Question III: What theft is

Theft is wont to be defined by Theologians: Theft is the occult taking of another's thing. Thus D. Thom. quaest. 66. art. 3. Covar. approves this definition, from the Jurists, Relect. in Regulam Peccatum, p. 1. §. 1.; for by the very fact that "occult taking" is said, Fraudulent taking, against the will of the owner, is signified. Therefore it is defined more clearly by D. Bonav. p. 1. Centil. sect. 31., where he says: Theft is the handling of another's thing, occult, and with the owner ignorant and unwilling. And in the speculo animae, chapter 2: Theft is the occult handling of another's thing, against the will of the owner. And serm. 6. decal: Theft is the touching of another's thing, against the will of the owner.

He notes, however, that theft ought to be furtive, and through occult fraud; otherwise, if it is done through open violence, it will be rapine; or if through occult means, it is called robbery; whence also he elicits, with D. Thom., that under theft are contained all fraudulent contracts by which a neighbor is defrauded of his thing against his reasonable will. Whence also the unjust detention of another's thing is theft, as D. Thom. also says ad 2., and Valentia disp. 5. quaestion. 10. p. 4., and D. Bonav. in speculo animae, cap. 2. in fine, who also in 3. dist. 37. dub. 7. litterali uses the same definition.

Therefore the Holy Doctor everywhere holds constantly that theft is defined through contrectation, which does not signify mere material contact, as Sayrus, Valentia, and Fagundez think, who carp at this term; but a formal contrectation, which is the taking, or usurpation, or abstraction. Thus by the term contrectation it is defined by the Jurists, ad Leg. 1. §. furtum, ff. de furtis, and Institut. de obligatione, quae ex debito etc. §. 1., which Iulius Clarus explains l. 5. sent. §. Furtum. And Navar. in summa, cap. 17., and Sylvest. v. Furtum. At least that contrectation is a condition without which theft cannot exist, as he admits lib. 1. §. 1., is granted by Sayrus lib. 9. cap. 13., who however does not rest in it.

From what has been said you have that Theft differs in species from Rapine, as D. Bonav. above, D. Thom. quaest. 66. art. 4., Caietanus there, Lessius lib. 2. cap. 12. dub. 1., and the Jurisconsults ad Leg. 1. §. 1. et seq. ff. de vi bonorum raptorum, Molina Tract. 4. disp. 683. et 684., Fagundez in septimum praeceptum, l. 7. cap. 1. num. 14. teach. For rapine requires two things, knowledge, and violence inflicted on the owner: but theft requires neither of these; Therefore rapine is graver. Moreover theft is an enemy of the light, since it is wont to be done in secret, but not rapine, according to that verse.

Fur non est latro, quia tempore iur rapit atro : Tempore non atro rapit omnes res tibi latro.