419. On petty thefts. The third cause on account of which a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin is the mode of stealing, namely through thefts in light matter, which are usually called petty thefts. Therefore it is asked when thefts in light matter become grave sin and what quantity is required for constituting grave matter.

Generally, theft of light matter becomes grave sin when the matter taken away in individual thefts coalesces into grave matter. But this can happen in a threefold way: a. by intention of arriving at grave matter; b. by conspiracy; c. by multiplication alone.

420. By intention. 1. The intention of arriving at grave matter causes individual thefts to coalesce, even when a rather long interval is placed between the individual thefts, whether the thefts are committed against the same owner or against various owners.

This intention, by which individual thefts are committed, causes two things: first, that the matter of the individual thefts coalesces into one, even if a rather long interval intervenes between them; and then also that even thefts in light matter are grave sin: for what happens from an intention gravely evil is grave sin. In this case we have a sin indeed light with respect to the external act, but grave on account of the internal affection. The sin, even insofar as it is external, becomes grave when grave damage is completed.

2. For constituting grave matter, a greater quantity is not required than in thefts which are done at once and together, if they are committed relative to the same owner; but if the thefts are done to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.

Therefore he commits grave sin in each instance: a. a merchant who, by moderately falsifying measures and weights in individual instances, intends to gather notable profit or foresees that in this way he will arrive at great profit; b. an innkeeper who, by mixing a little water with wine several times, wishes to become rich: "A deceitful balance is an abomination before the Lord";¹ c. he who, having the intention of harming the neighbor in a grave matter, inflicts light damage in individual instances. Yet because all these sins proceed from the same intention of becoming rich (of harming) virtually enduring, morally they constitute one sin.²

¹ Prov. 11:1.

² Cf. De principiis^9, n. 308.

421. By conspiracy. 1. If several, by common plan and consent, either together or successively, commit small thefts against the same owner or against various owners, their matter coalesces into one, because the individual conspirators intend the whole taking. Therefore when small thefts taken together constitute grave matter, the individual conspirators sin mortally: for conspiracy causes the individuals to will the whole damage and cooperate toward the whole.

2. If petty thefts are done to the same owner, a greater quantity is not required for constituting grave sin; but if they are done to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.¹

a. If individuals act independently from each other, even if they know the damage inflicted by others, they do not sin gravely, because none of them inflicts grave damage, nor intends the damage inflicted by others, nor cooperates in it.

b. If several, stirred up by the example of another, commit light thefts which together inflict grave damage, he gravely sins whose example provoked others to inflicting damage, not indeed against justice, but against charity, provided he foresaw the damage to be inflicted.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 311.

422. By multiplication. He who by petty thefts committed either against the same owner or against various owners arrives at grave matter sins gravely, provided he retains the things taken away, a great interval is not present between the individual thefts, and the thing taken away is of some price. For in this case the individual thefts coalesce.

1. That petty thefts which happen successively coalesce into grave matter, a twofold condition is required: a. That the thief retain the things taken away.

If he restores the prior thefts, the subsequent little thefts are not united with the preceding ones. But if he only had the intention of restoring, this does not impede thefts from coalescing; for by a new theft the intention is judged revoked.

b. That a great interval not intervene between the individual thefts.

If a notable space intervenes between individual thefts, the things taken away are no longer judged to be united. This interval must be determined from common sense, with the quantity of the thing taken away considered. If the thing taken away nearly reaches grave matter, an interval of two months causes it no longer to coalesce; if the thing taken away is far distant from grave matter, an interval of one month causes the same; finally, if the thing taken away is very slight, either it does not coalesce at all, or certainly an interval of one week impedes it from coalescing.¹

alpha. In this case of coalescence, that theft by which grave matter is knowingly completed is grave sin; but the individual preceding thefts are venial. beta. Petty thefts which afterward happen after grave matter has been completed are grave sins, provided the will of retaining the things taken away endures and they happen with advertence to the grave damage inflicted, because they coalesce with the prior ones into grave thefts and continue the prior grave sin, but they constitute one sin in number with the prior one.² gamma. He who does not advert that by a light theft grave matter is completed does not indeed commit grave sin by stealing; but when afterward, adverting to grave matter, he does not propose restitution of the thing taken away, he sins gravely on account of the wicked will of retaining another's thing in great quantity.

