there is no question of goods that belong to private persons, which the owners are not obliged to give to others unless it be in virtue of charity or liberality. A rich man is not guilty of acceptance of persons, if he bestows his largesses on those who are less in need or less deserving, but more acceptable to himself; and God is not unjust when he gives unequal graces to those who are equally sinners (Matt., xx. 14, 15).
(c) The right standard of just distribution is merit or fitness, as when an applicant is appointed to the post of teacher or superior on account of good character and knowledge. Any other standard which leaves merit and fitness out of consideration is unjust, as when a public official selects for offices or honors, not those who have worked the hardest or who give the most promise, but those who have more money or who are related to himself.
1805. The Sinfulness of Favoritism from Revelation.—In Holy Scripture favoritism is reproved (“How long will you judge unjustly and accept the persons of the wicked?” Psalm lxxi. 2), and impartiality is praised (“Thou art a true speaker and teachest the way of God in truth, neither carest Thou for any man, for Thou dost not regard the person of man,” Matt., xxii. 16; “Masters, know that the Lord both of servants and you is in heaven, and there is no respect of persons with Him,” Eph., vi. 9). Distributive justice is commanded in many passages of Holy Writ (“Consider not the person of the poor, nor honor the countenance of the mighty; but judge thy neighbor according to justice,” Levit. xix. 15; “There shall be no difference of persons, you shall hear the little as well as the great, neither shall you respect any man’s person,” Deut., i. 17; “Thou shalt not accept persons nor gifts,” Deut., xvi. 19; cfr. James, ii. 1 sqq.).
1806. The Sinfulness of Favoritism from Reason.—Favoritism transgresses a divine command and substitutes personal will for right in the treatment of subjects by superiors. Hence, it is morally evil, for disobedience is sinful in the high as well as in the low, and violation of rights is unjust whether the rights be of the community or of the individual.
1807. The Gravity of the Sin of Favoritism.—(a) From its nature, favoritism is a mortal sin; for it is a form of injustice (see 1746), and indeed it is no less damaging than commutative injustice (e.g., theft) and is often accompanied by the latter. (b) From its matter and from the lack of deliberation or consent it may be venial. Thus, if favoritism is shown in a trifling matter (e.g., in conferring a post that is unremunerative and unimportant) or in a small degree (e.g., in preferring an applicant who is only slightly less worthy), there is only venial injustice.
1808. Distributive injustice is also frequently accompanied by commutative injustice.
(a) Thus, a first class of common goods that are distributed are those intended primarily for the common good, and only indirectly and secondarily for the good of individuals, such as public offices, dignities, and benefices. He who distributes these offices unfairly, by appointing unworthy persons, or by appointing the less worthy when he is under contract to appoint the more worthy, violates commutative justice and is held to restitution to the community; but the worthy or more worthy persons slighted had no strict right, and hence no restitution is due them, unless there was a compact with them or unjust means were used to exclude them (see 1755).
(b) A second class of common goods are those that are intended primarily for the benefit of individuals, such as a fund created for the relief of the destitute or afflicted or pensions set aside for those who have deserved well of society. He who distributes these goods unfairly is guilty of commutative injustice against private persons, since the goods were destined for them, and they had a right _ad rem_ to the goods, and hence to these persons restitution is owed.
1809. Favoritism in Spiritual Matters.—(a) Partiality in granting favors is sinful, and gravely so when the matter is serious. Examples are the grant to the unworthy of the power of Orders or of jurisdiction, the concession of permissions and dispensations to one’s friends that are denied to others. (b) Partiality in imposing burdens is also sinful, as when a prelate issues an onerous command, and grants exemption to his friends. But if the thing commanded is obligatory already by reason of law, it should be observed in spite of the favoritism of the prelate.
1810. Who is to be considered as more worthy for appointments in spiritual matters?
(a) The more worthy person is the one who will better serve the common good in the office. Hence, the more pious or the more learned man is not necessarily the more worthy, for another may have greater industry, influence, executive ability, initiative, prudence, experience, etc., and so be better suited to fill the position. But no person should be considered as worthy of spiritual offices unless his moral character is good, and excellence in temporal things does not compensate for negligence in spiritual matters.
(b) The more worthy person is the one who is more available when the appointment has to be made. Hence, the one who is better gifted for the office is not necessarily the more worthy, for another may be better known and it may be impossible to make investigations and comparisons at the moment.
1811. Opinion of the Applicant or Appointee about His Own Fitness.—(a) The applicant need not think that he is worthy or the most worthy; indeed, according to St. Thomas, it would be presumptuous for him to think so highly of himself, and he would thus become unworthy. It suffices, then, that the applicant have in mind only to try for the office, leaving the decision about fitness to the examiner or appointer.
(b) The acceptor who feels that he is unworthy or less worthy is not guilty of injustice; for he is not the judge of his own abilities and may rely on the judgment of those who appoint him. Moreover, he can trust to divine grace and his own efforts to make up for any deficiency or inferiority of which he is conscious. But it seems that, if the appointee were absolutely certain that his appointment was unjust, he would be bound to surrender his office, if this were possible.
1812. Favoritism in Secular Matters.—Do the conclusions in reference to ecclesiastical offices apply also to secular offices?
(a) In both cases distributive justice is violated by favoritism, for the standard followed is not merit or fitness, and thus the more worthy persons are injured. The opinion that civil society has dominion of public offices and therefore the right to distribute them at will, without regard to the merits or fitness of persons selected, is not probable; for civil rulers, like spiritual rulers, should consider themselves as ministers and dispensers only (I Cor., iv. 1), and even if they had dominion over offices, they would be bound to use that power for the benefit of the public for whom they rule.
(b) In both cases also commutative justice is violated in some instances, the offense being either against society or against individuals (see 1755, 1808). Thus, an official who appoints a subordinate knowing that he will oppress and rob, is responsible and bound to restitution to the victims as being a cooperator in injustice.
1813. Favoritism in Marks of Esteem or Honor Shown to Others.—(a) There is no favoritism if honor and esteem are shown to those who deserve it on account of their virtue or position. Hence, it is not unjust but just to show special marks of veneration to holy persons, and even to those who are not holy, but whose authority or age deserves respect (such as rulers and prelates, parents and aged men).
(b) There is favoritism if honor and esteem are shown to those who have no genuine claim to it on account of goodness or rank. Thus, wealthy men are worthy of special respect on account of goodness when they employ their riches in useful ways, or on account of preeminence in the community in rank, ability, influence, etc., and he who shows special courtesy or attention to the wealthy for reasons such as these is not a respector of persons. But if mere wealth is worshipped, sinful favoritism is shown, as when a villainous rich man is honored and a worthy poor man is despised, or well-dressed persons are conducted honorably to comfortable seats in church and good persons whose attire is poor are treated with contempt (James, ii).
1814. Favoritism in Judges (Umpires, Arbitrators) and the Like.—(a) In the course of a trial there may be favoritism in matters left to the judge’s discretion. This does not happen, however, when the discretionary power is intended for the judge’s own benefit (e.g., when on a free day he decides to hear one side rather than the other), but when it is meant for the benefit of the litigants (e.g., when he grants to one side a longer time for preparation of its case than to the other side and for no reason pertinent to the matter at issue).
