Question V: Whether theft is mortal when, after many tiny thefts, a further small one makes the whole grave

Because this can happen in many ways, it also raises many questions.

For it can be that all the petty thefts are done with the intention of aggregating a grave quantity; it can also be that they are done without this intention. Again, it can be that those petty thefts are done against the same person, or against several different ones; taking from one a single dipondium; from another another thing.

As to the first. I assert first that he who from the beginning intends to take from one a grave quantity sins mortally by that intention; and afterwards, while he commits the individual petty thefts, he also sins mortally. Thus they teach commonly. Sanchez Tom. II. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. Less. tom. I. l. 2. cap. 12. Fort. dub. 7. num. 36. Rebellius p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 4. num. 30. Petrus Navar. l. 3. de restit. cap. 1. num. 50. Sotus l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 5. ad 3. Medina de Restit. quaest. 10. Lopez p. 1. cap. 93. Fagundez in septimum praeceptum decal. l. 7. cap. 15. num. 3. Bassaeus v. Furtum 1. numer. 8. and the following:

It is proved, because, as the S. Doctor argues in 7. praeceptum decal., to damage another gravely is mortal; but he intends thus to damage: Therefore.

I assert second that the same must be said of him who intends to take a grave quantity from several. Thus the Doctors alleged.

It is proved, because that wicked intention is mortal: Therefore, since the individual petty thefts proceed from that will, they will be deadly. Otherwise they would not be gravely reproached by God with those who use false measures; Oseae 12. Chanaan in manu statera dolosa. Proverb. 11. Statera dolosa abominatio est ante Deum. For although each one is damaged but moderately, yet the Republic is gravely offended, because innumerable evils are poured in. And from this crime merchants very rarely escape, as the S. Doctor warned cap. 6. in Decalogum.

Yet Lessius notes, num. 49. com., that in the individual petty thefts a new mortal sin is not committed, but the one already begun is continued; for even if the same will continues, it can be that in each one it is not renewed, but he steals by the power of the first wicked will.

Hence they also deduce that he is held to restitution, which, if it be too arduous to be made to each individual, must be made to the poor.

The greater question is: If in the individual petty thefts he has no further mind of stealing, nor from the beginning conceived the mind of arriving at a notable quantity, but commits the smallest petty thefts from the occasion offered; whether in the last one, by which grave matter is made, he sins mortally, if he remembers the others, although he does not intend to steal gravely.

And indeed, if he does not advert to it, he is only materially so situated, as Nauar. teaches Sum. Lat. cap. 17. num. 130. Sanchez Tomo 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 20. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. dub. 9. Fagundez num. 11.

The first opinion is that he does not sin in that last taking of the worthless thing; yet he sins in the retention, because, positing that last petty theft, the grave matter is completed, which he unjustly retains. Thus Nauar. Summa Latina, cap. 17. num. 139. Vega l. 14. in Concil. Tridentinum cap. 11. Graff. p. 1. decis. lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 51. et lib 2. cap. 95. num. 18. Carbo de restit. quaest. 2. Lessius l. 2. de Iust. cap. 12. dub. 8. num. 43. Iason leg. si idem cum eodem, ff. de iudic. omnium iud. and there, Decius num. 1. and 16. Claudius num. 1. and 2. Farinac. consil. 78. num. 3. Filliuc. tomo 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 243. Rodriquez Summa tomo 4. cap. 118. num. 29. Salas in p. 1. quaest. 58. tract. 13. disp. 16. sect. 17. num. 88. Tolcius l. 5. cap. 16. num. 4. and others. Diana judges it probable p. 1. Tract. de Paupertate Relig. resol. 34. who says that, in the sentence of Nauarrus and the others, when they existed, it is precisely then a sin not to restore, and the thief would have become richer from it. Thus teach Granado in primam 2. contr. 6. tract. 2. disp. 2. sect. 5. num. 49. Lorca p. 1. tom. 2.

Indeed Emanuel Sà asserted that he neither sins mortally nor is held to restitution, v. Furtum, num. 8. Nauar. lib. 3. consil. 3. de statu Monachorum, num. 17. Berarducius in Summa Corona, p. 1. cap. 1. num. 18. and Fernandez in Exam. p. 1. cap. 6. §. 2. num. 12. These speak of things stolen from one and the same, much less from several.

But the COMMON sentence is that a mortal sin is probably committed in that last petty theft of a most trifling thing, with advertence to the past thefts, if in it the grave quantity is completed. Thus Sanchez Tom. 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 6. Rodriquez Tomo 1. Summa in 2. edit. cap. 150. num. 8. concl. 8. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 5. p. 5. in finem. Sayrus l. 9. cap. 15. num. 22. Petrus Ledesma 2. Tom. tract. 8. cap. 21. num. 2. Lopez p. 1. cap. 93. col. 2. quaest. 2. Nauar. l. 3. de restitut. cap. 1. p. 1. dub. 5. a num. 52. Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 1. num. 30. Maior in 4. dist. 1. 15. quaest. 25. Ioan. Medina Cod. de restitut. quaest. 10. Sotus lib. 5. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 5. ad 3. Mercado l. 3. de contract. cap. 4. fol. 129. Couar. l. 1. var. cap. 3. num. 11. Corduba Summa, quaest. 70. p. 2. Bartholomeus Medina l. 2. quaest. 88. art. 4. ad 3. Vasquez ibi disp. 146. cap. 2. num. 5. ibi Zumel art. 4. Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Salon. ibi, controu. 3. quaest. 20. Azor. tomo 1. lib. 4. cap. 9. quaestio 11. Reginaldus T. 1. l. 23. cap. 1. quaest. 4. Ledesma T. 2. tract. 8. cap. 10. Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 6. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 3. num. 23. Caspens. tract. 18. disp. 5. sect. 5. Faust. in thesi. l. 8. quaest. 189. Baffaeus, v. Furtum, t. 1. n. 8. They speak, moreover, even if the petty thefts are taken from many. Diana says this must be embraced, adding some appendices with Baffaeus. A moral continuation is indeed required. They add that with respect to someone at least of the community there ought to be such a loss.

