commentary — Bucceroni, Moral Enchiridion
Second Commentary: On Grave Matter in Theft
1.
- The reason for doubting in this matter is that in the present day it seems necessary to exceed the limits predefined both by the older Theologians and also by St. Alphonsus, book 3, nn. 527, 528, because from their age down to ours no slight difference is perceived concerning the value of money. For all now complain that the prices of things have increased notably in comparison with past times, or, what comes to the same thing, that the value of money has decreased. Whence grave matter in theft must now reach a greater quantity of money. But on the contrary it seems that one must not depart either from the opinion of the old theologians, which is always to be held in the greatest account in a moral matter, or, and much less, from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, which has had special approval from the Holy See. Moreover, although it must be conceded that according to the variety of times a variety has also been introduced in the value of money, nevertheless, if a proportion of this sort had to be observed, since now the prices of things have increased immensely, the grave quantity in theft would also have to be increased immensely, which would cede to evident damage of Society. To resolve this question we inquire into three things: 1st. How many kinds of grave matter are to be distinguished in theft? 2nd. What in our age is to be judged in theft matter both relatively and absolutely grave? 3rd. What must be judged concerning the proposed reasons for doubting?
2.
- As to the first question it is enough to note that, properly speaking, grave matter in theft is always relative, nor can it be absolute. The reason is that, as the Angelic Doctor says, 2.2, q. 73, a. 3, "sins which are committed against one's neighbor are to be weighed in themselves according to the harms which are brought upon the neighbor, because from this they have the nature of fault. But the harm is so much the greater as the good taken away is greater." This notwithstanding, theologians commonly distinguish in theft absolute grave matter and relative grave matter. Relative grave matter is that which is grave, attention having been paid to the conditions of the person in particular, to whom in fact grave harm is brought. This is altogether consonant with the doctrine of St. Thomas just set forth, l.c., and q. 66, a. 6, ad 3. But as regards absolute grave matter, Scavini, Milan ed. 1874, book 2, n. 697, says: "the theft will be absolutely grave when, independently of the damage which the owner suffers, in the judgment of men it is considered of itself to suffice for constituting mortal sin." This definition is either inexact, as being incomplete, or in reality says and explains nothing; because, if precision and abstraction are made from the neighbor's damage, no judgment of grave matter can be formed. And if the common sense of men judges this or that matter grave, it judges so because in this or that matter it considers grave harm to the neighbor. Otherwise that judgment of common sense would be a judgment without foundation and sense. Absolute grave matter, according to the common doctrine of Theologians, ians, is matter which is grave with respect to all, of whatever condition they themselves may be, whether they are poor or rich; whether they are individual or moral persons, as that which in any conditions of status always brings grave harm to the neighbor, for such a place or time. It is said, for such a place or time, because the same thing in this place or time, on account of abundance, is valued little, and consequently its taking away inflicts slight damage; but in another place or time, on account of rarity and necessity, it is valued more highly, and consequently the taking away of the same thing brings grave damage. Hence that also is inexact which the same Scavini adds, l.c.: "But it is plain that the determination of matter absolute and in itself, for judging concerning the gravity of sin, ought then only to have place when the state and condition of the damaged person is unknown." And he asserts this absolutely grave matter to be about five or six libellae.
3.
- Lugo aptly says, De Iust. et Iur., D. 16, S. 2, n. 23: "And indeed it cannot be denied that the malice of theft is respective, nor has anyone denied this. For although they say that there can be some grave matter of theft that is absolute, and another respective..., nevertheless they do not will that it be grave without any respect to damage to the neighbor; but they only signify that there is some matter of such a sort through which grave damage is inflicted upon all, and therefore, such matter standing, there is no need to examine and weigh the condition of the person suffering the damage, since it is established that every person, of whatever condition he may be, suffers grave damage from a theft of this sort. Nor can it be denied that there is some matter which is not grave with respect to all, but with respect to one person is slight, and with respect to others is grave.... For the gravity of malice is taken from the gravity of the damage inflicted; but the gravity of damage proceeds from the greater need by which the neighbor needs that thing. Wherefore, since not all equally need the thing which is taken away, it follows that they do not suffer an equally grave injury either, and therefore one person will be able to suffer a slight injury, another a grave injury, through the theft of an equal sum."