(b) In the sentence pronounced there is favoritism, if the decision is not based on the merits of the litigants, but on extraneous considerations, such as the fact that one of the parties is a friend or relative of the judge or arbitrator, or belongs to the same political party or business, etc.: “It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to decline from the truth of judgment” (Prov., xviii. 5). If the arguments are about evenly balanced on both sides, it would be favoritism to decide in favor of one against the other. Alexander VII condemned the proposition that a judge may take money in such a case of doubt to decide for one party (Denzinger, n. 1126).
1815. The Vices against Commutative Justice.—These vices can be classified under two general heads: (a) the vices committed in involuntary commutations (see 1748), which include deeds against the person (such as homicide, mutilation, imprisonment) and against property (such as theft and rapine), and unjust words, whether spoken during judicial process (by judges, advocates, witnesses, etc.), or outside of judicial process (such as contumely, detraction, etc); (b) vices committed in voluntary commutations (see 1748), which include fraud and usury.
1816. Homicide.—Life destroyed is either that of an irrational being (i.e., of a plant or beast) or of a rational being. In the latter case we have homicide, which is defined as follows: “an act or omission of a human being that is the efficacious cause (see 1763) of the death of a human being.” A parent who denies his child the food, remedies or climate which it needs and which he can afford commits homicide by omission; a physician who practises abortion commits homicide by act. The following distinctions of homicide have a bearing on its substantial morality (i.e., its lawfulness or unlawfulness):
(a) in reference to the intention, homicide is either voluntary or involuntary, and voluntary homicide is intended either as a punishment or as a defense;
(b) in reference to the slayer, homicide is either the act of a public or of a private person, of a cleric or of a layman;
(c) in reference to the person slain, homicide is either the killing of one who is guilty or of one who is innocent, either the killing of a neighbor or of self (suicide);
(d) in reference to the manner, homicide is either direct or indirect, according as the action from which death results is from its nature (_finis operis_) productive of death or of some other effect. Thus, it is directly homicidal to practise embryotomy (i.e., the destruction of the vital organs of a fetus) or abortion (i.e., the ejection of a fetus at a stage of development when it is unable to live outside the mother), but it is not directly homicidal to give a pregnant woman remedies necessary for her life, although harmful to the fetus; for the object or purpose of the former is to kill, of the latter to cure.
1817. Other distinctions of homicide have a bearing on its added or accidental malice.
(a) A new species of sin is added to that of injustice when other virtues are offended against. Thus, the virtue of piety is violated when the victim is a person to whom the slayer owed special respect and devotedness, as in parricide, regicide, fratricide, uxoricide; the virtue of religion is offended when murder is committed in a church.
(b) An aggravating circumstance is added by the greater deliberation with which the homicide is planned, or the greater treachery or cruelty with which it is executed (e.g., assassination, death by starvation). Some circumstances, however, may be morally indifferent, such as the fact that the victim is killed by one kind of poison rather than another.
1818. The Killing of Animals (or Vegetation).—(a) In itself, the killing of animals is not sinful; for animals are made for the use of man. Hence, it is lawful to kill, not only harmful animals, such as those that prey on human beings or breed pestilence or destroy property, etc., but also other animals, when their death is necessary for some good purpose, such as the provision of food, clothing or medicine for man.
(b) In its circumstances, the killing of animals may be sinful, and even gravely sinful, as when one kills the animals of one’s neighbor (Exod, xxii. 10, 11), or hunts against the law, or injures society by prodigal destruction of animal or plant life, or kills animals in cruel ways. The skinning of animals alive, in order to secure finer-looking furs to satisfy the vanity of women, is an inhuman barbarism of the worst type that should be reprobated by everybody.
1819. When Homicide Is Lawful.—Killing of human beings is lawful in two cases. (a) It is lawful when the common safety requires that the State inflict death for a crime (capital punishment); for just as it is lawful to amputate a gangrenous member which threatens to destroy the body, so is it lawful to remove from human society by death an individual who menaces the safety of the community. (b) It is lawful when the safety of an individual demands that he kill an unjust aggressor (self-defense); for a man owes his first duty to his own life in such a case, and the aggressor in making a deadly attack voluntarily assumes the risk of being killed. It is more correct, however, to say here that it is lawful to defend one’s life with resultant death to the offender (as will be explained below, in 1826, 1828, 1834).
1820. Arguments for the Lawfulness of Capital Punishment.—(a) Scripture.—In the Old Testament the death sentence was prescribed for certain more serious crimes, such as murder (“whosoever shall shed man’s blood, his blood shall be shed,” Gen., ix. 6); in the New Testament Our Lord recognizes that the power of a judge to sentence to death comes from above (John, xix. 10), and St. Paul declares that princes do not wield the sword without reason, but act as ministers of God when they punish evil-doers (Rom., xiii. 4).
(b) Tradition.—The Church has always taught the lawfulness of capital punishment and rejected contrary errors, as in the case of the Waldensians condemned by Innocent III.
(c) Reason.—The State has both the duty and the right to promote the common good and to defend it against its enemies, whether by war against external foes or by coercive measures against internal disturbers of the peace. Now, the experience of all the centuries and of all countries has shown that, generally speaking, the lives of law-abiding persons and the general peace are not sufficiently protected unless the supreme penalty be appointed for certain crimes.
1821. Though lawful, capital punishment is not always necessary; for it is a means to an end, and it may be omitted, therefore, when the end can be obtained by the use of other and less severe means.
(a) Thus, a general suspension of the capital punishment is lawful in a community whose members are peaceful and not inclined to violence or other crimes subversive of law and order. Whether such ideal conditions exist today may be doubted, and indeed some countries that abolished the death penalty have found that this proved an incentive to crime and they were forced to restore the former laws.
(b) A particular exemption from capital punishment is lawful, when there are good reasons recognized by law for commutation or clemency. This has been the practice of governments throughout history, and is justified when it furthers the common welfare, or at least shows mercy to a deserving individual without harm to society. But a judge has to condemn when the law and the facts call for condemnation, and the authority in whom the pardoning power is vested has to use his power prudently, lest he encourage lawlessness.
1822. It is not morally lawful to put criminals to death unless the following conditions are present:
(a) the crime must be external and of such a character that the public welfare requires the supreme punishment, either on account of the enormity of the act (e.g., murder), or on account of its danger (e.g., sleeping at one’s post in time of war). Further, the crime must be certain and sufficiently established, for, since the punishment should fit the offense and the law presumes innocence until guilt is proved, no one should be sentenced to death except for a serious and certain crime. The Fifth Amendment to the American Constitution declares that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law;
(b) the sentence of death and its execution should be performed by those who have public authority for these acts and in the manner required by law. For capital punishment is a means of self-defense used by society, and its use pertains there fore to the representatives of society. Moreover, if private individuals exercised this function, accused persons would not receive the consideration of their rights or the opportunity of defense due them, and the public peace would be overthrown by murders of revenge committed in the name of justice.
(c) the penalty should be carried out in a humane and Christian manner, as is manifest. The convicted man should be allowed time and opportunity to make his peace with God and, if possible, to say farewell to relatives. Slow and agonizing forms of killing are of course entirely wrong, no matter how wicked the criminal who is being executed. The American law and other laws do not permit a pregnant woman to be executed until she has delivered her child.
