414. Notion and malice. 1. Theft is defined as the hidden taking away of another's thing, while the owner is reasonably unwilling.

a. Taking away is understood as done with the mind of retaining the thing for oneself and receiving profit. Therefore he who takes another's thing to destroy it is not called a thief. Hidden, so that theft may be distinguished from robbery.

b. Unwilling: for committing theft it is required that the owner be unwilling, and indeed as to the substance or as to the taking itself, not only as to the mode of taking away, namely that the thing be taken away secretly while the owner is ignorant. He who takes something away while the owner is unwilling only as to the mode sins venially, because in the mode of taking he acted against the will of the owner, but he does not commit theft.

c. Reasonably unwilling: he is reasonably unwilling about the taking away of a thing who is not bound to leave his own thing; but he who is bound to yield his thing is unreasonably unwilling about its taking away. But he is unreasonably unwilling only if he is bound to give or leave it from justice or from piety, not however if he is bound from mere charity. Hence he who takes away a thing in extreme necessity or to compensate himself does not commit theft; nor a son who secretly takes from the goods of the parents what is necessary to himself for honest sustenance. But a poor man who takes away the goods of a rich man in grave necessity commits theft.¹ - Likewise he who abuses his own thing (for example, a wicked book) for sinning is reasonably unwilling if the book is taken away from him lest he commit sin, because he is not bound to deprive himself of the book either from justice or from piety.

2. Theft is a sin grave from its genus: a. For by theft commutative justice is injured, which of itself obliges under grave obligation. b. By the Apostle theft is reckoned among the sins which exclude from the kingdom of God: "Neither thieves ... nor robbers shall possess the kingdom of God."² That theft can become a light sin from smallness of matter will be conceded the more easily because here the matter is divisible, which can be diminished so much that it is no longer capable of grave fault.

¹ Cf. Vermeersch, n. 150 ss.; Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 274 ss.

² 1 Cor. 6:10.

415. Grave matter of theft (and damaging) must be determined both relatively and absolutely.

Matter absolutely grave is taken from the value alone of the thing taken away, with no account had of the condition of the person from whom it is taken away, and therefore it is always and with respect to all considered grave. Matter relatively grave is derived from the value of the thing and from the condition of the owner, and therefore is grave with respect to some, but light with respect to others. Wherefore matter absolutely grave is called that which, when taken away (in this place and time), inflicts grave damage, not always indeed on him from whom it is taken, but at least on society. Matter relatively grave is called that which inflicts grave damage on him from whom it is taken.

1. Matter relatively grave must be determined: for the gravity of theft depends on the gravity of the damage which is inflicted on the neighbor. But damage is of diverse gravity according as the condition of the person who suffers the damage is diverse: for what is light to one can be grave to another. Besides, if no account were had of the condition of the owner, and the same grave matter were established for all, this greatest inconvenience would follow: that a florin taken from a rich man would be grave sin, or ten florins taken from a poor man would be light sin, according as great or small matter is assigned for constituting grave sin.

That matter is considered relatively grave which, for the one from whom it is taken, would suffice according to his condition for the suitable sustenance of himself and his own for a day: for since external goods have been granted to man for the sustenance of life, and to be deprived of daily sustenance is a great harm, the quantity equaling daily sustenance (food, clothing, habitation) is deservedly considered grave.

To determine this rule more accurately for practice, from the nearly common consensus of more recent theologians and with account had of the value which money now has in most provinces of Europe, it seems possible to establish that grave matter is:

a. relative to poor beggars, about 1/2 florin = 1 mark = 1 lira = 1 crown, or even less according to greater poverty;

b. relative to workers who acquire sustenance for themselves by daily labor, about 1 florin = 2 marks = 2 lire = 2 crowns;

c. relative to craftsmen, artisans, merchants who labor in their own workshop, about 3 florins = 6 marks = 6 lire = 6 crowns;

d. relative to those moderately rich, about 5 florins = 10 marks = 10 lire = 10 crowns;

e. relative to the truly rich, about 10 florins = 20 marks = 20 lire = 20 crowns;

f. relative to the very rich or extraordinarily rich, about 50 florins = 100 marks = 100 lire = 100 crowns and more, but when the matter concerns these, attention must be given to absolute matter.

Note 1. These quantities are to be taken not mathematically, but morally; besides, attention must be given to the circumstances of places. For the wealth of inhabitants is not the same everywhere, nor is the value of money the same everywhere. 2. When it is unknown to whom the damage has been inflicted, according to the common opinion of doctors it is presumed to have been inflicted on one moderately rich, because this is usually what happens more frequently.

