The Sum Required for a Grave Sin of Theft

The virtue of Justice forbids us to injure our neighbor, and this obligation is of its nature grave, as all theologians admit. Still, if the matter be trivial an offense against justice is no more than a venial sin, as all agree. The well-known lines: —

It is a sin

To steal a pin,

Much more to steal

A greater thing may be as faulty from the strictly theological stand- - point as they are from the poetic; but for all that they express the theological truth that the matter determines whether a sin against justice is grievous or venial.

But when does the matter become sufficient to constitute a mortal sin? Theologians have always considered this a difficult question to answer. And yet it is a question of great practical importance for the confessor, not only that he may know when he must require restitution to be made under pain of refusing absolution, but also for measuring the guilt of violations by religious of their vow of poverty; for this question is settled on the same principles. Nearly all theologians who treat of justice discuss this question; and of late there has been a tendency in certain quarters greatly to increase the sum which others commonly assign as necessary and sufficient for a mortal sin of theft. Unless I am much mistaken, they have increased it unduly, and for reasons which have no validity ; so I propose briefly to examine the question again, and in doing so I will make use of the labors of economists. For although the question belongs to theology, still, as we shall see, its solution partly depends on certain data which belong to economics, and on these it is only right that economists should be heard.

Since about the time of Lugo († 1660) it has been a common opinion among theologians that it is a grave sin of theft to rob a working man of a sum which is sufficient to support him and his family for a day. The reason for this doctrine is obvious and satisfactory. For that quantity will be sufficient for a mortal sin, whose theft causes a notable injury to the owner, an injury which ordinary men of prudence and sense consider serious, and which is sufficient to upset them considerably. This is the test which is applied in other matters where there is question of the grave breach of a moral law which admits of parvity of matter. When theologians settle what omission of the Office by a priest, or of Mass on a Sunday by the faithful, or what quantity of servile work on a holy-day of obligation is mortally sinful, they ask themselves what quantity of the matter prescribed or forbidden, as the case may be, is notable and considerable, having regard to the subject matter, the end of the precept in question, and the intention of the lawgiver. In the same way, when we wish to know what sum is sufficient for a grave sin of theft, we consider how important it is for maintaining peace among men that property should be secure; what quantity of money or commodities is looked upon as considerable with a view to the use that can be made of them; and what quantity will, with reason, cause the owner serious concern and chagrin if he is unjustly deprived of it. Now, to a workman, or indeed to any one who has to earn his living, the loss of what will support him and his family for a day is a serious matter; it practically means that he has worked a whole day for nothing, and such a loss causes most men, with reason, to be seriously put out. So that we may take it as fairly established doctrine that the theft of such a sum will keep the owner and his family for a day is a grave sin.

This rule, however, will only serve in those cases where theft has been committed against one who earns his living, or at any rate, who is not very rich. It cannot be applied to wealthy companies, or governments, or to millionaires, who would hardly feel the loss of a day’s support in however grand a style they live. And so in such cases we must have recourse to other considerations in order to find what quantity will constitute a grave sin of injustice when stolen. Here we consider, not so much the loss caused to the owner of the property, as the wrong done to public order and to the security of property. Public and private interests require that property should be safe; public as well as private interests are seriously jeopardized when notable injuries to property are of frequent occurrence. All this is but saying in other words that the public weal requires that theft of a considerable sum must be forbidden in all cases, as a grave violation of justice, by the natural law. A prohibition, under pain of venial sin, not to steal a considerable sum of money, would not be sufficient to safeguard the rights of property. In other words, theft of what is commonly at a certain time and place considered a notable sum of money, will be sufficient to constitute a mortal sin of theft, even when the owner of the property stolen is not sensibly the worse off.