1823. Unlawful Killing of Offenders.—The killing of offenders is, therefore, unlawful in the following cases:
(a) when the offense is not serious or fully deliberate (e.g., involuntary manslaughter), or when it has not been sufficiently established (e.g., if it is not certain that the supposed victim of murder is dead or that he died from a homicidal act). In civilized countries today the law inflicts capital punishment only for the most serious crimes, and the State has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt before the punishment can be decreed. But in the past death was often the penalty for horse- or sheep-stealing, or even smaller offenses, and in times of excitement men have sometimes been sentenced to death without a fair trial;
(b) when the sentence of death is not pronounced or executed legally. Those who lynch the perpetrators of heinous crimes are often in good faith, especially if the processes of the law are too slow or uncertain, but since they act without authority, their deed is really murder. The same is true of a husband who kills his wife taken in adultery, of the relative of a seduced girl who kills the seducer, of an officer of the law who unnecessarily or without authorization kills a man sentenced to death when the latter is trying to escape. The State has the right, though, to declare a notorious malefactor outlawed, and thus to give to private citizens the right to take him dead or alive, or to kill him on sight; but it is clear that the exercise of this right is a dangerous remedy and one to be used sparingly;
(c) when the mode of killing or the circumstances are repugnant to Christian feeling. Today capital punishment is generally inflicted in a humane manner, but history records many cruel forms of execution, as when men were hanged, drawn and quartered, or burned at the stake, or put to death amid the jeers and curses of the populace.
1824. Is Tyrannicide Lawful?—(a) If the ruler is a tyrant in act (that is, one who has a lawful title to rule but who abuses his authority), it is not lawful to kill him on account of his misdeeds or crimes, since the subject has not the authority to act in the name of the nation (Rom., xiii. 1 sqq.; I Peter, ii. 18). In case of self-defense, however, as when the tyrant unjustly makes a personal attempt on the life of a citizen, the latter has the right to kill. The Council of Constance condemned the doctrine of Wycliff that every subject has the right to assassinate a tyrannical prince, a doctrine that would make the position of every ruler unsafe, since there are always persons who think they are victims of persecution. The nation, however, has the right to depose or even to execute a wicked ruler, for government is given to rulers for the benefit, not for the destruction, of the common good.
(b) If the ruler is a tyrant in title (that is, a usurper), it is not lawful to kill him, when he has already obtained peaceful possession; for here again it cannot be said that the killer would have the authorization of the nation. If, however, the tyrant has not obtained possession but is struggling for it, his status will not be that of ruler but of public enemy, and it will be lawful to kill him as an act of war, provided the conditions of a just war are present (see 1384).
1825. Judges and Executioners in Canon Law.—According to the law of the Church (Canon 984, nn. 6, 7), those who pass the death sentence as judges and the executioners and their immediate and voluntary helpers become irregular (i.e., incapable of lawfully receiving Orders or of exercising their powers). The reasons for this ancient discipline are chiefly two:
(a) clerics are the ministers of Christ, and therefore they should be like their High Priest, whose sacrifice they offer at the altar. Now Christ “when He was reviled, did not revile, when He suffered, He threatened not, but delivered Himself to him that judged Him unjustly” (I Peter, ii. 23). Hence, it is unbecoming that clerics should condemn to death or kill their fellow-men, even criminals;
(b) clerics are the ministers of the New Testament, and therefore they should conform themselves to its spirit of mildness. The divine law itself declares that a bishop should not have private quarrels or inflict blows (I Tim., iii. 3), but the church law goes further and declares that a cleric should not even act as public judge or executioner in capital cases. The Old Testament inflicted corporal punishments and death, and hence we read that its priests and levites put sinners to death with their own hands (Exod., xxxii. 28; Num., xxv. 7, 8; I Kings, xv. 33; III Kings, xviii. 40; I Mach., ii. 24), but the law of Christ contains no sentences of death or of bodily chastisement.
1826. The Right of Self-Defense.—The second case of lawful homicide mentioned above (1819) is the killing of an unjust aggressor, not intended by the slayer, but consequent on his defense of his life against the aggressor. This right of self-defense is granted by natural law itself, and has been denied by but few moralists.
(a) Thus, nature inclines man to prefer his own life to that of another, other things being equal, and therefore it authorizes him to defend his life even at the cost of an aggressor’s life. Even the brute animals are armed by nature to defend themselves against attack.
(b) The natural law also permits one to perform an act from which two effects will follow, one good and the other bad, provided the good effect alone is intended and there is a sufficient reason for permitting the evil effect (see 104). In the present case the killing of the aggressor is an evil, while the protection of the innocent party is a good; but it is only the protection that is intended, and the killing is not an extreme measure in view of the greatness of the good that is at stake.
1827. The right of self-defense is also sanctioned by human laws. (a) Thus, church law recognizes this right in the words of Innocent III: “All laws permit one to repel force by force, but the defense must not be immoderate, nor exercised from desire of revenge.” According to the Code (Canon 985, n. 4) irregularity arises from voluntary homicide, but this does not include the case of lawful self-defense, although a provisional dispensation must be asked for. A cleric has the right of self-defense, as well as a layman. (b) Civil law also has always admitted the right of a person assailed by another to defend himself, even by killing the assailant, if there is no other alternative.
1828. Conditions for the Exercise of This Right.—(a) The assault must be a true aggression (i.e., an act of violence threatening the life of the person assaulted) and unjust (i.e., an attack made without public authority); (b) the resistance must be true self-defense (i.e., an act used to ward off attack or to make the assailant powerless) and moderate (i.e., the person attacked must not use more force than necessary and he must not intend to kill the assailant).
1829. The person who is killed must be a true aggressor, for otherwise the slayer is himself the aggressor and guilty of unjustifiable homicide. Killing is therefore unjust in the following cases:
(a) when the opponent is not using true violence, as when he merely prays and hopes that you may die or be killed;
(b) when he is not using actual violence, as when he is disarmed or helpless, or when he has only threatened to kill you in the future, or to bring you to the gallows by his testimony or vote.
1830. Must one wait, then, until the aggressor has actually attacked, before using self-defense? (a) One need not wait until physical aggression has started (e.g., until the adversary has fired a shot or struck a blow); otherwise self-defense would very often be futile. (b) One should wait until moral aggression has been shown before proceeding to defense; that is, the other party must perform some external act which according to the judgment of a prudent person at the time and place is one with the act of physical aggression, as when an angry man reaches for a gun or knife, or a desperado advances in a threatening manner.
1831. The aggression must also be unjust or contrary to the right of the person attacked. (a) Thus, if the aggression is just, it is not lawful to kill the aggressor. Hence, it is not lawful to kill an officer of the law who is making an arrest, or guarding a prisoner, or leading him to execution. (b) If the aggression is not just, self-defense is lawful. It makes no difference whether the aggression is formally unjust (e.g., when the aggressor attacks you because he wishes to wreak revenge, or because he fears you), or only materially unjust (e.g., when you are a stranger to the aggressor, but he is drunk, or a dope fiend, or a maniac). Similarly, a son may defend himself against his parent, a subject against his superior, a layman against a cleric, an adulterer against the injured husband, a calumniator against the person calumniated; for authority or personal injury suffered does not give these persons the right to inflict by private authority the punishment of death.
1832. Self-defense must be merely a protection of self against future evil and not a punishment of the aggressor for past attacks, for capital punishment belongs to society, not to private persons. Hence, if an aggressor has taken to flight, or has been disarmed, or knocked senseless, or has begged for mercy, it is not permissible to kill him.