416. 2. Matter absolutely grave must also be determined, because, if matter absolutely grave were not determined, great damage would threaten the common good. For since men on the one hand are not accustomed to avoid light sins so diligently, and on the other hand most wish to become rich, unless a certain matter were prohibited always under grave sin, thefts would become very frequent with great damage and disturbance of peace and security.

Matter absolutely grave, which is such relative to anyone very rich and even to the fisc itself, is about 15 florins = 30 marks = 30 lire = 30 crowns. For on account of the taking away of this sum even the very rich man is gravely unwilling, even if not on account of the damage which he himself suffers, certainly on account of the damage which society would suffer if such matter were not prohibited under grave obligation.

For determining the gravity of matter relative to sacred things, one must distinguish: if the sacred thing can be estimated by price, such as a chalice, the gravity of matter must be measured as in a profane thing; but if it cannot be estimated by price, such as sacred relics, its dignity and rarity must be considered. Therefore it would be mortal to steal the smallest particle of the Holy Cross, but outside the territory of the City it would not be mortal to take away the smallest thing from the body of some saint.¹

Article Second. On Causes Diminishing Theft

The rules concerning the gravity of matter in theft set forth above admit various modifications in the concrete: for various causes can bring it about that the owner is less unwilling about the taking away of his thing; therefore the same causes can also bring it about that a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin. Now, that the owner may be less unwilling can happen: a. by reason of the persons who steal; b. by reason of the things which are taken away; c. by reason of the mode of taking away. Therefore in order there must be treated: domestic thefts, theft of exposed things, petty thefts of things pertaining either to one or to several.

¹ Reuter, Theologia moralis, III, n. 438. Outside the territory of the City: for from the constitution Apostolicae sedis (II, 15) they incur censure who extract relics from the sacred cemeteries or catacombs of the City of Rome and its territory without legitimate permission, with no account had of quantity of matter.

417. On domestic thefts. The persons toward whom the father of a family, if they take something away at home, is judged to be less unwilling are sons under family power, wives, and servants.

1. With respect to thefts of sons, ordinarily a quantity twice greater is required for constituting grave sin than in thefts of strangers; but wives generally can be judged still more liberally, especially if they spend the things taken away for the uses of the family or relatives.

a. Yet attention must be given whether the father is rich, liberal, friendly, or on the contrary poor, avaricious, little loving; whether household members steal for their own uses or for giving to others; whether they steal money or other precious things, or other things; whether there is one son or several.

b. Not rarely, although the father of a family, once the theft is known, seems very unwilling and is vehemently angry, he is unwilling not so much about the thing taken away as about the mode, namely that it is secretly stolen, or about the end, namely that it is consumed by gambling and drinking. Therefore frequently sons taking a thing at home do not sin except venially.

c. With respect to the obligation of restitution which is to be imposed on sons (wives), these things are to be noted: alpha. If things taken away by them are consumable by first use and have already been consumed, restitution is scarcely ever to be imposed. beta. If things taken away (for example, money) are still extant, they must be restored. gamma. If things taken away in greater quantity are no longer extant, they are earnestly to be exhorted that by caring for the domestic estate more diligently they repair the damage in some way. Moreover, condonation by the father can for the most part be presumed, unless the things taken away are very notable and were spent for the uses of outsiders. Yet it is scarcely ever expedient to advise, and much less to command, that wives or sons ask condonation of the debt.

2. With respect to thefts of servants. a. If servants steal money or other things which are usually carefully guarded, such as precious things, garments, etc., a greater quantity is not required for grave sin, because masters are not less unwilling toward them than toward others; and rightly indeed, because of the continual danger which threatens them from the unfaithfulness of servants.

b. If the thefts of servants happen in things which they administer or which are not usually cautiously guarded, such as food and drink, ordinarily servants do not arrive at grave sin, provided the things taken away are consumed by the servants themselves, are not sold, and are not taken away in extraordinary quantity: for in these things masters are usually less unwilling. Moreover, in estimating the gravity of the fault attention must also be given whether the master is liberal or close, and whether the person serving is disliked or dear, useful and diligent or of slight industry.¹

¹ Lessius, De iustitia, l. 2, c. 12, n. 48.

