§ 1. On Petty Thefts In General

Petty thefts are called thefts of lighter matter repeated rather often. Of themselves these petty thefts are venial sins; but they become gravely evil 1. from an evil intention and 2. from frequent repetition.

1. From an evil intention, indeed, if someone intends by many small thefts at last to obtain a notable quantity.

For example, if a servant intends to steal from his master 100 francs, and, lest he be detected, executes this proposal not once, but 50 times through the time of one year. This evil intention effects that the servant immediately sins mortally as soon as he gives consent to this proposal. But in each instance, when he steals 2 francs, he at least implicitly renews his evil intention and therefore sins mortally. Nevertheless he is not strictly bound in the confessional to say that he intended a theft of 100 francs and executed this in 50 instances, but it suffices if he confesses simply: I stole 100 francs; or, I had the intention of stealing 100 francs, and I did this according to such a quantity. The reason is that all those petty thefts coalesce into one moral act, unless perhaps the intention was at times revoked. For then there would be several sins.²⁰

2. From frequent repetition of petty thefts, even if an explicit intention of obtaining a grave quantity did not precede, there arises a grave sin of injustice and a grave obligation of restoring, provided the following three conditions are present: a) that between individual petty thefts there not be a notable interval; b) that the individual petty thefts have not been revoked or restored; c) that the total matter of all the united petty thefts be grave.

Therefore it is required a) that between individual petty thefts there not exist a notable interval, such as a time of 2 months is judged to be, if there is question of matter which, although it is not grave, nevertheless almost approaches grave matter. Thus St. Alphonsus.²¹ Whence, for example, if someone takes 10 francs from a rich man today and after two months again 10 francs and so thereafter, these petty thefts do not coalesce on account of the notable interval interposed between two petty thefts. Nevertheless I think that in practice such petty thefts repeated rather often at length sometime coalesce, because it is scarcely possible that from the beginning there is lacking an intention of arriving at a considerable sum. But if there is question of truly very small thefts, for example of half a franc, those do not coalesce even after a shorter interval, as for example after fifteen days.²² The reason for all these things is that according to the common estimation of men those petty thefts do not coalesce if so great an interval exists between the individual ones; and besides, because then grave matter will either never be present or not except after a long time. For example, a tailor retains only every two months a fragment of cloth, but ordinarily observes strict justice. Perhaps after 10 years all those fragments taken together (resegmina) will constitute grave matter. No one surely will say that between the first fragment and the last there still exists a moral union, and consequently that the tailor is bound to restitution under grave sin.

Then it is required b) that the individual petty thefts have not been revoked or restored. This is clear, because petty thefts revoked or restored, since in the being of morals they now do not exist, cannot coalesce with following ones.

Lastly it is required c) that the total matter of all the united petty thefts be grave. But commonly moral theologians opine that in petty thefts there is required a greater quantity than in theft which was committed once and all at once; namely, there is required a quantity greater by half, if the petty thefts were done from the same owner; but if something has been taken from several owners, there is required a quantity twice greater²³ or (if there are many owners) absolutely grave, namely 100 francs. The reason is clear from the things said above. For the gravity of theft must be weighed from the objective damage which has been inflicted upon the legitimate owner. Moreover the legitimate owner from whom some sum has been taken over a long space of time does not suffer so great a damage as he would suffer if this happened all at once and one time. But if there are diverse and many owners, still less damage has been caused to each one, and consequently only absolutely grave matter is deservedly assigned as inducing a grave obligation of restitution. If, for example, a tailor, working for some sufficiently rich clothing merchant, unjustly retains every week certain fragments of cloth at the price of 2 francs, he is not bound under grave sin to restitution unless the value of all the fragments has a quantity greater by half, i.e. 20 + 10 = 30 francs. But if those fragments pertain to several owners, a quantity twice greater (or absolutely grave) will be required, namely 100 francs. - After grave matter has coalesced from petty thefts, a grave obligation of restitution arises, as is clear from proposition 38 condemned by Innocent XI: "No one is bound under penalty of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away through a few thefts, however great the total sum may be."²⁴

In repeated petty thefts, the individual takings away considered separately are indeed only venial sins. But since the following petty theft is always an approval (at least implicit) of the preceding one, at length sometime it happens that the last petty theft, although light in itself, is an implicit approval of the taking away of grave matter and consequently constitutes a grave sin. But he who, after he has taken away grave matter by petty thefts, continues stealing, sins mortally as often as he attends to the matter already stolen and renews the intention of retaining it with the others. Thus the common opinion.²⁵ But in practice it suffices if the confessor knows the sum taken away by petty thefts and perhaps the time during which the petty thefts were done.

Almost the whole doctrine concerning petty thefts can be comprehended in this phrase:

Petty thefts constitute grave sin if they were perpetrated either with the intention of arriving at grave matter, or if, without a notable interval interposed, they have gathered grave matter.

Note. Petty thefts are often perpetrated in domestic matters,²⁶ or also by merchants and workers, for example, by innkeepers who mix water with wine, by farmers adulterating milk, by workmen subtracting small materials furnished to them.²⁷ In practice, on account of general customs perhaps to the contrary or on account of the consent of the owner in some way presumed, sometimes the obligation of restitution is not to be urged so strongly; nevertheless one must insist that those petty thefts cease. Besides, a longer discussion concerning merchants adulterating wares or secretly diminishing measure will return below, where purchase and sale are treated.

²⁰ Cf. above I, n. 376, concerning the numerical distinction of sins.

²¹ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 530.

²² Noldin, De praeceptis n. 422, thinks that already after a week those very small petty thefts do not coalesce.

²³ Thus St. Alphonsus, l. c.

²⁴ Denz. n. 1188.

²⁵ Cf. Billuart, De iure et iust. diss. 11, a. 4; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1117.

²⁶ Concerning which below, n. 83.

²⁷ Cf. below concerning the contract of purchase (n. 279).