1833. Self-defense must be moderate, for injury or the death of a human being is a thing that should be avoided when possible. (a) Thus, the person attacked must not reply with force at all, if this is possible. He should escape, or call a policeman, or throw the weapon out of the window, etc., if these means will suffice. Some authors excuse from flight those who would suffer disgrace if they ran away from danger, such as those who are pugilists or professional fighting men. (b) The person attacked should use only such force as is necessary, if force must be employed. Thus, if the aggressor can be made helpless by the use of gas, permanent bodily harm should not be done him; if he can be subdued with the fists, knife or pistol wounds should not be resorted to; if wounds will suffice to hold him at bay (e.g., by blackjacking), killing should not be resorted to. In the heat of a fight, however, the person assailed sometimes unintentionally goes beyond what moderation requires.
1834. The intention of the person who uses force to repel an unjust aggressor must be good. (a) Thus, as his end he must intend only the preservation of his own life and look upon the death of his neighbor as a misfortune. (b) As the means to this end he must intend only to stop the attack that is being made, not to bring on the death of the aggrcssor. Those who are commissioned by public authority to put a human being to death (e.g., the public executioner or soldiers in time of war) may intend these homicides, since they are means to the common good; but the death of one private person is not a means to the good of another private person, and hence it should not be directly aimed at.
1835. The mind of the person who defends himself against the unjust aggressor must also be free from sinful dispositions, such as hatred and revenge; otherwise he sins against charity. Our Lord reprobated the teaching of the Scribes that it is lawful to return injury for injury in a revengeful spirit, and declared that one should prefer to receive a second blow rather than return a blow for the sake of revenge (Matt., v. 38 sqq.; cfr. also Rom., xii. 19).
1836. When Self-Defense Is Obligatory.—Self-defense is sometimes an obligation. (a) Thus, it is an obligation, if the only factors considered are the life of the guilty aggressor and the life of the innocent person who is assailed; for the life of the innocent should not be sacrificed for the guilty, and charity indicates that the first duty of the person attacked is to himself. (b) It is an obligation, if, on account of circumstances, the person attacked owes it to others to preserve his life—for example, if he is the father of a dependent family, or a public official whose life is very necessary for the welfare of the community, or whose office it is to resist those who menace public security. This is true from the viewpoint of society also, for the world needs the good men it has, while there are too many wicked men already.
1837. Sometimes self-defense is not obligatory. (a) Thus, it is merely optional, when no duty to others commands self-defense and a divine counsel invites one to omit it (see 1169). Hence, if the assailant is certainly in mortal sin, while the person assailed is certainly in the state of grace, it would be very commendable to die rather than kill the assailant, in order to grant him time for repentance. But a case of this kind is rather theoretical than practical, for how could one be sure that the assailant would profit by the opportunity allowed him of doing penance? At any rate, the sacrifice is optional, for the aggressor is either formally unjust, and hence not in extreme spiritual need, or only materially unjust, and it will be uncertain whether he is in spiritual need or whether, if he is in such need, the respite will be used by him (see 1165 sqq.). (b) Self-defense is unlawful according to some, if the life of the assailant is necessary for the common good, and the life of the person assailed is not necessary. But this would be a very rare case.
1838. Defense of Neighbor’s Life.—The principles on defense of one’s own life against an unjust aggressor, even at cost of the latter’s life, may be applied to the life of an innocent third party.
(a) Thus, it is necessary to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, when one is bound to give this protection by natural duty (e.g., because the innocent person is one’s child or father and the aggressor is not a relative), or by contract (e.g., because one is a hired bodyguard or policeman).
(b) It is lawful to defend the innocent person, even if the aggressor has to be killed, and even though there is no duty of nature or contract to give this protection (Exod., ii, 12). But it is disputed whether it is also necessary to do this. The affirmative opinion calls attention to the extreme bodily need of the innocent party, the negative to the extreme spiritual need of the aggressor. It is not necessary to risk one’s life in order to protect the life of the innocent party, unless the public safety is in peril, or one has undertaken this obligation (see 1169).
1839. A private individual may defend life at the cost of the life of an unjust aggressor, because he is obliged or permitted to protect the life that has more of a claim on him. He may also defend certain other most important goods that belong to him or to his neighbor, even if need be at the cost of the unjust aggressor’s life, because the common good is more valuable than the life of the aggressor, and the defense of those goods is bound up with the common good. Thus, if it were not permissible to defend valuable property even to the extent of killing a burglar, criminals would be encouraged, peaceful citizens would be at a disadvantage, and the public security would greatly suffer. Among the goods now spoken of are goods of fortune and goods of body. It is not always obligatory, however, to exercise the right of extreme self-defense (e.g., in case of violation, provided no consent is given the deed).
1840. Defense of Goods of Fortune Against an Unjust Aggressor.—(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life (e.g., the aggressor wishes to take the last loaf from a starving man or the plank from a drowning man), or if it seems to be an attack on life (e.g., the burglar enters a room as if he meant to kill), the killing of the unjust aggressor is not unlawful, as is clear from the previous paragraphs.
(b) If the attack is made on goods of fortune only, but they are of great value and actually possessed, the question is disputed. According to some, killing in this case is unlawful, because life is more valuable than property; but the common opinion is that killing is lawful, both because Scripture excuses the person who kills the nocturnal robber (Exod., xxii. 2), and because the public safety is at stake and therefore justifies extreme measures.
(c) If the attack is made only on goods of fortune, and they are not yet possessed (e.g., a legacy one hopes to obtain) or have only a small value (e.g., one gold piece), killing is unlawful; for there is no proportion between external goods that are only hoped for or that are of minor importance and the life of a human being. Pope Innocent XI condemned the teaching that one may use homicidal defense to protect a coin or the prospect of receiving an office.
1841. Defense of Bodily Purity Against an Unjust Aggressor.—(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life, or seems to be an attack on life, self-defense even by killing is lawful, and hence it may be permissible to kill one who is attempting rape.
(b) If the attack is on bodily purity only, but _per actum consummatum luxuriae_, the question is controverted. One opinion is that killing may not be resorted to, for the aggressor cannot take away purity of soul, and the purity of body that he violates is less good than life. The opposite opinion holds that killing may be employed in self-defense, since bodily purity has a higher value than even notable goods of fortune, especially as violation is usually accompanied by spiritual damage or disgrace of family, etc.; and the public interest demands that such outrages be sternly suppressed on account of the strong inclination of many persons to commit them.
(c) If the attack is on bodily purity only, and _per actum non-consummatum luxuriae_ (e.g., _per osculum vel amplexum_), killing is not justified, but other means of defense, such as blows or wounds, may be used.
1842. Defense of Bodily Integrity Against an Unjust Aggressor.—(a) If the attack is equivalent to an attack on life (e.g., if the aggressor intends to mutilate or wound, but there is danger that he will kill), defense even with resultant killing is lawful.
(b) If the attack is not equivalent to an attack on life, but is very notable (as when a principal member will be lost or the person horribly disfigured), some authorities claim that defense which would cause the aggressor’s death is unlawful, because death is too heavy a price to pay for wounds. But against this it may be argued that the loss of limbs or organs is more serious than the loss of money, and, in some respects, is more damaging than violation. The civil law gives a person the right to protect himself in body and limbs, even by killing the assailant when absolutely necessary.
