[Question:]{.underline} Am I obliged to make restitution, although I have not gained anything by my action harming another’s property?
[Answer:]{.underline} Restitution is the making up for the harm done to another. It is owed in justice, as can easily be understood in the case of theft. There can be no true contrition, nor valid sacramental absolution, without the determination to return the stolen item or to make up for its value to the owner, as soon as possible.
However, it is not so clear in the case in which one has harmed another person’s property in some way, without profiting in any way. Very frequently the excuse is given that the person who does this does not even have the means to make restitution. Is he really bound?
This is what the moral theologians call unjust damnification, and it take places either deliberately, such as the case of vandalism, or accidentally as in the case of a vehicle accident that destroys another’s person’s vehicle. When the damage done to another person’s property is voluntary and deliberate, and truly the result of his personal action, then he is personally responsible for the damage and is morally bound to make it good, even if nobody knows about it, and even if he has not profited by it in any way and does not presently have the means to do so. He must have at least the determination to make restitution over time, as he becomes capable of doing so, and the priest must require this as a condition for giving absolution.
However, most frequently the damage to another’s property is not intended nor deliberate, but happens on account of imprudence or negligence that is not intentional. This is the case of at fault motor vehicle accidents. In such cases, there is harm to another’s property, but a person is not necessarily responsible for all the damage, since he did not want it or intend it. In this second case, which is call material damnification, civil law is to be followed. If a just law requires that a person make restitution for the damage thus caused, and imposes it upon him, then he is also morally bound to do so. Likewise, if he has a civilly valid contract, such as a worker or builder, who through negligence, produces a defective building (e.g. by imprudently using defective materials). Although the defect was not intentional, yet on account of the valid contract, he is bound in conscience to correct the defect that his negligence or professional fault caused.
Answered by Father Peter Scott, SSPX.