§ 2. On Domestic Petty Thefts

83. Petty thefts are especially frequent in domestic matters, and not rarely are perpetrated by wives, children of the family, servants. The head of household is not customarily so unwilling against such petty thefts as if they were perpetrated by outsiders; indeed sometimes he is not unwilling against the taking away itself, but only against the clandestine mode of taking away. For he himself would have given the thing taken away, if a suitable petition had been presented to him. All theologians admit that in domestic petty thefts a greater quantity is ordinarily required for inducing an obligation of restitution. But a general rule which suffers no exceptions cannot be established in this matter. The following norms, however, can be held as directive:

1. In ordinary food and drink taken for one's own use, petty thefts never attain grave matter.²⁸

The reason is that the head of household is bound to nourish all his domestics suitably. But if he does not do this, the domestics have the right of taking that which the head of household unjustly denies. Yet also in the case in which suitable nourishment is provided, the head of household is not judged to be gravely unwilling if the domestics take something more, provided nevertheless that these foods a) are not handed over or sold to others, and b) there is not question of very precious foods. Certainly if there is question of very precious foods, for example Champagne wine, then the head of household is customarily gravely unwilling that this be consumed by his servants. But even in that case I would not oblige a wife or children of the family to restitution, because then also the head of household is judged to be unwilling more concerning the clandestine mode of taking away and the other evil effects following from it than concerning the taking away itself. - But when foods are given or sold by domestics to outsiders, the obligation of restitution can more easily be present. A wife indeed can lawfully give these things as alms, and children also to some extent; but servants cannot distribute them, and a fortiori cannot sell them, except those things which otherwise would certainly perish.

Concerning petty thefts in paternal tobacco made by children of the family, almost the same thing must be said as concerning petty thefts in food and drink. But the master ordinarily is gravely unwilling that servants should make petty thefts of this kind in tobacco; whence grave matter and the obligation of restitution can coalesce.

2. Wives are rarely bound to restitution on account of other petty thefts committed. For a wife is not a servant, but a companion of her husband, and consequently has some disposition over common goods. Therefore the husband is not gravely unwilling concerning the taking away itself of the thing, but rather concerning the clandestine mode of taking away. If a wife has taken certain things from her own goods, she is never bound to restitution, even if she acted against the will of her husband, to whom pertains only their administration.²⁹ There is almost only one case in which restitution would be necessary: if a wife, altogether unreasonably against the will of her husband, had gradually expended a notable sum of common money, for example by buying entirely superfluous ornaments.

3. Children of the family perpetrating domestic petty thefts are obliged to restitution if, all circumstances considered, the parents truly are gravely unwilling both as to the substance and as to the mode of the taking away.

In practice it is often most difficult to determine whether there is a grave obligation of restitution. If the parents are wealthy and spend many things profusely in the education of the offspring, it can more easily be presumed that they are not gravely unwilling if a son lives somewhat more splendidly and secretly spends a moderate sum taken from his father. But if the parents are not so rich, but sweat in the education of numerous offspring; if especially from the repeated petty thefts of one son his brothers and sisters suffer notable damage, then a stricter judgment must be brought. In this case the words of Proverbs can be applied: "He who withdraws something from his father and from his mother, and says this is not sin, is a partner of a murderer."³⁰ Hence Billuart rightly says³¹ that children of the family are gravely to be blamed and liable to restitution, not only while they steal monies or movable goods from their parents, retain the price of merchandise sold or at least part of it, contract debts to be paid by the parents, but also "while, having been sent to studies or to learn some art, they expend monies handed over to them for buying books, for paying board, etc. ... in drinking bouts, fornications, games, and other illicit and vain things."

All theologians indeed agree in asserting that petty thefts of children of the family coalesce to grave matter, but they wholly disagree in determining the gravity of matter. While Bannez teaches that grave matter is present if a son has stolen yearly 50 gold pieces (about 250 francs) from a rich father, Lessius, Navarre, and others maintain that two or three gold pieces already constitute grave matter.³² Modern theologians commonly assert that in thefts of children of the family, for grave sin there is required matter twice greater than in thefts of outsiders. - But since in practice children of the family who have committed petty thefts very rarely can restore, let the confessor prudently induce those penitents to ask pardon from their parents. For thus those children of the family are salutarily humbled and future sins are guarded against.

4. Servants perpetrating domestic petty thefts are to be judged more severely than wives and children of the family, because the consent of the legitimate owner can much more rarely be presumed. Unless there is question of food and drink consumed by the servants themselves,³³ or unless the presumed permission of the master is present, petty thefts of servants coalesce just as if they were committed by outsiders. For the master is not less but rather more unwilling that a servant, to whom he has committed the care of the domestic matter, should steal something for himself, than that an outsider should do the same; because thus from the infidelity of servants there threatens him a greater danger of grave damage.

What has been said concerning the petty thefts of servants is also valid concerning the petty thefts of workers in the workshops of the owner. But for discerning the obligation of restitution, it is necessary to attend above all to two things: 1. to the damage caused in reality, 2. to the customs perhaps existing in some workshop. For if the proprietor of the workshop in some way knows the custom of petty thefts perpetrated by the workers and does not strenuously contradict it, rarely is there a grave obligation of restitution. Nevertheless workers are seriously to be deterred from petty thefts of this kind.

²⁸ Thus also Billuart, De iur. et iust. diss. 11, a. 5; D'Annibale, Summula theol. mor. II, n. 252.

²⁹ Cf. the things said above, n. 15 sqq., concerning the dominion of wives.

³⁰ Prov. 28, 24.

³¹ De iure et iust. diss. 11, a. 5.

³² Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 543.

³³ Cf. above under n. 83, 1.