We have now arrived at a principle for measuring the quantity which will be grave matter in theft, independently of the harm done to the owner who is wronged. But there remains the great difficulty of determining the quantity which public and private interests require should not be stolen under pain of committing grievous sin. The value of money is constantly changing, and differs considerably in different places; the quantity of money, too, in a country varies greatly with the growth or decrease of national wealth, and so, a sum which was considerable at one time would cease to be so at another. This truth is illustrated very well by the change in the opinions of theologians from age to age on this point. Navarrus, in the sixteenth century, taught that a sum equivalent to about twopence-halfpenny of our money was sufficient for a mortal sin of theft. This opinion, however, was commonly rejected as too severe. Sanchez says that the more common and the truer opinion fixed the sum at one shilling and eightpence. Lugo, a generation later, called attention to the change in the value of money which had been caused by the large influx of the precious metals from America. He asserted, that where formerly fifty gold crowns sufficed for support, three times that sum did not suffice in his day. And so, following the example of other recent authors, as he says, he put the sum required for grave theft, in the case of very rich lords and kings, at five shillings. St. Alphonsus thought five shillings sufficient in the case of rich lords, but for kings he put the sum of ten shillings. Modern theologians agree in still further increasing the amount. Haine and Marc increase it to between twenty and twenty-five francs; D’Annibale and Bucceroni to between twenty and thirty francs; Kenrick and Sabetti to five dollars; Lehmkuhl to between twenty and thirty shillings; Berardi to between thirty and forty francs; Génicot and Waffelaert to forty francs. Lehmkuhl thinks that for England and America, on account of the less value of money in those countries, thirty or forty shillings would be required for a grave sin. Father Ojetti¹ goes further than any one else that I have seen, and says that a sum under four pounds would not be grave matter.

¹ Synopsis rerum moralium, s.v. “Furtum.”

All these theologians, as was to be expected, attach great weight to traditional teaching on the point, but on account of the continual depreciation of money, they think the amount required for grave theft continually increases. Génicot, to take one example, says: —

“Nor does this last computation [forty francs] seem to exceed the measure for our region, if account is taken of the great change that has occurred in the value of money since the time when many authors whom St. Alphonsus cites required two or three gold pieces [fifteen francs].”²

² Vol. I., n. 497.

The very great depreciation in the value of money, then, is the reason why he selects a sum eight times as great as that assigned by Lugo and others in the seventeenth century, and three times as much as the most liberal of those who are quoted by St. Alphonsus. This reason is not theological, it rests on a question of fact: has money, in reality, depreciated so much in value during the last two or three centuries? This is a question belonging to economics, a difficult question, as all admit, but one on which great labor has been spent, and with regard to which fairly certain conclusions have been reached, though no pretense can be made to mathematical accuracy.

Professor Bastable, one of our greatest authorities on monetary questions, gives in the Encyclopædia Britannica³ a general history of the changes which have taken place within historical times in the value of money. Concerning the period with which we are dealing, he writes: —

³ S.v. “Money.”

The annual addition to the store of money has been estimated as £2,100,000 for the period from 1545 to 1600. At this date the Brazilian supply began. The course of distribution of these fresh masses of the precious metals is an interesting point, which has been studied by Mr. Cliffe Leslie. The flow of the new supplies was first towards Spain and Portugal, and from thence they passed to the larger commercial centers of the other European countries, the effect being that prices were raised in and about the chief towns, while the value of money in the country districts remained unaltered. The additions to the supply of both gold and silver during the two centuries 1600-1800 continued to be very considerable; but, if Adam Smith’s view be correct, the full effect on prices was produced by 1640, and the increased amount of money was from that time counterbalanced by the wider extension of trade. At the commencement of this century [nineteenth] the annual production of gold has been estimated as being from £2,500,000 to £3,000,000. The year 1809 seems to mark an epoch in the production of these metals, since the outbreak of the revolts of the various Spanish dependencies in South America tended to check the usual supply from those countries, and a marked increase in the value of money was the consequence. During the period 1809-1849 the value of gold and silver rose to about two and a half times their former level, notwithstanding fresh discoveries in Asiatic Russia. The annual yield in 1849 was estimated at £8,- 000,000. The next important date for our present purpose is the year 1848, when the Californian mines were opened, while in 1851 the Australian discoveries took place. By these events an enormous mass of gold was added to the world’s supply. The most careful estimates fix the addition during the years 1851-1871 at £500,000,000, or an amount nearly equal to the former stock in existence. The problems raised by this phenomenon have received the most careful study by several distinguished economists, to whose writings those desiring more extensive information may refer. The main features of interest may be briefly summed up... (2) The contemporaneous development of the Continental railway systems, and the partial adoption of free trade, with the consequent facilities for freer circulation of commodities, led to the course of distribution being different from that of the sixteenth century. The more backward districts were the principal gainers, and a more

general equalization of prices, combined with a slight elevation in the value, was the outcome. .. . (4) The change in the value of money, which may for the period of 1849- 1869 be fixed at twenty per cent., enabled a general increase of wages to be carried out, thus improving the condition of the classes living on manual labor. It may be added that the difficulty of tracing the effects of this great addition to the money stock is a most striking proof of the complexity of modern economic development.