4.
- As regards the second question, there is a twofold criterion or rule for judging and determining matter relatively grave. For one criterion is intrinsic, the other extrinsic. Let us speak first of the intrinsic. That which reasonably and, speaking in itself, brings grave displeasure to our neighbor is a grave sin against charity; and if justice enters into it, it is a grave sin against justice, which obliges more strictly than charity. The Angelic Doctor uses nearly this reasoning, 2.2, q. 66, a. 6, to prove that theft in itself is a mortal sin. "Mortal sin," he says, "is that which is opposed to charity, according as it is the spiritual life of the soul. But charity consists principally indeed in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of neighbor, to which it pertains that we will and work good for the neighbor. But through theft a man inflicts harm upon his neighbor in his goods, and if men everywhere stole from one another, human society would perish. Whence theft, as contrary to charity, is a mortal sin." Moreover, to deprive some person and his family of daily sustenance, necessary according to his own condition, reasonably brings grave displeasure to our neighbor, who sees himself and his own deprived of the things necessary for life according to his own state. Whence it evidently appears that the harm is grave, counting in sustenance not only food, but also clothing and habitation. "Commonly the Doctors say," says St. Alphonsus, book 3, n. 527, "that in theft that is grave matter which would suffice someone according to his condition in a day for the sustenance of himself and his family; in which, as La-Croix well observes, n. 985, with Sporer, Gomez, and others, not only food is computed, but also clothing and habitation." And here it must be noticed that in sustenance of this sort, speaking in itself, there ought also to be comprehended honorable pleasures and lawful recreations fitting to one's own condition, without which human life neither can be, nor in fact is, and of which also someone would be deprived with altogether reasonable displeasure. For man does not live only on bread and meat, water and wine, in a strict measure, nor does he live solitary; but physically he also lives by other things, and by a measure conveniently good and considered together, if not always superabundant; but morally he lives in his own family and in society; and therefore expenses of pleasure, for the sake of honorable and suitable recreation and also of due honor, must at least sometimes be sustained. Theologians seem implicitly to understand this in that sustenance of the family which they call congruous and suitable to one's state.
5.
- But as regards grave sin, although deprivation of sustenance in the sense explained is certainly and among all grave, nevertheless a smaller quantity still suffices for grave sin, according to the principle established. For if someone were deprived of daily sustenance necessary only for his own individual life, and not also for the life of his own family, he would certainly experience grave and reasonable displeasure. Indeed, for constituting grave sin from the principle already established it is not necessary that someone be deprived of that whole which is necessary for the daily sustenance of his own individual life, as this sustenance has just been explained, but it suffices that he be deprived only of a notable part of it. For indeed, would not someone feel grave and rational displeasure if even for one day he were deprived of necessary food, or clothing, or habitation, or for that reason could not fulfill the offices of his own status and condition?
6.
- Wherefore considering, 1st, what at present and as regards Italy is spent for the sustenance of life by the poor, by workers, by various persons of civil and noble condition, what is spent daily in Colleges and Seminaries, in religious Communities, in families which live decently and suitably, but also with due economy; considering, 2nd, the stipends of workers, doctors, advocates, public officials, and the profits of merchants, the pensions of students in Colleges and Seminaries, the dowries of Nuns, the incomes of ordinarily rich persons; it seems possible to establish at present and as regards Italy, and perhaps also, at least more or less, for other regions of Europe, the following matter relatively grave: 1st, for the poor, 1 libella, and less, according to the degree of their poverty. 2nd, for workers and artisans, 1 libella, 2, 3, according to the various crafts and arts, more or less lucrative. 3rd, for persons of civil and ordinary condition, who live from incomes, or from the exercise of merchandising and commerce, or of a liberal profession, 4 libellae, 5-6, 7, according to the various degree of convenience of life. 4th, for ordinary rich persons, 8, 9-11, 12 libellae, and for ordinary moral Bodies, 10-20 libellae, according to the degree of riches. 5th, finally, for extraordinarily rich persons, such as reigning and non-reigning Princes, Nobles and Merchants and very rich Businessmen, moral Bodies and Societies possessing exorbitant Capitals, relatively grave matter cannot be designated; recourse must be had to absolutely grave matter. And indeed, when a private Prince, for example, possesses 50 and 100 millions, and daily spends 30 libellae and more for letters and telegrams alone, it is an evident thing that the theft of 10, 20, 30 libellae certainly will not deprive him in any way of suitable sustenance. Therefore to assert that matter of this sort is relatively grave for them is merely arbitrary, and in no way confirmed by the enunciated intrinsic criterion and rule for judging concerning relative gravity.
