Chapter — Slater, Cases I

Case 1. Defrauding a Railway Company

¶1.

Titius, since he frequently used the railway in making journeys, bought a six-month ticket; after that period of time had elapsed, he made journeys in the same way for a month without renewing the ticket or otherwise paying the price of the journey. When he had disclosed these things in confession, the confessor asked what price was owed to the company; Titius answered him that the sum would be about two pounds sterling. Having heard these things, the confessor considered within himself whether Titius was bound under grave sin to restore two pounds sterling to the railway company. Hence it is asked:

¶2.
  1. What matter is required to constitute a grave sin against justice?
¶3.
  1. In England, on account of the lesser value of money, is a larger sum required for grave matter than among other nations of Europe?
¶6.

Solution

  1. What matter is required to constitute a grave sin against justice?
¶7.

According to St. Thomas (II-II, question 59, article 4) the sin of injustice is mortal because it is against charity, which is the life of the soul. But sins against charity are only venial if the matter be light. Matter against charity will be grave if the act causes another serious sadness, or tends notably to disturb peace and harmony. Justice, it is true, looks rather at objective relations than at subjective dispositions, and so although charity will always serve as a measure of the gravity of sins against justice, yet in estimating the gravity of these sins we must take as our norm an ordinarily constituted person, not such as are specially sensitive. Loss of property in such a quantity as would cause serious trouble to an ordinarily constituted person will be a serious loss, and the theft of it will be a serious sin against justice. The theft of what would suffice to support the owner of the property and his family for a day would ordinarily be a serious loss to him, and would be grave matter. This rule serves for ordinary cases; for a measure of the gravity of theft from very rich persons or from wealthy companies we must have recourse to other considerations besides the foregoing. For theft does injury to the community and to the security of property, as well as to the individual owner. Even if the individual owner does not suffer loss which is serious for him, yet the harm which theft does to the community and to social security may be notable, and if it is notable, the theft will be mortally sinful. What sum is notable on this account will depend on circumstances of time and place. Although the precise sum can not be determined with mathematical exactness, yet, according to the common opinion, a sum of about one pound sterling is at present sufficient to constitute a mortal sin of theft, when it is taken even from the richest.

¶8.
  1. Is a larger sum required to constitute grave matter in England than in other countries on account of the less value of money there?
¶9.

The affirmative has been maintained by some theologians. However, the conditions of modern commerce tend to equalize the value of money; or, in other words, the whole world is now one big market for money and the chief articles of commerce. If either money or goods are cheaper in one country than in another, trade is attracted thither, and trade soon tends to equalize prices. Hence there is no very notable difference now in the value of money in the different civilized countries of the world. Prices of different articles are, indeed, different in different places, and this fact makes trade profitable; but the general cost of the same standard of living is much the same all the world over.

¶11.

Small thefts certainly coalesce, as is clear from Proposition 38, condemned by Innocent XI. Small thefts coalesce, owing to the intention of the thief finally to steal a large sum, or owing to conspiracy among many, each of whom steals something ; also owing to the hoarding of small sums stolen at short intervals.1

1 Manual of Moral Theology, vol. i, p. 396.

¶12.
  1. The case. Titius traveled on the railway for a month after his season ticket had expired, without paying his fare. He thereby defrauded the railway company of two pounds. He took that value which belonged to somebody else, against that person's reasonable wish. He therefore committed theft, and as the matter is grave, he is bound under grave sin to make restitution of that sum to the company.