418. On theft of exposed things. The things in whose taking away a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin are those which grow spontaneously with almost no labor of men, especially if they are exposed, such as fruits (grapes, apples) beside roads and wood in forests.

1. Concerning fruits plucked from another's vineyard or another's orchard, the old authors are very benign and indulgent. For they say that travelers who pluck one or another apple or cluster of grapes to quench thirst or refresh strength do not sin. Indeed they universally permit grapes and apples to be eaten up to satiety, provided they are not rare and of great price and nothing is carried away.¹

But today, on account of the circumstances of things altogether changed, which cause most fruits to be valued more highly and carefully guarded, this doctrine seems to be restricted to those fruits which are not much valued.

a. Yet these things seem able to be conceded: that it is not a sin to pluck one or another apple or cluster of grapes here and there; that workers, from the presumed consent of the owner, do not sin if they eat of the fruits for whose gathering they have been hired; that he who more often takes away that quantity of fruits which he himself can eat sins only lightly, unless the fruits are of great price.

b. But thefts of these things are to be gravely reprehended where rather grave damages are caused to the owners from them, because not only are fields trampled down, but owners are compelled to gather immature fruits lest all be carried away.

2. Wild fruits (mushrooms, strawberries, bilberries [Heidelbeeren], etc.) indeed of themselves pertain to the owner; but he is presumed to grant permission that they be gathered by passers-by and the poor and also sold. But if, using his right, he prohibits their collection, those gathering them sin against justice. Yet in forests of the government or of one's own community, a prohibition of gathering fruits of this kind is judged merely penal, unless a manifest reason (for example, of forestalling damages in a growing forest) dictates otherwise.

3. With respect to wood which is cut in forests, these things should be noted:

a. If wood is cut in forests which pertain to private ownership or to another community, sin is committed against justice, unless the matter concerns brushwood and dry fragments of wood; for with respect to these the owner is not judged unwilling.

b. If wood is cut in a forest which pertains to one's own community, no sin is committed if the poor take away only those things which are required for domestic use, and no great destruction is made. For the law prohibiting the cutting of wood is judged penal, which obliges only to paying the penalty after the sentence of the judge.²

¹ Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 529.

² St. Alphonsus, n. 529.

419. On petty thefts. The third cause on account of which a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin is the mode of stealing, namely through thefts in light matter, which are usually called petty thefts. Therefore it is asked when thefts in light matter become grave sin and what quantity is required for constituting grave matter.

Generally, theft of light matter becomes grave sin when the matter taken away in individual thefts coalesces into grave matter. But this can happen in a threefold way: a. by intention of arriving at grave matter; b. by conspiracy; c. by multiplication alone.

420. By intention. 1. The intention of arriving at grave matter causes individual thefts to coalesce, even when a rather long interval is placed between the individual thefts, whether the thefts are committed against the same owner or against various owners.

This intention, by which individual thefts are committed, causes two things: first, that the matter of the individual thefts coalesces into one, even if a rather long interval intervenes between them; and then also that even thefts in light matter are grave sin: for what happens from an intention gravely evil is grave sin. In this case we have a sin indeed light with respect to the external act, but grave on account of the internal affection. The sin, even insofar as it is external, becomes grave when grave damage is completed.

2. For constituting grave matter, a greater quantity is not required than in thefts which are done at once and together, if they are committed relative to the same owner; but if the thefts are done to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.

Therefore he commits grave sin in each instance: a. a merchant who, by moderately falsifying measures and weights in individual instances, intends to gather notable profit or foresees that in this way he will arrive at great profit; b. an innkeeper who, by mixing a little water with wine several times, wishes to become rich: "A deceitful balance is an abomination before the Lord";¹ c. he who, having the intention of harming the neighbor in a grave matter, inflicts light damage in individual instances. Yet because all these sins proceed from the same intention of becoming rich (of harming) virtually enduring, morally they constitute one sin.²

¹ Prov. 11:1.

² Cf. De principiis^9, n. 308.

421. By conspiracy. 1. If several, by common plan and consent, either together or successively, commit small thefts against the same owner or against various owners, their matter coalesces into one, because the individual conspirators intend the whole taking. Therefore when small thefts taken together constitute grave matter, the individual conspirators sin mortally: for conspiracy causes the individuals to will the whole damage and cooperate toward the whole.