7.
- But let us make a step to the extrinsic criterion and rule. Since here there is question of a moral judgment in a moral matter, such criterion and rule is contained in the authority of Theologians. "Moreover," says St. Alphonsus, l.c., "for making a just measurement of this gravity, the Salmanticenses rightly say, De Rest., c. 5, n. 12, that the judgments of the wise contribute greatly, whose greater authority in this point seems to me to constitute greater probability. Wherefore I have taken care diligently to gather here the diverse opinions of Doctors," etc. But recent theologians, with few exceptions and a slight difference of which account cannot be taken in moral matters, agree altogether in the matter assigned. For in this they agree, that for the regions of Europe, matter relatively grave at present is almost twice greater than that which St. Alphonsus established for his own time. Moreover, the Holy Doctor, book 3, n. 528, no distinction having been made between the lowest, middle, and highest degree of riches, assigns: 1st, for the poor, 1 iulius, 54 centesimi; 2nd, for workers, 2 iulii, 1 libella, 8 centesimi; 3rd, for artisans, 2 1/2 iulii, 1 libella, 35 centesimi; 4th, for those moderately rich, 4 iulii, 2 libellae, 16 centesimi; 5th, for those absolutely rich and for very wealthy merchants, 6 iulii, 3 libellae, 24 centesimi; 6th, for the very richest magnates, 1 aureus, 5 libellae, 38 centesimi; 7th, for a very wealthy Community, 1 1/2 aurei, 8 libellae, 17 centesimi; 8th, for Kings, 2 aurei, 10 libellae, 76 centesimi. But the Holy Doctor adds, l.c., n. 527, that very many doctors extend this quantity up to 3 aurei, 16 libellae, 14 centesimi. And this quantity, as is plain, is, as it were, half the quantity assigned. For a iulius is worth 54 centesimi of a libella. But an aureus is worth 5 libellae, 58 centesimi. Cf. Finardi, Prontuario del Commerciante, etc., Rome 1862. That we may pass over others, for the sake of brevity, the most learned Joseph D'Annibale has these things in Summula Theolog. Moral., Part 2, n. 201, 2nd ed., Milan 1882: "Let me have St. Alphonsus before my eyes, the price of things having almost doubled from that time in which he lived. And so, for the present value of coins, I would say that the damage which does not reach about one libella is always slight in itself, even if to a beggar; on the contrary I would say that damage which exceeds about 30 libellae is grave in itself, even if inflicted upon the very richest person, or upon a King. Between these the damage must be measured relatively, that is, from the persons: therefore I judge it grave, 1st, for the poor, that is, for a beggar, or worker, or artisan, damage of 1 libella or 2 1/2; 2nd, for merchants, according to each one's fortune, whether lowest, middle, or highest, 2 1/2, or 4, or 8; 3rd, for the rich, according as nothing, or little, or much, or very much remains to them from their own revenue, expenses deducted, 3 and perhaps less, or 4, or 7, or 10. Finally as regards moral persons which have the body of a College, damage is grave which is reckoned at 10, or, if they shall have been wealthy, at 20." This question was debated in the present year 1887, on the day 24 Jan., in the Conference of Cases of Conscience at S. Apollinaris before the Most Eminent Cardinal Vicar of the City, and the same opinion was defended by the Resolver and approved by the Censors present; and the Censor who at the end, according to custom, made the recapitulation, set forth the whole doctrine which is explained in this Commentary.
8.
