Chapter I. On the Nature and Malice of Theft

Theft in general is the taking away of another's thing, the owner being reasonably unwilling. But it is called simply theft if it is done secretly; robbery, if it is done openly with force inflicted upon the owner; sacrilege, if it is done concerning a sacred thing.

I say. Every simple theft is a grave sin from its genus, because it is opposed to justice, which obliges under grave sin, and because in the Scriptures, e.g., I Cor. vi, 10, thieves are excluded from the kingdom of God. But sacrilegious theft and robbery constitute a diverse species of malice: the former because, besides justice, it violates religion; the latter because it adds an injury inflicted upon the person to the unjust taking away of another's thing. But other modes or other objects of theft do not change the species, because through these the nature of the damaging is not changed.

Question 1. What matter is to be considered grave in theft, considering the circumstances of this our region?

Before response is made, certain things must be premised:

I. It is very difficult to determine this matter rigorously, as is clear both from the acknowledgment itself of the Doctors and from the lack of some measure. But it is altogether necessary that what appears more equitable be determined, lest the salvation of souls and the existence of property be brought into danger. Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 21 and seq. - Baller., note (a), p. 527.

II. According to the common opinion, which seems altogether to have to be held, this matter is to be regarded both absolutely and relatively. Matter absolutely grave is that which it is never licit to touch without grave fault, since its taking away is always considered gravely injurious with respect to all. The reason is that if complete proportion had always to be preserved among all conditions, certainly a very great quantity would be required for grave theft where someone stole something from a very rich man: but this would surely turn to the damage of society. Yet it is necessary that the matter of theft be considered also relatively, and the reason is that the gravity of theft, like the gravity of any injury, depends especially upon the greater or lesser privation, pain, and reluctance of will which he suffers against whom the theft is committed. Yet attention must be paid to reluctance of will as it is commonly and reasonably had among men, but not with respect to men drawn by a greater or lesser love of money. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 526. - Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 28 and 29. - Baller., note (b), p. 527. - Slater, Questions on Moral Theology, pp. 144 and seq.

These things having been noted beforehand, now to the question:

Response. With respect to this matter absolutely grave, authors vary much, so that it is most difficult to determine the matter definitively. But these things seem certain to us: first, that the same or almost the same sum is not to be assigned as had been assigned by ancient authors; second, that the value of money is in no way immutable; that in various regions that value varies: that the matter is to be determined from the quantity of money existing in some region; from its commutative force; from the price of labor; from the moral estimation of men. These things are clear to us from the rather usual manner of acting of some persons, e.g., many European workers come to us, here support themselves by their own labor and send no small sums of money to their own, or carry them with themselves to Europe; but others, otherwise not poor, who now receive a half pension for an office now resigned on account of age or illness, betake themselves to foreign nations, where they can live comfortably, because they receive food, etc., at a cheaper price. The distinguished author Palmieri says: "I have heard other learned men who, on account of the price of money very much diminished day by day, would now wish absolutely grave matter to be that which equals more or less one hundred francs, to whom we assent without difficulty." - Gury-Ballerini, Edit. a. 1898. - "They do not seem to depart from the true who at least below 100 lire do not acknowledge matter of theft absolutely grave." Thus Ojetti, Synopsis, under the word Furtum. This opinion pleases us; indeed, since the value of money among us is different from that among foreign nations, it seems that one does not err who assigns the sum of about 35 dollars for our region.

But relatively grave matter seems to be established thus: a fourth part of a dollar or thirty cents for the needy who beg; one dollar for ordinary laborers; two for mechanics; and three for ordinary rich persons. The reason is that the taking away of such matter seems respectively to involve grave damage.

Question 2. What matter is required so that the thefts of wives, children, and servants become grave?

Response 1st. As regards wives, a case of grave matter in theft is held with difficulty, both because, as was said elsewhere, among us they make one person with husbands as regards common goods, and because these are not ordinarily considered reasonably unwilling regarding donations and other expenses, even secret ones, which are not altogether prodigal. But if a wife uses common riches prodigally, that quantity is required for the gravity of theft which suffices for inflicting grave damage upon the husband, which must be judged from the circumstances. But then it is more commonly taught that she is held to restitution either from paraphernal goods or by working more diligently or by taking care of the family estate. Cf. Kenrick, tract. 3, n. 169.

Response 2nd. It is certain among all that in thefts of children more is required for constituting grave matter than in thefts of strangers; because the father of the family is less unwilling, or at least less reasonably unwilling in the former case than in the latter, and often he is unwilling more as regards the manner, namely that it be taken secretly, than as regards the substance. Wherefore many theologians say that for them a sum twice greater than for strangers is required; but no general rule can be assigned, for the matter will generally have to be defined from the various circumstances of persons or conditions. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 32.