This general sketch is fully borne out by the results obtained by other workers in the same field. The following table was drawn up by the Vicomte d’Avenel, and is borrowed from Palgrave’s Dictionary of Political Economy, iii. p. 193: —

TABLE OF THE COMPARATIVE PURCHASING POWER OF EQUAL WEIGHTS OF THE PRECIOUS METALS AT DIFFERENT Periods IN France :—

Period. PERIOD. 1451-1500 about 6 1651-1675 about 2 1501-1525 ”» 5 1676-1700 » 214% 1526-1550 ” 4 1701-1725 7” 2% 1551-1575 ”» 3 1726-1750 ”» 3 1576-1600 7 216 1751-1775 ”» 2% 1601-1625 » 3 1776-1790 ”» 2 1626-1650 ” 2% 1890 ” 1

To show the changes in the value of money during the last century, we can avail ourselves of the Index numbers calculated for this purpose by able economists, such as Jevons and Sauerbeck. They give the prices of a large number of the chief commodities in gold for each year. I subjoin a table composed of the Jevons’ Index numbers for the years 1782-1839, and of Mr. Sauerbeck’s to 1905. These Index numbers show us whether gold increased or decreased in value, and what the increase or decrease was approximately, for each year.

PERIOD. Jevons’ Ind. No. | Period. Sauerbeck Ind. No. 1782-84 .. 97 | 1840-44 (Jevons, 77).. 92 1785-89 -- 87 | 1845-49 .- 85 1790-94 -. 93 | 1850-54 -. 85 1795-99 .. 120 | 1855-59 -- 98 1800-04 -. 126 | 1860-64 -, 101 1805-09 .. 138 | 1865-69 -. 100 1810-14 -. 125 | 1870-74 -. 104 1815-19 .. 111 | 1875-79 -. 91 1820-24 .. 92 | 1880-84 -- 83 1825-29 .- 88 | 1885-89 .- 70 1830-34 .- 79 1890-94 -. 69 1835-39 ..- 85 | 1895-96 -. 62

1896-1905 .. 68

If it were necessary, the results that we have obtained might be corroborated from other sources, but they will, perhaps, suffice for our purpose.

We find then that from the end of the fifteenth century to the middle of the seventeenth gold decreased in value as 6:2; the Vicomte d’Avenel’s figures fully bear out the correctness of Lugo’s estimate quoted above; from that time till the end of the eighteenth century, the value of gold remained fairly constant ; it sank during the revolutionary wars with France; after Waterloo it rose until about 1850, when it began to sink again till about 1870, since which time it has been rising gradually. The Vicomte d’Avenel calculated that the purchasing power of equal weights of the precious metals in France in 1790 and in 1890 was as 2:1, in other words, the net result of the fluctuations in the value of the precious metals during the nineteenth century was that their value decreased by about one-half.

These conclusions agree with what might be expected on general principles. For the value of the precious metals, as of other things, depends on supply and demand. If the supply is increased, other things remaining the same, the value will fall, as was the case with gold when the vast stores from America had been distributed through the commercial centers of Europe in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries. During the next century and a half trade developed, population increased, and the greater number of business transactions demanded a larger supply of money. The demand was equal to the supply, and in spite of the constant influx of gold, its value remained much the same for a century and a half. The revolt of the South American colonies from Spain tended to check supplies from that quarter, and gold rose in value till the discovery of the mines in California and Australia. The quantities drawn from thence caused gold to depreciate till about 1870, when the growing expansion of trade, the adoption by Germany and other countries of a gold standard of currency, together with other causes, brought about an appreciation of the precious metal.