- Let us come to absolute matter. As for relative matter the damage of individuals is attended to, with all particular circumstances considered, so for absolute matter the damage of Society itself ought especially to be considered. And, this once admitted, then it is easily understood how absolutely grave matter is always grave, namely grave for all, without distinction, although there is question of extraordinarily and exorbitantly rich persons. This principle being established, absolutely grave matter seems to be that which exceeds thirty libellae, the quantity designated by the praised Joseph D'Annibale. But someone will object: how can thirty libellae more or less bring grave damage to Society, if they do not bring grave damage even to an extraordinarily rich individual, such as are great bankers or merchants of monies in Europe, to whom the loss of 30 and even 300 libellae and more in their commercial operations is scarcely perceptible and is immediately compensated by so many and so great other profits? It is responded that it is common doctrine with relation to fornication that it is prohibited in all cases by natural law itself on account of the uncertain education of offspring. Although in some particular case, which is not very difficult to be verified, both the father and the mother, otherwise very rich, agree between themselves that the offspring be educated in due manner; indeed even that they themselves immediately undertake the care of a suitable education, and therefore with sincere and efficacious will promise a marriage to be entered at once, fornication would always remain prohibited by natural law; because if it were lawful and permitted in some particular case, the gravest danger would always be present of disordered license with immense damage to the offspring. In like manner, although a determined quantity, already sufficiently great in itself, does not bring grave harm to some individual in particular, nor even for the same individual is there at least danger of further grave harm, nevertheless it is itself sufficient for constituting a grave and most grave danger for Society itself, and, speaking in itself, also for individuals themselves. Wherefore, absolutely speaking, it will always be grave matter in any case. For if the grave damage of the individual and of society is considered, there is need to take account not only of expenses necessary for the sustenance and decorum of one's own state, but also of slight thefts, which are sufficiently frequent not only in thieves by profession, but also in the very persons of one's own family, community, society; but especially in persons to whom the administration of others' goods has been entrusted, especially of public dominion and utility. "Namely," says the most distinguished D'Annibale, l.c., n. 257, note 20, "it is very difficult for the things of owners to be administered by others so faithfully that something does not adhere to the hands of those handling them." Therefore, such danger being posited, not only is it evident that the designated quantity is sufficient for constituting absolutely grave matter; but also perhaps that quantity can, not without reason, seem excessive and to be restricted to narrower limits. For where the gravity of sin does not deter, and the hope of a greater, sufficiently notable profit invites and incites to a new theft, many men, and commonly by far more, would commit it, and our fortunes would be most gravely injured, unless they were deterred by fear of graver sin. Hence it is plain why, although the excess of the faculty of the most wealthy King over the faculties of an ordinary rich man, or even of a Marquis or Count, is far greater, beyond any proportion, than the excess of the rich man over the faculties of a citizen or common man, nevertheless there is not required so great a proportionate excess in a grave theft made against a King over a theft made against a rich man as in this latter with respect to a theft made against a common man. And this doctrine seems conformable to the doctrine just related of the Angelic Doctor concerning the gravity of theft, which he declares absolutely, saying: "But through theft a man inflicts harm upon his neighbor in his goods, and if men everywhere stole from one another, human society would perish." But cf. also Lugo, l.c., n. 29 ff.
9.
- Nor indeed should the authority of Cardinal de Lugo be objected, as asserting, l.c., n. 21, that a quantity absolutely grave cannot be constituted in theft. For Lugo, l.c., does not assert this, but a very different thing, namely "that it cannot be defined what are the borders of each matter, namely slight and grave, so that short of such a sum it is slight, and beyond that it is grave." It is surely one thing that this quantity cannot be mathematically defined, another that absolutely grave matter cannot even be determined morally, with a certain moral latitude, namely a little more or a little less; and this is what Cardinal de Lugo himself attempts to effect in the following paragraphs. Cf. n. 29 ff., where he designates the universal reason of the malice of grave theft, namely absolutely grave. Cf. also n. 35.
10.
- Nor likewise should it be objected that from the discourse made it would follow that any theft whatever is grave, since from any slight theft whatever a most grave detriment of Society and of individuals could be feared. For men are not so allured to these smaller thefts, from which they take little profit, as they are allured to those other greater ones, in which profit appears not contemptible, if they could be done without grave sin, as the same Lugo has, l.c., n. 33. But the assigned quantity of thirty libellae, more or less, surely brings profit not contemptible, more than enough alluring to steal.
11.