(c) If the attack menaces only a minor detriment (e.g., a black eye or bloody nose), certainly killing is unjustified. But the person attacked may hit harder and oftener than the assailant, if he is able, so that the latter may beware of him another time.
1843. Defense of Honor or Reputation.—When honor or reputation is unjustly attacked, the more perfect course is to bear the injury patiently and to pardon the offense, according to the teaching of Christ. But it is not sinful to defend honor and reputation, just as it is not sinful to defend life, limbs and property. How far may one go in defense of honor or reputation against an unjust aggressor?
(a) If the aggression is merely in words (as when the offender calls the other party a liar, or says that he is illegitimate), it is not lawful to use violence, at least such as would cause death; for there are other and less drastic means of defense that suffice (e.g., to answer the allegations, or even to retort the same epithets against the aggressor), and, unless the violence of even justifiable resentment were restrained, the world would be filled with disorder and homicidal violence. Innocent XI and Alexander VII condemned the doctrine that one may kill in order to prevent the spread of calumny.
(b) If the aggression is in deeds (as when the offender slaps the other person or throws mud or rotten eggs at him), it is not lawful to kill; for here also defense can be made in other ways (e.g., by bringing the aggressor before the court for punishment, or, if this cannot be done, by returning slap for slap, etc.). Innocent XI rejected the proposition that it is lawful to kill the aggressor who gave one a blow and then fled. It is only when the aggressor is continuing his attack, and imperilling the innocent party in life or limb, that the latter may repel the extreme force by extreme force.
1844. Killing of the Innocent.—So far we have spoken of the killing of malefactors and unjust aggressors, which under certain conditions is not sinful. The next subject is the killing of the innocent, that is, of those who are neither malefactors nor unjust aggressors worthy of death.
(a) The killing of the innocent by human authority, if it is done directly and intentionally, is always sinful, whether the cause be a private individual or society. But since God is the Master of life and death, He could command the death of an innocent person, as was done when he bade Abraham to sacrifice his son (Gen., xxii. 12).
(b) The killing of the innocent, if it is indirect and unintentional, is not sinful when there is a serious reason for performing an act from which the killing results; for it is lawful to perform an act from which two effects follow, if the good is intended but the evil only permitted, and there is a sufficient justifying reason (see 103 sqq.).
1845. Unlawful killing of the innocent is a most heinous crime.
(a) It is an injury to the rights of God over human life, and is forbidden in the Fifth Commandment of the Decalogue: “Thou shalt not kill” (Exod., xx. 13). To judges the special command was given: “The innocent and just person thou shalt not put to death” (Exod., xxiii. 7). The man-slayer destroys the image of God, a crime so detestable that in Scripture God declares that He will revenge the blood of man, even though shed by a beast (Gen., ix. 5; Exod., xxi. 28).
(b) It is a most grave sin against the individual, for it deprives him of his chief natural good and the means of securing and enjoying many great spiritual goods. If the person killed desired or asked for death, no injustice is done to him, since he waived his right, but uncharitableness is committed, since the neighbor’s life should be loved, and the uncharitableness is greater according as the person is more worthy of love. Scripture numbers murder among the sins that cry to heaven for vengeance (Gen., iv. 10, ix. 5).
(c) It is an outrage against society, for such killing unduly deprives the community of one of its members, causes scandal and disturbs the peace. Hence, the law has always inflicted the severest punishment on slayers of the innocent.
1846. Since the end does not justify the means, the following ends do not justify the direct and intentional killing of innocent persons:
(a) the public good does not excuse, for example, if an enemy were to threaten destruction against a city unless it put to death an innocent person who dwelt in its borders. The criminal on account of his lawlessness is an obstacle to the common good, but the law-abiding citizen promotes the common good and it would be harmful to the public peace if he could be put to death without any fault of his own. The State is for the citizen, not the citizen for the State. But if the common safety depended on the sacrifice of one man’s life, charity and patriotism would require this man to make the sacrifice spontaneously (see 1169); that is, he should deliver himself to the enemy, and were he to refuse, it seems the community would have the right to deliver him. Similarly, it is not lawful to kill hostages, even though the enemy has broken faith, or killed one’s subjects;
(b) the private good of other individuals does not excuse; for example, it is not lawful to kill a maniac lest he do harm to those around him, at least unless the conditions of unjust aggression are fulfilled. Similarly, it is not lawful to kill a woman with child, in order to baptize the child;
(c) the private good of the individual himself does not excuse; for example, it is not lawful to shoot or poison those who are mortally wounded or suffering from an incurable disease, or who are old and helpless, in order to spare them suffering. But one may give a person at the point of death a medicine that may hasten the end, if there is good hope that it will cure him and other remedies are futile, for the purpose is not to kill but to cure (see 2485). It is lawful also for embalmers to puncture the heart or sever an artery of a person who seems to be dead, if there are certain signs of his death, for the purpose is not to kill this person, but to free his friends from fear that he is buried alive.
1847. Indirect or Unintentional Killing of the Innocent.—Indirect and unintentional killing of the innocent is lawful (1872) only when there is a reason of sufficient gravity (i.e., one of a value proportionate to the life of the innocent person).
(a) The public safety is such a sufficient reason. Thus, in time of war it is lawful to attack a city, even though the death of many non-combatants will result, or to charge the enemy, even though innocent persons have been placed by the latter as a shield to his front ranks.
(b) Private safety from death is not a sufficient reason, if it does not compensate for the loss, or if it is secured unlawfully (see 104). Thus, if Balbus cannot escape from an unjust aggressor without running down and killing an unbaptized infant or a man whose life is very necessary for the community, the temporal life of Balbus does not compensate for eternal life lost by the infant in the first instance, and the mere private good of Balbus does not compensate for the public good sacrificed in the second instance. Again, if Caius cannot escape from drowning without pushing a shipwrecked companion from the only plank which is insufficient for both, or if Sempronius who has been sentenced to death for crime cannot escape execution unless he kills his guard, the means of securing safety are unlawful.
(c) Private safety from death is a sufficient reason, if it compensates for the loss and is secured lawfully. Hence, if the life of the innocent person is only of equal importance, self-defense against an unjust aggressor by means of flight that will involve the innocent person’s death does not make one guilty of homicide (e.g., Titus is speeding in his car in order to escape a pursuer bent on murder and he cannot avoid hitting and killing a cripple who crosses the road). If self-defense is conducted by means of attack, one may use violence against the aggressor (e.g., one may shoot at him, although an innocent person whom he is using as a shield will be killed), but not against the innocent person (e.g., one may not shoot at the innocent person in order to deprive the aggressor of his shield, nor may one hold the innocent person before one in order that he receive the assailant’s bullet).
