Point IV. On Mere Damaging in Goods of Fortune

What has been said about theft in general and about minor thefts in particular is also to be applied to damaging in general and to minor damages in particular. Nevertheless, in particular:

Question 1. Whether even in mere damaging there must be admitted matter absolutely grave, that is, matter which even with respect to the very rich must be held as grave.

Response. It must be affirmed, because the act, for example, of destroying another's thing as such, according to its proper concept, that is, with abstraction made from the damage which is inflicted on the neighbor, involves disorder. But if it involves disorder, one must finally arrive at grave matter (p. 676).

Question 2. How great is the obligation of restoring if someone, through several minor damages following at a brief interval and done against the same owner, finally arrived at grave matter, but subjectively sinned only venially?

Response. The obligation is not grave in practice, because venial sins sufficiently probably do not induce a grave obligation (p. 649). It remains, therefore, that we say the damager is held under venial sin to restore each minor damage.