On Grave Matter in Theft

To n. 1297 ff. ON GRAVE MATTER IN THEFT

1. The reason for doubting in this matter is that it seems necessary at present to exceed the limits fixed beforehand both by the older Theologians and also by St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 527, 528, because from their age up to our own no slight difference is detected concerning the value of money. For all now complain that the prices of things have grown notably in comparison with past times, or, what comes back to the same thing, that the value of money has decreased. Whence it is necessary that grave matter in theft now reach a greater quantity of money. But on the contrary it seems that one must not depart either from the opinion of the older theologians, which is always to be held in the greatest account in a moral matter, nor, and much less, from the doctrine of St. Alphonsus, which had special approval from the Holy See. Moreover, although it must be conceded that, according to the variety of times, variety has also been introduced in the value of money, nevertheless if a proportion of this sort were to be preserved, since now the prices of things have grown immensely, the grave quantity in theft would also have to be increased immensely, which would yield to the evident harm of Society. To resolve this question we inquire into three things: 1. How many kinds of grave matter are to be distinguished in theft?

2. What in our age is to be judged matter both relatively and absolutely grave in theft?

3. What is to be judged concerning the proposed reasons for doubting?

2. As regards 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 because, as the Angelic Doctor says, 2. 2, q. 73, a. 3, "sins which are committed against one's neighbor are to be weighed per se according to the harms which are inflicted on the neighbor, because from this they have the notion of fault. But the harm is so much the greater, as a greater good is taken away." Notwithstanding this, theologians commonly distinguish in theft absolutely grave matter and relatively grave matter. Relatively grave matter is that which is grave with attention to the conditions of the person in particular, to whom a grave harm is in reality 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 absolutely grave matter, Scavini, Milan ed. 1874, book 2, n. 697, says: "theft will be absolutely grave when, independently of the damage which the owner suffers, in the sense of men it is judged per se to suffice for constituting a lethal sin." This definition is either inexact, as incomplete, or in reality says and explains nothing; because, if precision and abstraction is made from the harm of the neighbor, no judgment of grave matter can be formed. And if the common sense of men judges such or such matter grave, it judges so because in such or such matter it considers grave harm of the neighbor. Otherwise that judgment of common sense would be a judgment without foundation and sense. Absolutely grave matter, according to the common doctrine of Theologians, is matter which is grave with respect to all, of whatever condition they may be, whether they are poor or rich; whether they are individual persons or moral persons; as that which in any conditions of state whatever 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 esteemed little, and consequently its taking away inflicts light damage; but in another place or time, on account of rarity and necessity, it becomes of greater value, and consequently the taking away of the same thing brings grave damage. Hence what the same Scavini adds, l. c., is also inexact: "But it is clear that the determination of absolute matter, and matter in itself, for judging concerning the gravity of sin, ought to have place only then when the state and condition of the damaged person is unknown." And he asserts this absolutely grave matter to be about five or six lire.

3. Aptly Lugo, 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 some matter of theft can be given which is grave absolutely, and another respective..., nevertheless they do not will that it be grave without any respect to the damage of the neighbor; but they only signify that there is some matter of such a kind through which grave damage is inflicted on all, and therefore, with such matter standing, there is no need to examine and weigh the condition of the person suffering damage, since it is established that every person, of whatever condition he may be, suffers grave damage from theft of this sort. Nor can it be denied that some matter exists which is not grave with respect to all, but is light with respect to one and grave with respect to others.... For the gravity of the malice is taken from the gravity of the damage inflicted; but the gravity of the damage comes 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, and therefore one person can suffer a light injury, another a grave injury, through 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 per se, 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, 2. 2, q. 66, a. 6, uses nearly this reasoning to prove that theft per se is a mortal sin. "Mortal sin," he says, "is that which is contrary to charity, insofar as it is the spiritual life of the soul. But charity consists principally indeed in the love of God, secondarily in the love of neighbor, to which it pertains that we will and work good for the neighbor. But by theft man inflicts harm on the 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." Now 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 their proper state. Whence it evidently appears that the harm is grave, by computing in sustenance not only food, but also clothing and habitation. "Commonly the Doctors say," says St. Alphonsus, l. 3, n. 527, "that in theft that is grave matter which would suffice someone according to his condition for the sustenance of himself and his family for one day; in which, as La-Croix rightly notes, n. 985, with Sporer, Gobat, and others, not only food is computed, but also clothing and habitation." And here it must be noted that by sustenance of this sort, speaking per se, honorable pleasures and lawful recreations must also be comprehended, those fitting to one's proper condition, and of which someone would also be deprived with altogether reasonable displeasure. For man does not live only by bread and flesh, water and wine, in a strict measure, nor does he live solitarily, but he lives physically also by other things, and in a fittingly good and gathered measure, if not always overflowing; but morally he lives in his own family and in society; and therefore expenses of pleasure, for the sake of honorable and fitting recreation and also of due honor, must at least sometimes be sustained. Theologians seem to understand this implicitly by that sustenance of the family which they call congruous and fitting to one's state.