The reason is, because from that last petty theft, joined to the others, a notable injury is composed; for even if no damage is inflicted on one only, nevertheless it is inflicted on the Republic; otherwise someone could enrich himself by taking an obol from each individual workman.

Nor does the distinction of the first opinion please; for to retain and to usurp is the same sin: Therefore he who sins mortally by retaining sins also by usurping. See Sanchez Tomo 1. decal. lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 10.

This seems to be the sentence of D. Bonauentura in Confessionali, cap. 5. part. 20. where he notes the penalties given for false measures and weights ex C. Mogunt. namely thirty days on bread and water, and he adds various penalties of exile; and as if concerning falsifying. And Lex Cornelia, and tit. de ordin. circa Amenam, circa finem. Hence a grave argument is drawn: If those petty thefts from various persons were allowed, without restitution or grave guilt, grave evils of false measures and weights could be poured into the Republic. But S. Bonaventure places these there in order with respect to the matter necessary for confession.

Moreover, that a very small quantity added to the others, and with them constituting grave matter, makes a mortal sin, not indeed a solitary one but with the others, the Doctors commonly judge, a long list of those reported by Fagundez in septimum Praeceptum decal. l. 7. cap. 5. num. 4. and they are almost in the manner alleged.

Truly, indeed, in the external forum there is no heaping up of several moderate thefts to one penalty of death, as Iason says in Leg. si idem cum eodem, num. 3. and 4. ff. de iudic. omnium iudicum, where Decius num. 1. and 16. and Claudius num. 1. and Farinacius consilio 78. num. 3.

But Diana limits the second sentence: those trifling things are gathered into one, if the mass is made from the same kind of business, or from the mind of enriching oneself. Thus also Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 3. num. 44. Tanner. t. 3. disp. 4. quaest. 6. dub. 9. num. 247. Bonac. de contract. disput. 2. quaest. 8. puncto 2. But this reason does not please Sanchez Sum. t. 2. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 16. and deservedly; for what reason is there for the taking to be mortal, if the grave matter coalesces from different businesses?

Next he says, those petty thefts coalesce into one when between them there is not a great interpolation of time; and it will be notable, according to Sanchez and others, if it is of one year, or according to Filliucius Tomo 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 244. and Diana, of one month, or half.

He adds, third, that a much greater quantity is required to constitute mortal matter, and the fault is the smaller the more numerous are the owners into whom the damage is divided. Thus also Sanchez num. 17. Rebell. num. 43. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 5. num. 36. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. disp. 8. num. 46. and Diana concludes that a double quantity is required than in other thefts.

He says, fourth, that the said sentence has no place with respect to the trifling thefts of eatables, which are committed by servants and maidservants, that they may eat. Thus also Megala num. 43. Lessius num. 48. Nauar. cap. 17. n. 138. Reginald. Tom. 2. lib. 23. cap. 1. num. 22. Petrus Nauar. de restit. l. 3. cap. 1. num. 5. dub. 6. num. 202. Sayrus l. 9. cap. 15. num. 17. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Caietanus, v. Furtum, and others in Fagundez lib. 7. cap. 11.

Finally he notes, that those stealing thus are not held under mortal fault to restitution of the whole stolen quantity; but only to that part, upon the restitution of which the notable quantity ceases, sought for mortal theft. Thus Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 4. num. 29. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 5. num. 25. Nauar. de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. p. 10. dub. 8. num. 62. Filliuc. tom. 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 247. and others, to whom Caspensis subscribes Tract. 18. sect. 9. Baff. v. Furtum 1. num. 8.

This, however, does not please me; for restitution is compelled by justice gravely injured; but the injury is grave by reason of the whole, not of the particle alone, and although this raises it up to matter grave, it is not alone, nor the greater part.

He adds also another question: Whether a Religious, gradually filching eatables for his own use together with another companion, sins mortally when they reach a grave quantity: He answers negatively, and alleges many Doctors.

From what has been said it also follows that, if many together, each stealing a little, steal from one, so that they make grave matter, all are held in solidum to restitution. Thus Sanchez Tomo 2. Decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 19. Petrus Navar. l. 3. de restit. cap. 1. num. 41. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. dub. 9. Fagundez l. 7. cap. 14. Bassaeus num. 9. Understand this, if they agree on the petty thefts by communicated counsel.

But if not by communicated counsel, yet accomplices of one another's theft, advertent of the notable damage; whether they sin mortally is asked.

They commonly answer affirmatively. See the Doctors in Bassaeum, Fagundez num. 14. Yet others deny, in the same ibi, num. 6. and Sanchez T. 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 21. Caspensem tract. 18. disp. 5. sect. 9. and Diana p. 1. Tract. 17. resol. 42. Vasquez p. 25. disp. 146. num. 6.

You will object. If by proceeding from an obol to a ducat there is a certain quantity which makes a mortal sin; and what is less is not a mortal sin: Therefore every theft will be by its nature either mortal or venial, because it is incredible that by the addition of one obol the matter of sin can be so changed, that what was venial becomes mortal.

Tanner. ANSWERS num. 122. by denying the consequence, because prudent estimation and the providence of God require that one finally arrive at a notable quantity, which will easily be persuaded if we consider also in natural things that the last degrees of quality dispose to the induction of a substantial form; thus the last particle of water hollows out the stone, sinks the ship; the last blow kills.