2. For constituting grave sin in these petty thefts which happen successively, a greater quantity is required, and indeed, if the thefts happen to the same owner, matter is required which is greater by half: for the owner ordinarily does not suffer so grave a damage if the thing is taken away at intervals. But if the thefts happen to diverse owners, an absolute quantity is required.

a. Therefore tailors sin gravely when they reach grave matter by retaining fragments of cloth which remain and are still useful to the owners, unless either this custom is in force somewhere and therefore less is paid for the labor, or it is established that rich persons do not wish fragments to be restored to them, or these are of lesser importance and are not cared about by the owners. Something similar must be said of millers who retain a moderate part of the grain or flour for themselves.

beta. Servants or maidservants, especially in the families of the rich, who continually take away or consume certain small things and never restore, are not easily to be accused of grave sin nor obligated to making restitution, both because in this case from a twofold reason a greater quantity is required for constituting grave sin, and because they do not advert to grave damage, and because owners are not gravely unwilling nor demand restitution, and finally because ordinarily the things consumed are of the kind that do not coalesce into grave matter.

Note. Those accustomed to thefts are to be asked concerning the number and quantity of thefts, and where the matter concerns petty thefts, concerning the interval placed between individual thefts, so that judgment can be made concerning the coalescence of matter. Yet because they ordinarily do not know how to indicate these things, since they steal on any occasion, it suffices that in general they indicate the frequency of the thefts, the quality of the things taken away, and the time elapsed from the last confession. From these the confessor will form for himself a judgment concerning the state of the soul of his penitent. Then he will warn him concerning his obligations: of restoring, of laboring, and of abstaining from thefts in the future.

¹ Cf. Ballerini-Palmieri, III, n. 312.

² Lugo, disp. 16, n. 43 s.

423. On thefts of things pertaining to several.

a. He who in grave matter takes away a thing pertaining to several sins gravely: for although grave damage is not inflicted on individuals, nevertheless individuals are gravely unwilling, because, if thefts of this kind were multiplied, the security of human commerce would suffer grave damage unless they were prohibited under grave obligation.

b. For constituting grave sin in thefts of things pertaining to several, whether these several constitute a moral person (as a commercial, industrial, insurance society, or religious community), or do not constitute a moral person, matter absolutely grave is required, because grave damage is not inflicted either on individuals or on a particular community, unless the community is small or the associates are few.

Article Third. On Causes Excusing from Theft

There is a twofold cause which excuses altogether from theft and renders the taking away of another's thing licit: extreme necessity and hidden compensation.

That small thefts may coalesce and constitute grave matter is certain, for by a number of small thefts grave harm may be done, and the opposite opinion is implicitly condemned by the 38th proposition condemned by Innocent XI. Small thefts coalesce if the intention of the thief is to take a considerable sum, but for some special reason he takes it in small quantities at different times. Similarly, if a number conspire together to steal from another, they will all commit grave sin if grave damage be inflicted, even though each one only obtains a small sum. Also, when the proceeds of pilferings are hoarded, grave sin will be committed when grave matter is reached, or even if the proceeds be spent and do not coalesce by accession as in the preceding case, the different pilferings will coalesce and constitute one moral act of injustice if the interval be not notable—not over two months—as some theologians say. On the other hand, small thefts committed at wide intervals of time, and which do not coalesce on account of any of the reasons given above, do not constitute one moral act, and remain so many venial sins of theft.

The theft of something of small money value, but whose loss is very keenly felt for reasons of affection or association, will be a venial sin against justice, but a mortal sin against charity, if it was foreseen that its loss would cause very serious pain to the owner.

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.

Small Thefts Which Amount to a Large Sum.—Small amounts stolen may accumulate into a large amount. This happens in the following ways: (a) the thief takes small sums on different occasions from the same person or from different persons, and continues at this until he has stolen a considerable amount; (b) the thief conspires with other thieves to steal on the same occasion from one person or several persons, and, though the sum he steals is small, the sum taken by the whole group is considerable. Similarly, petty damages or vexations may accumulate into a mortal injustice. Thus, if Claudius, aiming to break down the health, sanity, success, reputation, business, etc., of Balbus, plans and carries out a systematic campaign of small injuries daily repeated for years, Claudius is guilty at least in purpose of serious damage.