5. But as regards grave sin, although deprivation of sustenance in the sense set forth is certainly and among all grave, nevertheless a still lesser quantity 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 certainly would experience grave and reasonable displeasure. Indeed, to constitute grave sin from the principle already established, it is not necessary that someone be deprived of all that 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. Truly, would someone not perceive a grave and rational displeasure if even for one day he were deprived of necessary food, or clothing, or habitation, or therefore could not fulfill the offices of his own state and condition?

6. Wherefore, considering 1. what at present, and as regards Italy, is expended for the sustenance of life by the poor, by workers, by various persons of civil and noble condition; what is expended daily in Colleges and Seminaries, in Religious Communities, in families which live decently and fittingly, but also with due economy; considering 2. the wages of workers, physicians, advocates, public officials, and the profits of merchants, the pensions of students in Colleges and Seminaries, the dowries of Nuns, the ordinary revenues of the rich; it seems possible to establish at present as regards Italy, and perhaps also, at least more or less, for other European regions, the following relatively grave matter: 1. for the poor, 1 lira, and somewhat less or more according to the degree of their poverty; 2. for workers and craftsmen, 1 lira, 2, 3, according to the various trades and arts, more or less lucrative; 3. for persons of civil and ordinary condition, who live by revenues, or by the exercise of trade and commerce, or of a liberal profession, 5, 6, 7 lire, according to the various degree of comfort of life; 4. for ordinary rich persons, 10, 11, 12 lire, and for ordinary moral Bodies and for the more opulent rich, 10-20 lire, according to the degree of riches; 5. finally for persons extraordinarily rich, such as reigning and non-reigning Princes, Nobles and very wealthy Merchants and Businessmen, Moral Bodies and Societies possessing exorbitant Capital, 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, who daily for letters alone and telegrams expends 5, 10, 15 lire and more, it is evident that theft of 10, 20 lire certainly will not deprive him in any way of fitting sustenance. Therefore to assert that matter of this sort is relatively grave for them is merely arbitrary, and is 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 the matter concerns a moral judgment in a moral matter, such criterion and rule is contained in the authority of Theologians. "Besides," says St. Alphonsus, l. c., "to make a just measurement of this gravity, the Salmanticenses rightly say, de Rest., c. 5, n. 12, that the judgments of the wise contribute greatly; and their greater authority on this point seems to me to constitute greater probability. Wherefore I have taken care diligently to gather here the diverse opinions of the Doctors," etc. But more recent theologians, with few excepted, by a slight difference, of which account cannot be taken in moral matters, agree altogether in the matter assigned. For they agree in this, that for European regions relatively grave matter at present is almost twice as great as that which St. Alphonsus established for his own time. Now the holy Doctor, l. 3, n. 528, with no distinction made between the lowest, middle, and highest grade of riches, assigns: 1. for the poor, 1 julian, 54 centesimi; 2. for workers, 2 julians, 1 lira, 8 centesimi; 3. for craftsmen, 2 and a half julians, 1 lira, 35 centesimi; 4. for the moderately rich,

