§ 3. On Theft In Public Things, Or On Peculate

84. A special difficulty arises for the confessor if he must judge concerning thefts committed to the detriment not of some private man, but of a community or state. For some penitents indeed abhor theft of a private good, but they do not think it gravely illicit, for example, to cut wood in public forests and there to gather grasses and other fruits. Even the old Moralists³⁴ proposed more benign opinions concerning these thefts, because at that time forests abounded and wood was of small price, both on account of abundance and on account of the difficulty of transporting it to distant regions. But in modern times the matter has been entirely changed. Forests have been diminished, wood is precious. When there is question of thefts of those public goods, the confessor can apply the following norms:

1. Civil laws prohibiting dry branches, grass, fungi, clusters, and other wild fruits from being gathered in public forests are commonly only penal laws.³⁵ For these things, unless they are gathered, are accustomed to rot in the forests and to be of almost no utility. Whence commonly inhabitants who, in neighboring public forests, gather those things without other damage inflicted are not to be disturbed, especially if they are poor. Yet if the state or treasury is accustomed to sell even those wild things, it must be said otherwise.

2. Civil laws prohibiting the cutting of the trees themselves oblige directly in conscience and are not merely penal laws. Whence he who steals a notable quantity of trees from a public forest sins gravely and is bound to restitution. But a notable quantity is judged to be matter absolutely grave, namely a value of about 100 francs, because the state or treasury possessing those public goods is thought to be very rich. But in computing this value, the trees must be estimated as they grow in the forests, and not as they stand for sale among merchants. Whence someone is not yet bound under grave sin to restitution if, for example, he has taken away a tree which is worth 20 francs in the forest, but after cutting and transportation all the way to the merchant's emporium is worth 200 francs. Those evildoers are to be judged more severely who, on account of futile reasons, uproot younger trees and plants in public forests. Nevertheless these are rather damagers than thieves.

3. Thefts in those public things are rarely perpetrated one time in a notable quantity, but are customarily done separately. Therefore then the rules given above concerning petty thefts must be applied. If, therefore, someone does not have the intention of stealing grave matter, and between individual petty thefts there is some notable interval, the thefts do not coalesce nor do they induce a grave obligation of restitution.

³⁴ Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 529.

³⁵ Thus also Noldin, De praeceptis n. 418.

85. Scholion. On The Defrauded Price Of A Public Vehicle. It can be held as almost a species of theft in public things, if someone having a ticket of third class is conveyed in second or first class on the railway without due permission. He who corrupts officials for acting thus sins and is bound to restitution; but otherwise it will not easily be a grave sin, nor an obligation of restitution. The reason is that the owner of the railway suffers almost no damage through this mode of acting, nor does he seem to be so gravely unwilling; indeed sometimes he connives in this matter. There is indeed cessant gain, but greater expenses do not arise, whether the vehicles of the higher class are empty or occupied. Nevertheless restitution would have to be made if (in an unusual case), on account of the occupied place of the higher class, new vehicles had to be added. For then a damage not so negligible would arise for the railway treasury. - But if someone is conveyed on the railway and other public vehicles without any ticket at all having been bought, he seems to be obliged to restitution. For not only is this judged to be something base according to the common estimation of men, but it is also a damaging and evident theft, because then the legitimate price of transportation is furtively taken away from the proprietors of those public carriages. Nor let anyone say that the vehicles must run whether they are empty or occupied, and consequently no damage arises from furtive occupation. For, although this is true, nevertheless the proprietors are reasonably and gravely unwilling that someone use those vehicles without any price paid; but they are not so gravely unwilling that someone having a ticket of a lower class use a higher class, since they sometimes tacitly or expressly permit this.