- Finally, the authority of Lugo is still objected against the assigned quantity of 30 libellae as absolutely grave. For Lugo asserts this quantity to be 100 aurei, l.c., n. 21. If therefore in the time of Lugo this was the absolutely grave quantity, in our time certainly it ought to be greater still. It is responded that the assertion is altogether false. For Lugo does not say that for his own time that was the absolutely grave quantity, but that that was a quantity evidently and certainly grave, which is very different; and he asserts this indeed by a kind of near exaggeration. For in that same number he does not speak of matter to be determined absolutely, so that he determines it, but he speaks only of the difficulty of determining that grave matter and much more of defining the limits of that grave and slight matter, on account of the difficulty itself of finding in this matter some rational principle and some fixed rule. Hence in the following numbers 22-29 he relates various opinions of Theologians, and various rules assigned by them, which he weighs, and shows to be insufficient. But before he brings forth in n. 29 his own rule and rational principle, so that the malice of grave theft, namely absolutely grave, may be understood, he openly declares that in reality he does not depart from the opinion of others, attention also having been paid to the decrease of money at that time; and he says at the end of n. 28: "Wherefore I shall not reluctantly agree with the aforesaid in the matter itself, that in order with respect to Kings and wealthy Magnates a theft of one aureus be required; with respect to the rich, six or seven argentei; with respect to artisans, four; with respect to the poor, the value of daily food, or the average wage which in a time midway between winter and summer is given to a digger." An argenteus is the same for Lugo as a iulius or regalis, nn. 22-26; but an ordinary regalis is worth 26 centesimi of a libella. But since he takes an argenteus for a iulius or regalis, and says in n. 26 that one Ducat contains eleven reales or iulii, by regalis he understands not the ordinary regalis, of bronze, real de vellon, but the silver regalis, real de plata, of about twice greater value and about equivalent to a iulius. And in n. 31 he establishes still more definitively that the theft of one aureus is absolutely grave, on account of the danger of grave detriment which is in it: "for," he says, "from several thefts of one aureus made to you by diverse persons, your family affairs would truly suffer most grave detriment." Likewise in n. 32 he affirms the same thing altogether clearly, extending that absolutely grave matter not to 100 aurei, but to one or two aurei. Finally, in n. 35, discoursing again concerning the difficulty of defining precisely the limits of grave and slight matter, although he speaks hypothetically and only for the sake of example, he certainly brings into the midst not 90 or 80 aurei but 6 iulii. This can also be confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus, who in n. 527 counts Lugo among authors who "with respect to the very richest Magnates... say that one aureus suffices for grave matter." But from the opinion of Lugo, n. 29, with respect to these very rich persons, relatively grave matter is not to be required, but absolutely grave, which he then establishes according to this rule and principle; namely, "some things are prohibited not on account of precisely the damage which they bring when they are done once, but on account of the damage which they would bring if, being repeated more often, they were lawful.... Thus therefore in the present matter it seems to be said that although the theft of one aureus or half made only once would not bring great detriment, especially to a rich man, and therefore considered according to itself would not seem sufficient for inducing eternal damnation; nevertheless consequently it would bring great detriment, because if such theft were slight and could be done without grave sin, thefts of this sort would be multiplied, from the frequency of which the greatest detriment would follow even for the rich and princes." And from these things it is more than sufficiently plain how false it is to assert that matter absolutely grave from Lugo is the sum of 100 aurei, namely greater than 500 libellae, since an aureus is equivalent to 5 libellae, 38 centesimi.
12.