4 julians, 2 lire, 16 centesimi; 5. for the absolutely rich and for very opulent merchants, 6 julians, 3 lire, 24 centesimi; 6. for the very wealthy magnates, 1 gold coin, 5 lire, 38 centesimi; 7. for a very opulent Community, one and a half gold coins, 8 lire, 7 centesimi; 8. for Kings, 2 gold coins, 10 lire, 76 centesimi. But the holy Doctor adds, l. c. n. 527, that very many doctors extend this quantity up to 3 gold coins, 16 lire, 14 centesimi. And this quantity, as is clear, reaches fairly nearly half the quantity assigned. For a julian is worth 54 centesimi of a lira. But a gold coin is worth 5 lire, 38 centesimi. Cf. Finardi, Prontuario del Commerciante, etc., Rome 1862. To omit others for the sake of brevity, the most learned Joseph D'Annibale has these things in Summula Theolog. Moral., Part 2, n. 201, ed. 2, Milan, 1882: "I should have St. Alphonsus before my eyes, with the price of things almost doubled since the time in which he lived. Therefore for the present value of coins I would say that damage which does not reach about one lira is always light per se, even if to a beggar; on the contrary I would say that damage which exceeds about 30 lire is grave per se, even if it were inflicted on the very richest person, or on a King. Between these the damage ought to be measured relatively, that is, from persons: therefore I judge grave 1. for the poor, that is, for a beggar, or a worker, or a craftsman, damage of 1 lira or 2 or 2 1/2; 2. for merchants, according to each one's fortune, whether lowest, middle, or highest, 2 1/2, or 4, or 8; 3. for the rich, insofar as from their own income, expenses having been deducted, nothing remains over, or little, or much, or very much, 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 valued at 10, or, if they are opulent, at 20." This quantity also is not very remote from the matter assigned. And meanwhile the abundance of money and the facility of procuring it legitimately for oneself has grown much.

8. Let us come to absolute matter. As for relative matter the damage of individuals is attended to, all particular circumstances having been considered, so for absolute matter the damage of Society itself must especially be considered. And once this has been admitted, it is then easily understood how absolutely grave matter is always grave, namely grave for all without distinction, although the matter concerns those extraordinarily and exorbitantly rich. With this principle established, absolutely grave matter seems to be that which exceeds forty or thirty lire, the quantity designated by D'Annibale. But someone will object: how can forty or thirty lire bring grave damage to Society, if they do not bring grave damage even to an extraordinarily rich individual, such as are great bankers, or money merchants in Europe, to whom the loss of 30 and even 300 lire and more in their commercial operations is scarcely sensible, and is immediately compensated by so many and so great other profits? It is answered that the common doctrine relative to fornication is that it is prohibited in all cases by natural right itself, on account of the uncertain education of the offspring. Although in some particular case, which is not very difficult to be verified, both father and mother, otherwise very rich, agree between themselves that the offspring be educated in due mode; indeed even that they themselves immediately undertake care of a fitting education, and therefore by a sincere and efficacious will promise that marriage is immediately to be entered, fornication would always remain prohibited by natural right; because if it were lawful and permitted in some particular case, there would always be the most grave danger of disordered license with immense harm to the offspring. In a similar way, although a determinate quantity, already quite large in itself, does not bring grave harm to some individual in particular, nor even for the same individual is there danger at least of further grave harm: nevertheless it is sufficient for constituting a grave and most grave danger for Society itself, and, speaking per se, even for the individuals themselves. Wherefore it will always be, absolutely speaking, grave matter in any case. For if the grave damage of the individual and of society is considered, it is necessary to take account not only of expenses necessary for the sustenance and decorum of one's own state, but also of light thefts, which are frequent enough not only among thieves by profession, but even among persons of one's own family, community, society; especially, however, among persons to whom the administration of the goods of others is entrusted, especially of public dominion and utility. "Namely," says the renowned D'Annibale, l. c. n. 257, note 20, "it is very difficult for the things of masters to be administered so faithfully by others that something not adhere to the hands of those handling them." Therefore with such danger posited, not only is it evident that the designated quantity is sufficient for constituting absolutely grave matter; but perhaps that quantity can even seem, not without reason, excessive and to be restricted to narrower limits. For where the gravity of sin does not deter, and a rather notable hope of greater profit invites and incites to new theft, several men, and commonly 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 clear why, although the excess of the wealth of a most opulent King above the wealth of an ordinary rich man, or even of a Marquis or Count, is far greater, without any proportion, than the excess of a rich man above the wealth of a citizen, or common man, nevertheless not so great a proportionate excess is required in grave theft done to a King above theft done to a rich man, as in this latter with respect to theft done to a common man. And this doctrine seems conformable to the doctrine just reported of the Angelic Doctor concerning the gravity of theft, who declares it absolutely, saying: "But by theft man inflicts harm on the neighbor in his things, and if men everywhere stole from one another, human society would perish." Cf. also Lug. 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 in theft cannot be established. For Lugo l. c. does not assert this, but a well diverse matter, namely "that it cannot be defined what are the borders of each matter" - namely light and grave - "so that below such a sum it is light, and above it it is grave." Certainly one thing is 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 theft. Cf. also n. 35.

