79. On Theft

1. Ioannes Iacobus, without any scruple, carries off the goods of another, saying that God alone is the Lord of all things, and that God created other things on account of man, namely on account of all men. Wherefore there is no property, but all things are common.

Q. What as to the case?

R. 1. Exterior things can be considered in two ways: in one way as to their nature, which is not subject to human power, but only to divine power, to which all things obey at a nod. In another way as to the use of the thing itself; and thus man has natural dominion of exterior things, because through reason and will he can use exterior things for his own utility, as if made on account of himself. For the more imperfect are always on account of the more perfect. And thus it is plain that, although God is the Lord of all things, nevertheless this does not exclude dominion and property of things in man. For thence it follows only that God alone has dominion over exterior things as to their natures, that God alone has principal dominion of all things. But God himself ordered, according to his providence, certain things to the bodily sustenance of man; and on account of this man has natural dominion of things as to the power of using them. For this is dominion, and nothing else: The right or faculty of using one's own thing for any use permitted by law, and this for one's own advantage. S. Th. 2.2. q. 66. a. 1; I. M. 838, 866, 867.

2. But although exterior things were created on account of man, from this nevertheless it does not follow that man also does not have dominion of things; indeed, the contrary follows. For if they are on account of man, these goods are man's, although they are not principally his, as is gathered from what has just been said. Moreover, although exterior things were created on account of man, from this nevertheless it does not follow that all things are to be possessed in common, and that nothing is to be possessed as proper; but from this it follows only that the distinction of possessions was not made naturally, but was naturally superadded to natural law, rational nature itself inclining and impelling toward that division and individual appropriation. First indeed, because each one is naturally more solicitous in procuring something which pertains to himself alone, than that which is common to all or to many, because each one, fleeing labor, leaves to others that which pertains to others. Secondly, because human affairs are treated in a more ordered way, if each has his own care of procuring some thing incumbent on him. But there would be confusion if anyone indiscriminately procured anything. Thirdly, because by this the state of men is preserved more peacefully, while each one is content with his own thing. S. Th. 2.2. q. 66. a. 2.

3. Ioannes Iacobus, therefore, a communist, is a true thief, and is held to restitution of all the things which he carried off. For to restore what has been unjustly taken away is of necessity of salvation, since to preserve justice is of necessity of salvation, and to restore what has been unjustly taken away is an act of commutative justice. S. Th. 2.2. q. 62. a. 1, 2.

2. Gordiana, a very rich matron in Italy, orders Veronica the maidservant to send all the linens of the house to Paris, that they may be more carefully cleansed, cleaned, and repaired. Veronica pretends that she is obeying the mistress exactly. But she hands over the linens to be cleaned and repaired to her sister, who cleans and repairs all things as carefully and exquisitely as would be done at Paris. Hence Veronica keeps for herself the excess of money which she would have had to spend.

Q. 1. What is the proper malice of theft? - 2. What as to the case?

R. To the 1st. "It must be said that three things concur for the ratio of theft; the first of which belongs to it insofar as it is contrary to justice, which gives to each one what is his, and from this it belongs to it that it usurps what belongs to another. But the second pertains to the ratio of theft, insofar as it is distinguished from sins which are against the person, such as from homicide and adultery; and according to this it belongs to theft that it be concerning a possessed thing. For if someone takes that which belongs to another, not as a possession, but as a part, as if he amputates a member, or as a connected person, as if he carries off a daughter or wife, it does not properly have the ratio of theft. The third difference is that which completes the ratio of theft, namely that what belongs to another be usurped secretly; and according to this the proper ratio of theft is that it is a secret taking of another's thing.... Concealment sometimes indeed is the cause of sin, for example, when someone uses concealment for sinning, as happens in fraud and deceit; and in this way it does not diminish, but constitutes the species of sin; and thus it is in theft. In another way concealment is a simple circumstance of sin; and thus it diminishes the sin, both because it is a sign of shame, and because it removes scandal." S. Th. 2.2. q. 66. a. 3; I. M. 1289.

To the 2nd. Veronica is guilty of theft. For she secretly usurps another's thing. That excess of money is not hers, but the mistress's. For from the mistress she receives money for a determined end, not for another. Therefore the money not applied to this end remains proper to the mistress. How could the maidservant, not applying money to this end, against the manifest will of the mistress, make it her own? Wherefore that exceeding money must be restored to the mistress. - But as to the linens to be sent to Paris, Veronica can simply obey the mistress and send the linens to Paris. Nevertheless she is not held to obey in a thing so insane, especially since, as appears from the case, the mistress seems altogether content as to that cleanliness and repair of the linens. But Veronica, then sparing money, spares it for the mistress herself. G. 569, 570.

3. Placidus, a servant in the house of the king, steals 40 lire. At Easter time he confesses his sin, and when he himself had shown difficulty concerning restitution, the confessor absolved him, because, he says, those are not lacking who assign this as grave matter with respect to a king, as is to be seen in Scav. ed. 12.ª Mediol. 1874. l. 2. n. 697. note.

Q. What as to the case?

R. Placidus could not be absolved without the obligation of restoring being imposed on him, since from elsewhere he was excused by no other legitimate cause. For that sum is not light, but grave, insofar as it is matter of theft. With respect to a king, relative matter is not so much to be attended to as absolute matter; since relative matter, as commonly happens as to kings and ordinaries, would overstep the limits. For otherwise thieves stealing from kings could easily grow so bold that they would not sin mortally, which is repugnant to the public good. For truly then thieves could do the same as to private persons who are very rich; and they could do the same still more in public Administrations, indeed also in private Administrations of Commercial Companies. Nor indeed can any probability be reconciled to that opinion from the authority of Scavini, for the learned theologian holds that quantity as too exorbitant. Cf. Commentarios Theologico-Morales, Commentar. Octav. de Materia gravi in furto.

4. "Whether money which is withdrawn from the priests of idols who are converted, when abandoning pagan temples, in order to use the same to procure their existence, has the quality and character of a stolen thing.

R. According to those things which are proposed, it is not lawful; for nothing is brought forward which can excuse the guilt of theft in the case of which there is question." S. C. de P. F. 21 Jan. 1788; Collectan. n. 2109.