Point II. On Minor Thefts in Particular

I. One sins gravely by minor thefts:

1. When someone commits a light theft with the intention of committing a grave one if the occasion were present (St. Thomas, II-II, q. 66, a. 7, ad 3).

2. When someone steals light things with the intention of arriving gradually at grave matter. In the case the thief already sins gravely by the first theft; namely, although the execution of the individual thefts is externally light, nevertheless insofar as it is subject to a gravely evil intention, it is gravely evil. Nonetheless, those several little thefts seem to be morally united from that intention and therefore to coalesce into only one sin in number (St. Alphonsus, III, 533).

3. When someone, after minor thefts retained either in themselves or in equivalent, finally and advertently completes grave matter; and it is all the same whether the retained thefts were committed against the same owner or against diverse owners. The reason is that the act of retaining another's thing in itself contains disorder, and therefore, if there is question of grave matter, grave disorder (n. 1028). In this hypothesis the thief sins gravely by that very theft which completes grave matter, unless he has the intention of restoring at least the last little theft quickly. But if, after grave matter has been completed, he again commits a minor theft, according to some he increases and continues the prior mortal sin and therefore sins gravely; according to St. Alphonsus and others, he does not sin gravely unless he reaches another new grave quantity (III, 538). In the case, however, it is posited that the new little theft was not intended from the beginning; but if this had happened, there would indeed be an increase and continuation of the prior mortal sin.

4. When someone, after minor thefts not indeed retained, but following at a brief interval and committed against the same owner, completes grave matter. I have said at a brief interval, because then they are apt to inflict grave damage and therefore the owner is gravely unwilling; not so if they are separated by a longer interval. For the rest, the greater the quantity taken away on individual occasions is, the greater the interval required so that they do not coalesce (St. Alphonsus, III, 530).

If there is question of a quantity which is near to grave matter, St. Alphonsus requires an interval of at least two months (III, 530).

5. When several, by conspiracy, each take light things from someone, which together constitute grave matter. The reason is that the total damage is imputed to each one (St. Alphonsus, III, 535, 536). But "if several, either simultaneously or successively, commit several small thefts against someone, which taken together gravely harm him, then, if one does not know about the other, no one sins gravely" (St. Alphonsus, III, 535). If each one is moved by the example of another, by reason of scandal they sin against charity, and indeed gravely if the matter is grave. Moreover, more probably they also sin against justice, insofar as they cooperate in injustice by giving an example that will be followed, as was said about indirect scandal (n. 548). But by reason of this injustice one is not held to restitution, because for this it is required that someone have been an efficacious cause, not merely an occasional cause, of the damage.

6. Finally, as is clear, theft light in itself can become grave by reason of damaging, as if someone steals an instrument of lesser value, for example a tailor's needle, which someone needs in order to be able to support himself.

II. As regards the quantity required in minor thefts for grave sin, the following rules hold:

1. First note in advance that in the cases related under 1, 2, 3, and 5, the general doctrine set forth on p. 676 holds.

2. But if there is question of minor thefts not retained, but following at a brief interval, a greater quantity is required, both because the owners are less unwilling, and because they commonly suffer less damage in the case. It can be established with St. Alphonsus: 1° one and a half times the amount, if the little thefts are made at different times against the same owner, or at the same time against diverse owners; 2° a double sum, if they are made at different times against diverse owners (III, 530). For the rest, theoretically, further degrees can still be distinguished between these rules, considering the person of the thief and the end by which he is led, the nature of the things taken away, and finally the greater or lesser interval.

III. He who, after minor thefts retained, finally completed grave matter, or who by minor thefts not indeed retained, but following at a brief interval and committed against the same owner, arrived at grave matter, is held under grave sin to restitution, at least to such an extent that there no longer remains grave matter to be restored (St. Alphonsus, III, 533, 534). If, however, the little thefts were committed against diverse owners, the thief is not held under grave sin to restore to those owners themselves, because the individual owners were injured only lightly; according to the authors he satisfies the grave obligation if he restores to the poor or to other pious causes, indeed he also does this without sin if there is a reasonable cause for doing so (St. Alphonsus, III, 534, question 20).

Question. How great is the obligation of restoring if a thief, by minor thefts retained neither in themselves nor in equivalent, but following at a brief interval and committed against the same owner, did indeed arrive at grave matter, but subjectively sinned only venially?

Response. The obligation of restoring does not seem to be grave; not by reason of matter retained, because it is posited as not retained; nor by reason of the acts which were posited, because, as merely venial, they do not induce a grave obligation (n. 995). It remains, therefore, that we say the thief is held under venial sin to restore each little theft.

Corollary. "Confessors are to be warned by me that they should not easily dissemble even in minor thefts, and those which do not reach mortal sin; but according to the condition and capacity of the persons, they should always impose some restitution, which may be made either by returning the same thing, if it exists, or a thing of the same species, or the price of the thing, or by compensating with greater service than they are held to by contract; or, if they cannot restore to the creditors, by contributing the same amount to the poor. For in this way, when they do not pass away unpunished, they are deterred from sins of this sort more than by other little penances; otherwise they become more ready for little thefts of this sort, and make a step toward greater ones."¹

¹ Lessius, l. 2, c. 12, n. 50.