A. 6. Does Usurpation Render Legal Judgments Unjust?
{186}
[This question is divided into six articles, one of which is translated here.]
We thus proceed to the sixth inquiry. It seems that usurpation does not render legal judgments unjust, for the following reasons:
Obj. 1. Justice is a rectitude regarding things to be done. But truth loses nothing by reason of those who happen to utter it. Rather, truth suffers by reason of those who should but do not accept it. Therefore, justice likewise loses nothing by reason of the person who determines what is just, which belongs to the nature of legal judgment.
Obj. 2. It belongs to legal judgment to punish sins. But we read that some are praised for having punished sins, although they had no legal authority over those they punished. For example, Ex. 2:11–2 praises Moses for killing an Egyptian. And Num. 25:7–14 praises Phinehas, the son of Eleazar, for killing Zimbri, the son of Salu, about which Ps. 106:31 says: “And it was reckoned to him [Phinehas] as righteousness.” Therefore, usurpation of judicial power does not partake of injustice.
Obj. 3. We distinguish spiritual power from earthly power. But religious superiors holding spiritual power sometimes interpose themselves regarding matters that belong to earthly power. Therefore, usurped judicial power is not unlawful.
Obj. 4. As lawful authority is required to render proper legal judgments, so also are just and wise judges, as is evident from what I have said before.1 But we do not say that legal judgments are unjust if judges lacking habitual justice or knowledge of the law happen to be the ones who pass judgment. Therefore, neither will legal judgments by usurpers, who lack lawful authority, be always unjust.
On the contrary, Rom. 14:4 says: “Who are you to judge the servant of another?”
I answer that since judges should render judgments according to written laws, as I have said,2 they in a way interpret the words of the laws by applying the words to particular cases. But since it belongs to the same authority to interpret laws and to establish laws, as only public authority can establish laws, so also only public authority, which indeed extends to {187} those subject to the community, can render legal judgments. And so as it would be unjust for anyone to force another to observe laws not sanctioned by public authority, so also is it unjust for anyone to force others to carry out legal judgments not sanctioned by public authority.
Reply Obj. 1. Uttering truths signifies no compulsion on hearers to accept them. Rather, individual hearers are free to accept or reject the statements, as they choose. But legal judgments signify a form of compulsion. And so it is unjust for anyone not holding public authority to render legal judgments regarding others.
Reply Obj. 2. Moses seems to have killed the Egyptian under the inspiration of God’s authority, so to speak, as Acts 7:25 indicates: “By striking the Egyptian, Moses thought that his brethren understood that the Lord would deliver Israel by Moses’ hand.” Or one can say that Moses killed the Egyptian in defense of the victim, with the due moderation of blameless defense. And so Ambrose says in his work On Duties that “those who do not avert injury to a companion when they can are implicated in the sin as much as those who inflict the injury,” and he introduces the example of Moses killing the Egyptian.3
Or one can say, as Augustine does in his work Questions on the Heptateuch,4 that “as the fertility of useless plants deserves praise before their seeds bear fruit, so the deed of Moses was indeed sinful but produced a sign of great fertility,” namely, as the deed was the sign of the power whereby he was about to deliver the people.
And we should say that Phinehas, moved by zeal for God, acted under divine inspiration. Or we should say that Phinehas did it because he, although not yet the high priest, was nonetheless the son of the high priest and enjoyed the same power to render legal judgments as the other priests God empowered.5
Reply Obj. 3. Secular power is subject to spiritual power as the body is subject to the soul. And so the power of legal judgment is not usurped if a spiritual superior interposes himself about earthly affairs regarding matters in which secular power is subject to him, or that secular power relinquishes to him.6
{188} Reply Obj. 4. Habitual knowledge and habitual justice are perfections of individual persons. And so it is not by reason of their lack that people call a legal judgment usurped, but because the latter lacks public authority, from which it has the power to compel.
1ST II–II, Q. 60, A. 1, ad 1 and 3; A. 2.
2Ibid., A. 5.
3On Duties I, 36, n. 178 (PL 16:75).
4Questions on the Heptateuch, q. 2, on Ex. 2:12 (PL 34:597).
5Cf. Ex. 22:20; Lev. 20; Dt. 13 and 17.
6Cf. ST II–II, Q. 147, A. 3: “A s it belongs to secular rulers to prescribe legal regulations specifying the natural law with regard to matters that pertain to the common benefit in earthly affairs, so also does it belong to church superiors to prescribe by legal regulations things that pertain to the common benefit of the faithful in spiritual goods.”