1848. Destruction of the Unborn.—(a) Direct and intentional destruction of this kind is unlawful and is known as feticide, when the fetus is killed within the womb, or abortion, when a non-viable fetus is expelled from the womb. It is not abortion to hasten the birth of a viable fetus (i.e., one which is about six or seven months old and can live outside the womb), since the child can be kept alive, but grave reasons are required to make it licit, since it presents a risk to the child’s life. But to deliver or expel a non-viable fetus is abortion. Every direct abortion is regarded by the Catholic Church as murder and is penalized with the censure of excommuuication (Canon 2550, Sec. 1). It might be argued that the direct killing of what is surely a human being is murder, but when does the fetus become a human being? The ancient theory of Aristotle, followed by St. Thomas and most medieval authors, maintains that the embryo did not become human until some time after conception, an opinion that still has great probability physically. Others maintain that animation is simultaneous with conception. Since we do not know the exact moment of animation, the moment of conception must be accepted in practice as the beginning of human life. Probabilism is ruled out in this instance, for there is no doubt about the law and its application: we must not directly kill what is probably a human being. Accordingly, abortion is considered to be murder. Hence, even in the case of a girl who has been raped—although it is a probable opinion that measures may be taken to remove the semen from-her body—it would be gravely sinful to give any treatment which would abort an impregnated ovum.
(b) Indirect and unintentional killing, or rather permission of death, is not unlawful in such a case, when there is a proportionately grave reason, such as the life of the mother. Thus, it is permissible to give the mother a remedy necessary to cure a mortal disease (e.g., medicinal drugs, baths, injections, or operations on the uterus), even though this will bring on abortion or the death of the fetus; for the mother is not obliged to prefer the temporal life of the child to her own life. But the baptism of the child must be attended to, for its salvation depends on the Sacrament, and the eternal life of the child is to be preferred to the temporal life of the mother, if the conditions of 1166 are verified.
(c) Contemporary moral opinion considers that in tubal pregnancies (ectopic gestation) the tube itself is in a pathological condition long before rupture of the tube, as experts in obstetrics teach, and hence can be excised as a diseased organ of the human body. As such, the excision of such a tube would be in itself a morally indifferent act and, granting verification of the other conditions for the principle of double effect, could be licitly performed. (For a history of the moral question, medical testimony and full argumentation see Chapter X of _Medical Ethics_ by Charles J. McFadden, O.S.A.) Some theologians, however, believe that the tube cannot be removed unless it can be proved in each case that a pathological condition, placing the woman in danger of death, exists. The first view is accepted as sufficiently safe to be followed in practice. (See Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., _Morals in Politics and Professions_, p. 118.)
1849. It is unlawful positively to kill the mother in order that the unborn child may be saved or baptized. When a caesarean section offers the sole chance of saving the mother’s life, it is permitted. It is seriously doubtful whether a mother is morally obliged to undergo the operation in situations where a threat to her life exists. In this case, if baptism in the uterus is possible without increasing the danger to the mother’s life, it should be attempted. When a caesarean section does not offer any chance of saving the mother’s life, but will directly contribute to her death, the operation should not be performed. One must await the death of the mother and then observe the norm of Canon 746; “Immediately after the death of a pregnant woman, a caesarean section should be done in order that the fetus may be baptized.” The procedure to be followed is outlined in medical-ethics books. (See McFadden op. cit., pp. 244 ff.)
1850. Direction in Cases of Doubt, Ignorance, or Error.—(a) In case of doubt, if there are positive and solid reasons for believing that an operation performed to save a woman’s life will not be destructive of the life of a fetus, the operation seems lawful; for in doubt, the woman, as the certain possessor of life, has the presumption.
(b) In case of ignorance or error (e.g., when a penitent asks whether a certain operation is permissible, or a surgeon in good faith performs an operation that is not lawful), either a truthful answer should be given to questions, or silence should be observed when an admonition would only be harmful (e.g., if to require the Caesarean operation from a dying mother would have no other result than to make her die in bad faith instead of good faith).
1851. Canonical Penalties for Homicide and Abortion.—(a) Homicide, if voluntary, produces irregularity (Canon 985, n. 4) and subjects the guilty party to exclusion from legitimate ecclesiastical acts or to degradation from the ecclesiastical state (Canon 2354). Moreover, a church is violated by the crime of homicide (Canon 1172). (b) Abortion of a human fetus, when the effect is produced, brings irregularity on those who procure it and also on the cooperators (Canon 985, n. 4). Moreover, those who procure abortion effectively, the mother not excepted, incur excommunication _latae sententiae_ reserved to the Ordinary, and, if clerics, they are to be deposed (Canon 2350).
1852. Suicide.—Suicide, or the killing of oneself, is, like homicide in general, of various kinds.
(a) Thus, in reference to the intention, it is voluntary or involuntary, according as it proceeds from knowledge and choice, or as it is committed without realization of what is done or without the intention to produce death. Examples of involuntary suicide are a person who is temporarily insane on account of impending calamity and drowns himself, and a person who, attempting to frighten another by pretending to hang himself, actually strangles to death. It would be a mistake to say that no person who commits suicide is free, but no doubt a large percentage of those who kill themselves are not responsible for their act.
(b) In reference to the mode, suicide is direct, if that which is done tends from its nature to the death of the person who does it (e.g., firing a pistol into one’s brain); it is indirect, if that which is done tends from its nature to another end (e.g., to struggle with a criminal who is firing a revolver). Direct suicide is committed in many ways, all of which can be reduced to positive (e.g., the eating or drinking of deadly poison) and negative (e.g., the refusal to eat or drink anything).
1853. The difference between direct and indirect suicide is also explained as follows: (a) direct suicide is an act or omission that has but one effect, namely, death (e.g., taking deadly poison); (b) indirect suicide is an act or omission that has two effects, one of which is the peril of death. This peril of death is certain, if death always follows (e.g., jumping from the roof of a skyscraper); proximate, if death usually follows (e.g., jumping from a third- or fourth-story window); remote, if death now and then follows (e.g., jumping from a second-story window).
1854. Sinfulness of Suicide.—Voluntary and direct suicide is always a most grave sin, if committed without due authority (i.e., the command of God).
(a) It is a grave injury against the rights of God, for it usurps His authority, refuses Him the service He desires, spurns the gift He has bestowed, dishonors the image of God (Gen., ix. 6), and destroys the property of God: “Thou, O Lord, hast the power of life and death” (Wis., xvi. 13).
(b) It is an offense against society, for the community has a right to be benefited by the lives of its members, and to receive a return for the protection and assistance it affords them. Moreover, death by suicide is usually felt as a great sorrow and disgrace by the relatives of the departed, and it has a demoralizing effect on many persons of suggestible minds. The fact that the death of this or that man is not felt as a loss by a family or the State, but rather as a relief, is no argument; for if suicide were left to human decision, how many fatal mistakes would be made (see 460)! Persons valuable to society would rashly kill themselves, fearing in a mood of depression that they were worthless; others who could contribute nothing in material ways would destroy themselves and deprive their fellow-men of an example of fortitude, or at least of the opportunity of showing charity and mercy to the needy.
(c) Direct and voluntary suicide is a sin against the deepest natural inclination, for self-preservation is called the first law of nature (see 298), and also against that love of self which charity requires (see 1136 sqq.). Since charity to self is more obligatory than charity to the neighbor, suicide is a more serious sin than other forms of homicide. Nor is it excused by the desire of some good for self. The suicide does not better himself by his act, for, since he has not fulfilled his trust in this life, what can he expect in the next life? He escapes the lesser evils of physical miseries or moral temptations, but he incurs the greater evils of physical death and of moral cowardice and defeat, to say nothing of his punishment in the hereafter.
1855. Cooperation in Suicide.—Cooperation in suicide has the guilt of unlawful homicide. (a) Thus, those who incite, advise, command, or assist another to commit suicide are guilty of moral murder. (b) Those who carry out together a suicide pact are guilty both of suicide and of moral murder.