10. Nor likewise should it be objected that from the discourse made it would follow that any theft is grave, since from any light theft the most grave detriment of Society and individuals could be feared. For men are not so enticed to these lesser thefts, from which they take little profit, as they are enticed to those other greater thefts in which profit not contemptible appears, if they could be done without grave sin, as the same Lugo has it, l. c. n. 33. But the assigned quantity of forty or thirty lire certainly brings profit not contemptible, more than sufficiently enticing to stealing.

11. Finally, the authority of Lugo is still objected against the assigned quantity of 30, 40 lire as absolutely grave. For Lugo asserts this quantity to be 100 gold coins, l. c. n. 21. Therefore, if in the time of Lugo this was the absolutely grave quantity, in our time it ought certainly to be still greater. It is answered that the assertion is altogether false. For Lugo does not say that for his own time that was the absolutely grave quantity, but that it was a quantity evidently and certainly grave; which is well diverse; and he asserts this indeed by a certain almost exaggeration. For in that same number he is not speaking of matter to be determined absolutely, so that he determines it, but he is speaking only of the difficulty of determining that grave matter, and much more of defining the limits of that grave and light matter, on account of the very difficulty of finding in this matter some rational principle and some fixed rule. Hence in the following numbers, 22-29, he reports various opinions of Theologians and various rules assigned by them, which he weighs and shows to be insufficient. But before he sets forth in n. 29 his rule and rational principle, so that the malice of grave theft, namely absolutely grave theft, may be understood, he openly declares that he in reality does not depart from the opinion of others, with attention also to the decrease of money at that time; and he says at the end of n. 28: "Wherefore I will not unwillingly consent in reality with the aforesaid, that in order to Kings and wealthy Magnates the theft of one gold coin is required; for the rich, six or seven silver coins; for craftsmen, four; for the poor, the value of daily food, or the average wage which in the middle time between winter and summer is given to a digger." A silver coin is the same to Lugo as a julian or royal, n. 22-26; but an ordinary royal is worth 26 centesimi of a lira. But since he takes a silver coin for a julian or royal, and says in n. 26 that one Ducat contains eleven royals or Julians, by royal he understands not an ordinary copper royal, real de vellon, but a silver royal, real de plata, of value about twice as great, and about equivalent to a julian. And in n. 31 he still more definitively establishes that theft of one gold coin is absolutely grave, on account of the danger of grave detriment which is in it: "for," he says, "from several thefts of one gold coin, done to you by diverse persons, your family goods would truly undergo a most grave detriment." Likewise in n. 32 he affirms the same altogether clearly, extending that absolutely grave matter not to 100 gold coins, but to one or two gold coins. Finally in n. 35, again discoursing on the difficulty of precisely defining the limits of grave and light matter, although he speaks hypothetically and only by way of example, he certainly brings into the middle not 90 or 80 gold coins, but 6 julians. This can also be confirmed by the authority of St. Alphonsus, who in n. 527 lists Lugo among the authors who, "with respect to the very wealthiest Magnates ... say that one gold coin suffices for grave matter." But from the opinion of Lugo, n. 29, with respect to these very wealthy persons, matter relatively grave is not to be required, but absolutely grave, which he then establishes according to this rule and principle: namely "that some things are prohibited not precisely on account of the damage which they bring when they are done once, but on account of the damage which they would bring, repeated more often, if they were lawful.... Thus therefore in the present matter it seems that it must be said that although theft of one gold coin, or of half, done 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 a theft were light 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 rich men and princes." And from these things it is more than sufficiently clear how false it is to assert that absolutely grave matter according to Lugo is the sum of 100 gold coins, namely more than 500 lire, since a gold coin is equivalent to 5 lire and 38 centesimi.