- Let us come to the third question. The reason adduced, that one depart from the limits designated by ancient Theologians and by St. Alphonsus, is excellent. For since the value of money has changed, and has been diminished, and notably diminished, the damage at present brought upon the neighbor in equal circumstances is much less than that which it was before. And in the matter of theft it is precisely this damage, grave or slight, which renders the matter grave or slight. St. Alphonsus himself, l.c., n. 527, says that the gravity of the matter of theft "is to be measured respectively according to the circumstances of person, thing, place, and time." Lugo has the same, l.c., nn. 24, 25. But what is asserted against this, that it is not lawful to depart from the doctrine of the ancient theologians and of St. Alphonsus, whose works received special approval from the Apostolic See, truly has no place in our case. For we do not depart from their doctrine and principles even by the breadth of a nail, although the conclusion is different, because the circumstances are different, as the same St. Alphonsus and Lugo teach that they ought to be. Finally, what is added, namely that grave matter in theft would assume nearly enormous proportions if attention had to be paid to the changed value of money and the price of things, is most false. A certain recent theologian, indeed, relying upon a certain catalogue of prices which is found in a certain Ordinance of the Police of the City of Bourges in France, in the year 1598, from a comparison of the aforesaid prices with the prices of the same city in the year 1883, found the proportion to be one to thirteen. And hence he deduced that grave matter for a king is at least 150 libellae. This assertion is a very true exaggeration, and without any solid foundation. It does not suffice to compare the price of a few wares and the stipend of some workers which are found in that Ordinance of the City of Bourges. But in order that we may come to a seriously deduced and founded conclusion, it is necessary to examine and weigh the whole present State of Society in relation to public and private riches, in relation to the value of money and all necessities of life. And first indeed, the poor, who live from the goods of the rich, are in the present day as many as before and perhaps more and much more than before. If money is more abundant, taxes also and revenues are greater, at least in an equal if not greater proportion. The stipend of public officials has increased, but certainly it has not increased thirteen times nor ten times, nor much less relatively to the stipend of the time immediately past. But the necessities of life in the present day have increased; and money, if, attention being paid to commerce and present industry, it is more fruitful than before, certainly the increase is not thirteen times greater, but scarcely by a third or half. Cultivation of fields, on the contrary, in many places is much less fruitful, and in some almost abandoned. But attention being paid to the evolution of Commerce, the loss of Capitals on account of cessions of goods, fires, shipwrecks, etc., is much greater than before. And although there is now greater activity, circulation, and quasi-motion of riches, notwithstanding this, those who now are extraordinarily and exorbitantly rich do not seem truly to be richer than those who were extraordinarily rich in past times, as can easily be deduced from their great works and foundations of beneficence, of most splendid buildings, Monasteries, Hospitals, etc., which they erected and founded. Finally, if according to that Ordinance of the City of Bourges a pound of beef and a hen today is of thirteen times greater price than before, a proportion of this sort is not true for all cities and towns of Europe, indeed not even of the same France, as is established from catalogues of prices which are published in public Journals. And thus, for example, in the City of Bourges the best hen of all is bought for 3 libellae and 90 centesimi; at Turin it is bought for 2 libellae and 40 centesimi. Cardinal Lugo himself observed this for his own time; for he says, l.c., n. 24: "I saw at Madrid that the common price of one hen was eight argentei, while nevertheless at Salamanca, while I was studying there, it was commonly bought for two argentei." Besides, how many other things there are which previously were bought at a much dearer price, but today are had at a cheap price, as it is easy to discern in the transmission of letters, in the carriage of goods, in journeys, in things made by machine art, in fuels necessary for illuminating and burning, etc. Therefore the excess of grave matter in theft in the present day can by no means be enormous. All things well weighed, perhaps it scarcely reaches double, as can also be confirmed from the stipend of Masses, which either by custom or by diocesan Statutes has increased about twofold. And thus in the time of St. Alphonsus and Benedict XIV, the stipend of manual Masses was 10 solidi; but that of founded Masses was 26 or 27 solidi, cf. Benedict XIV, Instr. 56, n. 19 ff.; but today it is 1 1/2 or 2 libellae for various places. Nearly the same must be said concerning the stipend of soldiers, doctors, etc. In the year 1856 the Sacred Congregation, for the furnishing of support, decreed the sum of 6 ducats monthly, about 30 libellae, etc. Cf. Bizzarri, Collect., etc. Moreover, in the time of Molina, who died in 1600, the variation of money was from 1 to 6. De Iust. et Iure, tr. 2, D. 685, n. 2. In the time of Lugo, who died in 1660, the variation of money was from 1 to 3. De Iust. et Iur., D. 16, n. 25. St. Alphonsus also affirms a variation from 1 to 2, book 3, n. 383. Nor indeed did these Doctors increase grave matter of theft for their own time in this proportion. Therefore that the grave matter of theft must be increased according to the reasoning of the change in the value of money, in the same proportion, is proved neither by reason nor by authority.