1856. Permission or Authorization to Commit Suicide.—(a) Divine authority could command or permit suicide, since God has the power over life and death. But whether God has ever done this is uncertain. Some argue for the affirmative from the death of Sampson, who pulled down the house upon himself saying: “Let me die with the Philistines” (Judges, xvi. 30), and of Razias who killed himself to escape ill-usage (II Mach., xiv. 37 sqq.), and from the acts of certain female martyrs who from love of God or from the desire to preserve chastity rushed to their deaths. But others think that invincible ignorance may explain these cases. The act of Sampson may also be understood as indirect suicide lawfully committed for the public good of his country.
(b) Human authority, according to some authors, could authorize a condemned malefactor really guilty of a capital crime to execute himself; for, they argue, there is little difference between opening one’s mouth to swallow poison administered by an executioner and taking it with one’s own hands, as was done by Socrates. Others deny that God has given the State the authority to order suicide, and they declare that it is both unnecessary and inhuman to force a condemned man to be his own executioner. Still others believe that the State could command self-execution, at least in necessity, but that such a punishment is so strange, cruel and unnatural that it should be avoided; for, if it is shocking to ask a father to execute his child, much more shocking would it be to ask a man to kill himself. The argument is inconclusive which says that because it is lawful to perform an act preparatory for death, but which is indifferent and would never cause death (such as opening the mouth for poison), it is also lawful to perform the act which inflicts death (such as taking the poison).
1857. Indirect Suicide.—Indirect suicide is committed when one is the cause of an act or omission, indifferent in itself, but from which one foresees as a result that one’s life will be lost or notably shortened, This kind of “suicide” is lawful when and if the conditions for a case of double effect are present—in other words, if there is a proportionately grave reason for permitting the evil effect (see 103 sqq.). The following reasons are considered sufficient:
(a) the public good, for the welfare of society is a greater good than the life of an individual. Eleazar is praised because he exposed himself to death in order to deliver his people (I Mach., vi. 43 sqq.). It is not sinful, then, but rather obligatory for a soldier to advance against the enemy or to blow up an enemy fortification, though it be certain that his own death will result; nor is it wrong for a pastor to go about ministering to his flock during a pestilence, though it be certain that he will fall a victim to the plague. Explorers and experimenters may also risk their lives for the advancement of science;
(b) the good of another suffices for indirect suicide, when he is in extreme spiritual need. Indeed, there may be an obligation of charity to risk one’s life for the salvation of a soul (see 1166). Hence, it is lawful to go as a missionary to a country whose climate is so trying that strangers die there after a few years;
(c) the higher good of self (i.e., the good of virtue) justifies indirect suicide, when there is an urgent reason for exercising a virtue in spite of the peril of death. Thus, for the sake of charity a shipwrecked passenger may yield his place in the life-boat to his parent, wife, friend, or neighbor; for the sake of faith, one may refuse to flee in time of persecution (see 1006), or may refuse and should refuse to take food or drink offered as a mark of idolatry; for the sake of chastity a virgin, at the peril of her life, may jump from a high window or resist the assailant, although it does not seem that this is obligatory if no internal consent will be given to the rape; for the sake of justice, a criminal in the death house who has an opportunity to escape from prison, may decide to remain and be executed, or a malefactor condemned to die by starvation may refuse to take food secretly brought him; for the sake of mortification, one may practise moderate austerities, as by fastings, watchings, scourgings, hair-shirts, etc., which sometimes shorten life, though generally they lengthen it;
(d) the preferable temporal good of self suffices, that is, one may risk the danger of death to escape another danger that is more likely to happen or more terrible. Thus, a man in a burning building may leap from a high window, even though death from the fall is almost certain, for death by burning is more terrible; a prisoner who is about to be tortured to death may make a break for liberty if he sees a chance of escape, for death is more certain if he remains. On the same principle, one may engage in hazardous but useful occupations, such as working on high buildings, or as a diver or miner, for it is better to live a shorter time with employment and the necessities of life, and to be of service to the public, than to live a longer time without these advantages. But a worker should not undertake dangerous tasks for which he is unfitted or unprepared, and the employer is bound to safeguard the lives of the workers.
1858. The same reasons are not sufficient in all cases. (a) Thus, the greater the risk of death, the more serious the reason required. Hence, to save the money one has it might be lawful to jump from a second-story window, but not from a higher window when the fall would most likely kill one. (b) The more immediate the danger of death, the more serious the reason required. Thus, to save money one might lawfully enter a quarantined house, but the risk would not be permitted if the house were tottering in an earthquake. (c) The more notable the shortening of life, the greater the reason needed to permit it. Thus, if the practice of a certain mortification or labor reduces the expectancy of life for a few years, a lesser reason suffices than if it reduces the expectancy for ten or more years.
1859. Indirect suicide is unlawful and has the guilt of self-murder when the reason for risking death is frivolous or insufficient or sinful.
(a) Examples of insufficient reasons are found in the cases of persons who engage in occupations or actions that are very dangerous to life or limb but of little public or private value, as when for the sake of performing a feat a man walks a tight-rope, pricks himself with pins and needles, or puts his head into a lion’s mouth. But if the performer is very skillful and has no other means of livelihood, it seems that he may exercise his art for the sake of entertainment.
(b) Examples of sinful reasons for risking death are found in persons who abbreviate their lives by over-eating, drunkenness, habitual indulgence in strong spirits, or immoderate passion of any kind; and also in those who refuse to make use of the ordinary means for the preservation of health (see 1566 sqq.) or of the ordinary remedies against disease (see 1571). It is not necessary that one be anxious to live long (see 1063), but it is obligatory to use the normal means for the preservation of life, and those who notably neglect these means are guilty of indirect suicide.
1860. Is it suicidal to refuse a surgical operation pronounced necessary for life?
(a) If the operation is likely to be successful and there is no good reason for refusing it, it seems that one may not refuse it without the guilt of indirect suicide, although one might be excused on account of good faith.
(b) If the success of the operation is doubtful, or if there is a good reason for refusing, one who refuses is not guilty of suicide. Among the good reasons are spiritual ones (e.g., modesty, the fear of falling into blasphemy or despair under the pain are given by some writers) and temporal ones (e.g., the poverty that would be brought upon the patient’s family or the hardship that would result for the patient himself).
1861. Canonical Penalties for Suicide.—(a) Those who attempt suicide are irregular _ex delicto_ (Canon 985, n. 5). (b) If they die, they are not given ecclesiastical burial unless they gave signs of repentance before death (Canon 1240, n, 3), and, if they recover, they are subject to various penalties (Canon 2350, Sec. 2). (c) If it is doubtful whether a person committed suicide, or was responsible, the doubt is decided in his favor, provided no scandal is likely.
1862. Accidental Homicide.—Accidental homicide is that which happens without any direct purpose to kill. But the following cases should be distinguished:
(a) when the homicide is not voluntary, either in itself or in its cause (see 35, 94), that is, when the slayer had no intention to kill and could not foresee that death would result from his act or omission;
(b) when the homicide is voluntary only in its cause, inasmuch as the person who kills is guilty of negligence in a lawful thing, or of something unlawful, and death results from the negligence or from that which is unlawful, although there was no direct wish to kill.