2. If petty thefts are done to the same owner, a greater quantity is not required for constituting grave sin; but if they are done to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.¹

a. If individuals act independently from each other, even if they know the damage inflicted by others, they do not sin gravely, because none of them inflicts grave damage, nor intends the damage inflicted by others, nor cooperates in it.

b. If several, stirred up by the example of another, commit light thefts which together inflict grave damage, he gravely sins whose example provoked others to inflicting damage, not indeed against justice, but against charity, provided he foresaw the damage to be inflicted.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 311.

422. By multiplication. He who by petty thefts committed either against the same owner or against various owners arrives at grave matter sins gravely, provided he retains the things taken away, a great interval is not present between the individual thefts, and the thing taken away is of some price. For in this case the individual thefts coalesce.

1. That petty thefts which happen successively coalesce into grave matter, a twofold condition is required: a. That the thief retain the things taken away.

If he restores the prior thefts, the subsequent little thefts are not united with the preceding ones. But if he only had the intention of restoring, this does not impede thefts from coalescing; for by a new theft the intention is judged revoked.

b. That a great interval not intervene between the individual thefts.

If a notable space intervenes between individual thefts, the things taken away are no longer judged to be united. This interval must be determined from common sense, with the quantity of the thing taken away considered. If the thing taken away nearly reaches grave matter, an interval of two months causes it no longer to coalesce; if the thing taken away is far distant from grave matter, an interval of one month causes the same; finally, if the thing taken away is very slight, either it does not coalesce at all, or certainly an interval of one week impedes it from coalescing.¹

alpha. In this case of coalescence, that theft by which grave matter is knowingly completed is grave sin; but the individual preceding thefts are venial. beta. Petty thefts which afterward happen after grave matter has been completed are grave sins, provided the will of retaining the things taken away endures and they happen with advertence to the grave damage inflicted, because they coalesce with the prior ones into grave thefts and continue the prior grave sin, but they constitute one sin in number with the prior one.² gamma. He who does not advert that by a light theft grave matter is completed does not indeed commit grave sin by stealing; but when afterward, adverting to grave matter, he does not propose restitution of the thing taken away, he sins gravely on account of the wicked will of retaining another's thing in great quantity.

2. For constituting grave sin in these petty thefts which happen successively, a greater quantity is required, and indeed, if the thefts happen to the same owner, matter is required which is greater by half: for the owner ordinarily does not suffer so grave a damage if the thing is taken away at intervals. But if the thefts happen to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.

a. Therefore tailors sin gravely when they reach grave matter by retaining fragments of cloth which remain and are still useful to the owners, unless either this custom is in force somewhere and therefore less is paid for the labor, or it is established that rich persons do not wish fragments to be restored to them, or these are of lesser importance and are not cared about by the owners. Something similar must be said of millers who retain a moderate part of the grain or flour for themselves.

beta. Servants or maidservants, especially in the families of the rich, who continually take away or consume certain small things and never restore, are not easily to be accused of grave sin nor obligated to making restitution, both because in this case from a twofold reason a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin, and because they do not advert to grave damage, and because owners are not gravely unwilling nor demand restitution, and finally because ordinarily the things consumed are of the kind that do not coalesce into grave matter.

Note. Those accustomed to thefts are to be asked concerning the number and quantity of thefts, and where the matter concerns petty thefts, concerning the interval placed between individual thefts, so that judgment can be made concerning the coalescence of matter. Yet because they ordinarily do not know how to indicate these things, since they steal on any occasion, it suffices that in general they indicate the frequency of the thefts, the quality of the things taken away, and the time elapsed from the last confession. From these the confessor will form for himself a judgment concerning the state of the soul of his penitent. Then he will warn him concerning his obligations: of restoring, of laboring, and of abstaining from thefts in the future.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 312.

² Lugo, disp. 16, n. 43 s.

423. On thefts of things pertaining to several.

a. He who in grave matter takes away a thing pertaining to several sins gravely: for although grave damage is not inflicted on individuals, nevertheless individuals are gravely unwilling, because, if thefts of this kind were multiplied, the security of human commerce would suffer grave damage unless they were prohibited under grave obligation.

b. For constituting grave sin in thefts of things pertaining to several, whether these several constitute a moral person (as a commercial, industrial, insurance society, or religious community), or do not constitute a moral person, matter absolutely grave is required, because grave damage is not inflicted either on individuals or on a particular community, unless the community is small or the associates are few.

Article Third. On Causes Excusing from Theft

There is a twofold cause which excuses altogether from theft and renders the taking away of another's thing licit: extreme necessity and hidden compensation.