12. Let us come to the third question. The reason brought forward, that one should depart from the limits designated by the ancient Theologians and by St. Alphonsus, is excellent. For since the value of money has changed and has been lessened, and notably lessened, the damage brought at present to the neighbor in equal circumstances is much less than what it formerly was. And in the matter of theft it is precisely this damage, grave or light, which renders the matter grave or light. 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 the person, thing, place, and time." Lugo has the same, l. c. n. 24, 25. But that which is asserted on the contrary, 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 even by a nail's breadth from their doctrine and principles, although the conclusion is diverse, because the circumstances are diverse, as St. Alphonsus himself and Lugo teach that they ought to be. Finally, what is added, namely that grave matter in theft would assume almost enormous proportions if attention had to be given to the changed value of money and price of things, is most false. Certainly a certain more recent theologian, relying on a certain catalogue of prices which is found in a certain Police Ordinance 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, finds the proportion to be one to thirteen. And hence he deduces that grave matter for a king is at least 150 lire. This assertion is a very true exaggeration, and without any solid foundation. It is not enough to compare the price of a few goods and the wage of some workers, which are found in that Ordinance of the City of Bourges. But in order that we may come to a conclusion seriously deduced and founded, it is necessary to examine and weigh the whole present State of Society relative to public and private riches, relative to the value of money and all necessities of life. And first indeed, the poor, who live from the goods of the rich, are at present as many as before and perhaps more, and much more, than before. If money is more abundant, taxes and revenues are also greater, in an equal proportion at least, if not greater. The wage of public officials has been increased, but certainly it has not been increased thirteenfold, nor tenfold, nor much less in relation to the wage of the time immediately past. But the necessities of life at present have been increased; and money, if, with attention to actual commerce, it is more fruitful by the force of industry than before, the increase certainly is not thirteen times greater, but scarcely by a third or a half. On the contrary, the cultivation of fields in several places is far less fruitful, and in some almost abandoned. But with attention to the evolution of commerce, the loss of Capitals on account of cessions of goods, fires, shipwrecks, etc., is far greater than before. And although there is now a greater activity, course, and, as it were, motion of riches, notwithstanding this, those who now are extraordinarily and exorbitantly rich do not seem in reality 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 the Catalogues of prices which are published in public Newspapers. And thus, for example, in the City of Bourges the best hen of all is bought for 3 lire and 90 centesimi; at Turin it is bought for 2 lire 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 silver coins, while nevertheless at Salamanca, when I was studying there, it was commonly bought for two silver coins." Besides, how many other things there are which formerly were bought at a much dearer price, but today are had at a cheap price, as is easy to perceive in the transmission of letters, in the transport of merchandise, in journeys, in things made by machines, in combustibles necessary for lighting and for burning, etc. Therefore the excess of grave matter in theft at present can in no way be enormous. All things well weighed, it scarcely perhaps reaches the double, as can also be confirmed from the stipend of Masses, which whether from custom or from diocesan Statutes has been increased about double. 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, 27 solidi, cf. Benedict XIV, Instr. 56, n. 19 ff.; but today it is 1 1/2, 2 lire for various places. Nearly the same must be said concerning the wage of soldiers, physicians, etc. In the year 1856 the Sacred Congregation, for the furnishing of alimony, decreed the sum of 6 ducats monthly, about 30 lire, 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 variation from 1 to 2, l. 3, n. 383. Nor indeed did these doctors increase grave matter of theft for their own time by this proportion. Therefore that grave matter of theft is to be increased according to the ratio of the change of the value of money, by the same proportion, is proved neither by reason nor by authority.