1863. The Case of One From Whose Lawful Act or Omission Homicide Accidentally Results.—(a) If this person was not guilty of negligence, he is not responsible for the resultant homicide, since it was not voluntary, either directly or indirectly. Thus, if a man who was said to be dead, but who knows nothing about the report, calls at his home and his wife drops dead on seeing him, he is not responsible for her death.
(b) If the person in question was negligent, he is guilty of homicide in a greater or less degree according to the seriousness of his neglect. Thus, a sane man who flourishes a loaded revolver in a crowded room is responsible if the revolver goes off and kills someone present; but a nurse who leaves a sick room for just a moment with the result that her patient falls out of bed and is killed, is only slightly responsible at the most, if there was little reason to expect what happened.
1864. The Case of One From Whose Unlawful Act or Omission Homicide Accidentally Results.—(a) If this person was not negligent and his conduct was not dangerous to the lives of others, he is not guilty of homicide; for the death that ensued was not voluntary, either directly or indirectly. Thus, if a thief is driving away carefully with a stolen automobile and a reckless pedestrian gets in front of the car and is killed, the driver is guilty of theft, but not of homicide.
(b) If the person in question was not negligent but his conduct was nevertheless dangerous to the lives of others, he is guilty of homicide; for the death that followed was voluntary indirectly, since he could have foreseen the homicide and should have avoided the conduct. Thus, if a person strikes lightly a pregnant woman and she suffers an abortion, or if one who is not a surgeon tries to mutilate an innocent person and kills him, he is responsible for the death, since the acts committed remained dangerous to life, no matter how careful the offender may have been to avoid killing.
1865. Moral and Legal Guilt.—The law may hold one responsible for homicide, even though there is no theological guilt (see 1766 sqq.). (a) Thus, one may be held responsible for the consequence of acts only juridically negligent, as when an automobilist while driving at a speed unreasonable in law, but not in fact, kills a pedestrian. (b) One may be held responsible for acts committed by those subject to one’s care or control, as when a man keeps a dog loose not knowing that it is vicious and it kills a neighbor’s child, or when he illegally lends his car to a minor, thinking the latter is a good driver, and the minor carelessly runs down a person in the road.
1866. Bodily Injuries.-Injustice is done not only by destroying the life of a human being, but also by harming him in his rights to bodily integrity or well-being. The chief bodily injuries are the following:
(a) mutilation, which deprives a person of limbs or members, without inflicting death;
(b) wounding, which by an act of violence (such as a stab or blow) breaks the continuity of the body, or impairs its strength or beauty;
(c) enfeeblement, which impairs or destroys the health, strength, or comfort of the body in unlawful ways (e.g., by deprivation of necessary food, sleep, fresh air, by communication of infection, by beating, hazing, etc.);
(d) restraint, which hinders the lawful exercise of the bodily powers (e.g., by holding a person against his will, by chaining him to a post, by locking him in a room).
1867. Mutilation. In general, any kind of act which injures or impairs bodily integrity is called mutilation. In the strict sense, mutilation is any cutting off, or some equivalent action, through which an organic function or a distinct use of a member is suppressed or directly diminished. Accordingly, three distinct types of mutilation are possible: (a) when a part of the body with a distinct function is excised; (b) when a distinct organic function is totally suppressed, without excision of the organ; (c) when the function is directly lessened or partially suppressed.
1868. Morality. (a) Liceity. The basic principle governing the morality of mutilation is: Man is not the master of his own life, but only the custodian. Accordingly, neither is he master of his own body. Thus, Pope Pius XII, speaking of the “Surgeon’s Noble Vocation” (_The Catholic Mind_, Aug. 1948, pp. 490 ff.), declared: “God alone is Lord of the life and integrity of man, Lord of his members, his organs, his potencies, particularly of those which make him an associate in the work of creation. Neither parents, nor spouse, nor the individual in question may dispose of them at will.”
As steward, man has duties toward his body, its health and welfare, according to the norms of reason and the divine law, so that it may be a means of his attaining life with God. Acting in accord with these norms and the end of life, it may become necessary and licit for man to mutilate his body in order to safeguard health or to save his life. The principle expressing the morality of mutilation, known as the principle of totality (Pius XII, _Nous vous saluons_, AAS 45-674), may be formulated: Man may licitly mutilate his body only insofar as this is expedient for the good of the whole. In fact, such mutilation is often obligatory, since one must use ordinary means to protect his life and health, and since the part is for the whole. Thus, one would be bound to undergo an operation for appendicitis in order to save one’s life.
Although an organ be not diseased, it may under certain circumstances be removed. Thus, a surgeon operating for hernia may remove a healthy appendix, should the danger of adhesions be foreseen that would require a later operation. Nor is it necessary that there be a “present” danger. The words of Pope Pius XII, that mutilations are permissible when required “to avoid ... serious and lasting damage” (AAS 44-782), are suggestive of the liceity of prophylactic operations. (See medical-ethics texts for special cases, such as lobotomy, thalamotomy, experimentation, etc.)
The problem of mutilation involved in organic transplantation for the benefit of a neighbor is highly controverted at the present time, Pope Pius XII discussed the legality of corneal transplants from the dead to the living (_The Pope Speaks_, Autumn, 1956, pp. 198 ff.), but he did not touch the matter of transplants from living bodies. In this controversial matter, the following principles seem to be clear:
1) Mutilation for the good of the neighbor cannot be justified by the principle of totality, for the subordination implied in the principle is characteristic of a physical, not a moral, not even the Mystical, body.
2) Minor mutilations, such as skin grafts or blood transfusions, are certainly permissible. The speculative basis is still a matter of dispute.
3) It is solidly probable extrinsically that organic transplantations may be permitted, possibly out of charity and for a proportionate reason. Some contend, however, that the act of mutilation involved is intrinsically evil and can not be justified by the extrinsic motive of charity.
Mutilation is lawful by public authority in punishment of a criminal; for if the state has the right to inflict death for serious crime, much more has it the right to indict the lesser punishment of mutilation. The expediency, however, of exercising the right must be judged in terms not only of punishment, but also of prevention of crime. Mutilation has no necessary connection (apart from special circumstances) with deterring criminals from further crime.
(b) In other cases mutilation is unlawful; for just as man is not the master of his life, neither is he the master of his limbs, and he commits a wrong against God, society, and the individual if he destroys parts of his body when neither public good nor private safety demands that this can be done. Thus, mutilation of a criminal performed by private authority is unlawful. Hence, a husband may not mutilate a man who has broken up his home.
Mutilation of an innocent person that it not necessary for his bodily safety is unlawful. Even spiritual good is not a sufficient reason; for example, one may not castrate oneself in order to escape temptation, for this operation does not take away passion, and, moreover, there are spiritual means which suffice against temptation. When Our Lord says that one should cut off a hand or foot that causes scandal (Matt., xviii. 8), He is speaking metaphorically of the avoidance of the occasions of sin. Much less is temporal good a sufficient reason for mutilation. Hence, a youth may not have his teeth pulled in order to escape military service; a pauper may not have his arm amputated in order to get larger alms; a boy may not be castrated in order to give him a better singing voice; a woman may not have the hysterectomy or other similar operations performed merely to prevent conception; a man may not have the operation of vasectomy performed on him in order to prevent generation.
1869. Morality of Sterilization. Mutilations which frustrate the power of procreation in men and women are called sterilization. Two kinds are distinguished; indirect, to remove diseased organs; direct, to prevent conception.