The evidence, then, from Political Economy shows that gold has, indeed, depreciated in value since the time of Lugo, but that the amount of the depreciation is not nearly so great as some modern theologians suppose. If we say that the value of gold in Lugo’s time was twice as much as it is now, we shall probably not be far wrong. So that if we take the opinion of Lugo and other great theologians of his time, as an accurate estimate of the quantity required for a grave sin of theft, we shall arrive at the sum required to-day on account of the depreciation in the value of money, by multiplying Lugo’s five shillings by two. If we adopt the more liberal estimate of Laymann and others, we must double this amount, and say that the theft of more than twenty shillings is always a grave sin. However, besides the depreciation of money, other circumstances have to be considered, as we shall presently see.

Father Lehmkuhl⁴ thinks that in England and in the United States, where, he says, the value of money. is less than in other countries, a sum of from thirty to forty shillings is required; whereas in other countries twenty to thirty shillings would be sufficient for the absolute sum necessary for a mortal sin of theft.

⁴ Vol. I., 931 note.

It is, of course, possible that money may have a greater value on the continent of Europe than in England and the United States. But this, again, is not a theological question, it is a question of fact, though a very complex one, and one very difficult to solve satisfactorily. Just as the value of commodities is measured by money, so the value of money is measured by what it will exchange for. If one pound will purchase more commodities of the same quality in Germany than in England, then the value of money is greater in Germany than it is in England. And if this be the case, a mortal sin of theft will be committed by stealing a less sum of money in Germany than in England.

Of course it is perfectly true that a pound will purchase more of some commodities in Germany than in Great Britain. It will purchase more wine in the Rhineland, otherwise Rhenish wine would not be imported to England. On the other hand, it will not purchase more cotton goods, or else we should not export those articles to Germany. But the value of money depends on its general purchasing power, not on its power of purchasing more or less of one or two commodities. The general purchasing power of money is proximately determined by the law of supply and demand. If the supply of money increases relatively to the supply of other commodities for sale, its value decreases; if the supply decreases its value augments. Moreover, whenever an object has a higher value the greater demand attracts supplies until a common level is reached. Money obeys this law like any other commodity, and the vast improvement in means of communication which the last hundred years have witnessed, the facility and cheapness of carriage, the intimate commercial relations which now exist between all the countries of the civilized world, tend to equalize values, if we neglect tariffs and the cost of transit. So that, although we should allow still for some difference in the value of money in the different countries of the civilized world, it is probable that the difference is not great. Professor Bastable says:⁵ “ At present it is quite natural to assume that the materials of money are distributed by means of international trade, and tend to keep at an equal level all the world over,—an assumption which is in general well grounded, though an important exception exists with regard to the East.” Professor Marshall, one of our greatest English economists, is of opinion that money is now of greater value in England than in France. He writes: — 6

⁵ Encycl. Brit., s.v. “ Money.”

Free trade, improvements in transport, the opening of new countries, and other causes have made the general purchasing power of money in terms of commodities rise in England relatively to the Continent. Early in this century [nineteenth] twenty-five francs would buy more, and especially more of the things needed by the working classes, in France than £1 would in England. But now the advantage is the other way: and this causes the recent growth of the wealth of France to appear to be greater relatively to that of England than it really is.

Many facts seem to corroborate Professor Marshall’s opinion. There is undoubtedly less gold in England now than there was twenty-five years ago, 7 and it is estimated that the circulation of gold, silver, and uncovered notes per head of the population is almost as much in Germany and Spain, is considerably more in Belgium and Holland, and more than twice as much in France as it is in England.⁸

⁸ Ibid., p. 605.

Statistics published in 1903 by the Board of Trade in the Blue Book on British and Foreign Trade and Industry [Cd. 1761] tend to prove the same conclusion. By their means we can make a rough estimate of the relative cost of the chief necessities of life in England, in America, and on the Continent. Since 1877 the price of food, which represents one-half of the total expenditure of the working classes, has de creased by about thirty per cent. in Great Britain; very much more than it has decreased in France and Germany. Between 1880 and 1897, the cost of workmen’s food in Paris fell fourteen points, compared with thirteen in Germany, and forty-two in the United Kingdom.⁹ Of the chief articles of food, bread and flour are cheaper in London than in Paris or Berlin; home-produced butcher’s meat is slightly dearer, but the balance is redressed by the cheaper price of foreign and colonial meat. Butter and eggs are slightly dearer in London, but sugar and rice are cheaper. Clothing is cheaper, on the whole, in England than on the Continent or in America; house rent in the large towns is somewhat dearer.