Response 3rd. For servants it also depends upon the greater liberality or stinginess of masters, upon the quality or situation of the thing stolen, e.g., whether it is edible or not, guarded or exposed, etc. According to many, by small thefts committed by servants in foods and eatables which are not usually carefully kept, generally one does not arrive at mortal sin, provided these are not sold or taken out of the house or are of extraordinary value. But if servants steal money or things carefully guarded, no greater quantity is required for grave sin, because the masters then are not less unwilling toward them than toward others. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, Hom. Ap., n. 34. - Kenrick, tract. 3, n. 168.

Question 3. Do small thefts coalesce for constituting grave matter?

Response. Affirmatively, whether they have been committed against the same person or against several, provided nevertheless that a great interval is not placed between them. For in the former case those little thefts, easily united by reason of time, certainly inflict grave damage: besides, proposition 38, which reads thus, was condemned by Innocent XI: "One is not held under pain of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away through a few thefts, however great the total sum may be." - But in the other case there would be grave damage inflicted upon society, whose order would be disturbed if those little thefts committed against different persons, and repeated with a brief interval, were not prohibited under grave sin. Cardinal de Lugo adds another reason, namely that each owner in particular is then gravely damaged, not indeed formally, but radically. - I said provided that a great interval is not placed between them; for little thefts which would be committed rarely bring no grave harm either to society or to private persons. But according to the truer opinion a great interval is computed as the space of two months. Yet except the case in which from the beginning there is the intention of arriving at a notable sum, because then the little thefts always coalesce, however long the interval may be by which they are separated from one another. Cf. St. Alphonsus, nn. 530 and seq. - Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 37 and seq. - Vogler, n. 133.

Question 4. How is the gravity of matter in small thefts to be computed?

Response. It seems that it must be said more equitably and more commonly that if the little thefts are committed against the same person, whether physically or morally one, for instance some railway company, and at the same time discontinuously, namely more often than every two months, but not on one day or on the same occasion; or if they are committed against diverse persons indeed, but at the same time, namely on one day, on one and the same occasion or under the same circumstances, then the matter is considered grave when it exceeds by one half the sum required for grave theft. - But if both concur, that is, if the little thefts are committed against persons altogether diverse, and at the same time not on one and the same day or occasion, then the matter will be judged grave when it is twice greater. Yet observe that since these little thefts are committed against persons altogether diverse, the common measure of grave theft in each aforesaid case must not be taken from relative but from absolute gravity; for the damage then is brought not upon one, but upon several individuals or particular societies without grave injury to each one, as is supposed. - Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 530. - Baller., note (c), p. 531.

You Will Resolve. - 1st. If, after an efficacious retraction of preceding little thefts, whether that efficacy was effective or only affective, but nevertheless true and serious, another little theft is committed from some new motive or from some different occasion, this does not seem to coalesce with the preceding ones.

2nd. He who after grave matter has been completed still steals some slight thing either sins only venially, or if gravely, only in that sense insofar as the same mortal sin already committed terminates in this later little theft. Cf. St. Alphonsus, n. 538. - Lessius, lib. 2, cap. 12, n. 44. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 43.

3rd. He who by a slight theft completes grave matter begun by others against the same person, excluding the case of conspiracy, sins only lightly. Nor should you say that he sins gravely who by a light blow kills someone already wounded by others; for life is something indivisible, and the whole is destroyed by this light blow. Cf. Lugo, disp. 16, nn. 53 and seq. - Lessius, lib. 2, cap. 12, n. 52.

4th. Merchants using false weights sin gravely, although on individual occasions they defraud in small matter; because they intend to arrive at grave matter, or certainly know that they are going to arrive at it.

5th. Among thieves are to be reckoned those who wander about, draining citizens of money by feigned reasons. But if they are truly poor, yet exaggerate or lie about their hardships, they will indeed sin against truthfulness, but not against justice. - Cf. Kenrick, tract. 3, n. 176.

6th. "Concerning youths educated gratuitously in seminaries, or at the expense of private persons, with the hope that they may serve in the ecclesiastical ministry, it must be held that they commit fraud if they enter seminaries without the intention of dedicating themselves to sacred offices, and with this plan only, that they be instructed in letters or indulge leisure; and therefore they are held to repairing the damage. But there is no need that they be altogether certain of their own vocation; for holy leisure is granted to them for this reason, that they may deliberate more maturely concerning so great an undertaking; but they must neither enter rashly nor remain in sacred buildings after they have cast away hope and purpose. But if by their own fault they bring it about that they are held unworthy, for that reason they do not seem obligated to restore, whenever the intention of defrauding was lacking: for donors are not to be considered to have placed a condition of restoring on account of idleness or other customary faults." - Thus Kenrick, n. 178.