⁹ Loc. cit., p. 226.

6 Principles of Economics, i., p. 817.

1 Dictionary of Political Economy, ii., p. 617.

It would seem, then, that there is no reason for saying that money has less value in England than on the Continent, or that, on this account, a greater sum is required in England for a mortal sin of theft. The contrary is probably more correct.

Not all countries, however, are equally rich; England and America are the richest nations in the world, and it is conceivable that in comparison with the wealth of the population, what is a notable sum in one country is not so in another. I take it that this would be true if the wealth of England and America were more or less equally divided among the population. This is not by any means the case. Wealth, in great measure at any rate, seems to accumulate in comparatively few hands, and the great mass of the people remains little the better off for the greater wealth in the country. The urban population of England is about seventy-seven per cent of the whole, and the recent investigations of Mr. Charles Booth and Mr. Rowntree have shown that some thirty per cent. of these live in a state of poverty, without a sufficiency of the bare necessaries of life. It seems to me that in these circumstances the common estimate of the value of money in England is not likely to be less, but rather more than in other European countries.

It is, indeed, true that wages are higher in England and in America than in France or Germany. According to the rough estimate contained in the Blue Book from which I have already quoted, workmen’s wages in the United States are one-and-a-half times higher than in England; in Germany they are two-thirds, and in France three-fourths of those which prevail in the United Kingdom. We may remark, however, in passing, that this does not prove that the cost of labor of the same amount and quality is greater in the States and in England than abroad; it may be, as many competent judges affirm, that English and American labor is more efficient, and so as cheap or cheaper than labor is on the Continent. So that even though the income of the working-classes is greater in England than it is abroad, this will not cause them to put a less value on money if it costs them correspondingly greater effort. Still the higher wages and cheaper food and clothing enable the working classes in England to spend more and live in greater style, than on the Continent, and this may somewhat lower the common estimate of the value of money. But, even if we allow something for this, it seems to me that Father Lehmkuhl’s estimate of the difference is much too large, amounting, as it does, to fifty per cent.

The general level of wages, not only in England and America, but on the Continent also, is very much higher now than it was sixty or seventy years ago. In 1883, Sir Robert Giffen calculated that in England at that time wages were much more than one hundred per cent. higher than they had been fifty years before.¹⁰ Engel estimated that workmen’s incomes had nearly doubled in Belgium between the years 1853 and 1891. 11 This general rise in wages will have some influence on the estimate to be formed of the quantity required for a grave sin of theft. For the working classes form the great bulk of the population, and their estimate of the value of money will greatly influence the general estimate. It seems clear that a workman who gets thirty shillings a week will put less value on ten shillings than if his weekly wage were only twenty shillings. We must, then, allow not only for the depreciation of money, but also for the higher wages, the higher standard of comfort, and in consequence, the relatively less value attached to money by the working-classes throughout the civilized world, independently of its purchasing power.

¹⁰ Dictionary of Political Economy, ii., p. 617.

All things considered, I see no reason for increasing the quantity which the greater number of modern theologians assign as the absolute sum required for a mortal sin of theft. That quantity is about twenty shillings, and if we attach much importance, as we should do, to the opinions of such classical moralists of the past as Lugo about such a question, the sum will be rather below than above twenty shillings.

11 Ibid., iii., p. 679.

With twenty shillings I can purchase a week’s work of an average workman, who will be able to support himself and his family on it. Such a sum is a notable quantity of money; it is a very respectable subscription even for a rich man to a charity, or any other object that attracts public support. Subscriptions to learned societies are, commonly enough, one pound or one guinea a year. If such a sum could be stolen without grave sin, its amount would prove too great a temptation for the virtue of large numbers of people, who wish to save their souls, but make little of venial sins; who shrink from crime, but, to put the matter in homely language, do not profess to be better than their neighbors. For all these reasons, then, it seems to me that to assign twenty shillings as the absolute sum required for a grave sin of theft, is as near the truth as we can get in so intricate a question.