Moral Connection between Repeated Acts of Theft.—The moral connection between repeated acts of theft by one person is necessary, as was said, in order that these acts unite into one grave sin. This moral connection does not exist, however, if the series is broken by interruption or revocation.

(a) Thus, the connection is broken by interruption when there is a long interval between small thefts, because thefts that are small and infrequent do not inflict severe loss on individuals or society. This supposes, of course, that there is no intention to practise small thievery habitually in order to become enriched by it, but that one steals now and then as opportunity or necessity occurs, or (according to some) that one intends to steal only small amounts and at long intervals.

(b) The connection is also broken by restitution or revocation. It is clear that, if the thief has given back his former thefts, they should not be computed with later thefts; and it seems also—though some do not admit this—that, if he has sincerely resolved to give back things taken before (e.g., things which are useless for him), there is no moral connection between the past thefts and a theft he is committing now.

Interval of Time between Acts of Theft.—The interval of time that breaks the connection between small thefts cannot be determined with mathematical exactness, but the following rule seems to be accurate enough: thefts combine to form a great theft only when considerable property is taken by degrees, but within such a brief period of time as to be of notable advantage to the thief and of notable disadvantage to the loser. Some moralists think that six months is a long space, sufficient to prevent union between thefts, but that two months is too short a space to prevent the union; others, on the contrary, believe that the amounts stolen should be taken into consideration; and hence that the following intervals between thefts separate them into distinct venial sins without coalescence:

(a) a period of one year between thefts, each of which almost amounts to grave matter, when the property is kept (e.g., when a dressmaker who has kept not a little of her patron’s material of a twelvemonth ago does the same thing again this year);

(b) a period of two months, when the matters are almost grave, but the property is not kept (e.g., when a thief who beat a restaurant out of the price of a very elaborate meal at the beginning of January does the same thing at the beginning of March). But it is hard to see how one could have the habit of stealing in this way and not have the intention of stealing a large amount, for a person who steals what is almost grave matter every two months or so must realize that he will shortly be enriched to a considerable extent by his dishonesty. Moreover, the interval of two months might be needed by the thief for avoiding suspicion;

(c) a period of one month, when the thing stolen falls far short of grave matter (e.g., a meal of simple fare plainly cooked and served);

(d) a period of about two weeks, when the matters are very small (e.g., when a thief takes a few secret sips from a wine bottle on each of his fortnightly visits to a certain house, or carries away some trifling object as a souvenir). These thefts would not surpass five or ten cents a month;

(e) some authors think that one week or perhaps even one day will prevent coalescence between extremely small thefts; and surely there are some paltry objects (e.g., a pin or needle, a match, a small lump of coal, a piece of string) which would not total a large value even after many years have passed.

609. • Q. 3. Whether minute thefts can coalesce for constituting grave matter?

Resp. 1. Altogether affirmatively, if it is a matter of thefts committed against the same person, because united they can easily bring grave damage on the owner. This is evident also from this proposition 38 condemned by Innocent XI: No one is held under pain of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away through small thefts, however great the total sum may be. - Therefore a grave obligation is given of restoring a grave sum taken away through minute thefts, and therefore minute thefts coalesce.

Resp. 2. Affirmatively, with the common sentence, even if it is a matter of minute thefts committed to the damage of diverse persons. The reason is that the precept not to steal obliges not only lest grave damage be brought on the neighbor, but also lest someone grow rich from another's thing ⁹. Indeed such a thief, if not to individuals taken singly, certainly brings grave damage on the community. And indeed, unless thefts of this sort were prohibited under grave obligation, not a few men would easily wish to grow rich from thefts, since they could do this without the loss of eternal salvation; therefore great disorder in society would follow. Therefore these thefts had to be prohibited under grave obligation by natural right. - St. Lig., n. 534. - Lugo, disp. 16, n. 37.

⁹ This reason (says Lugo, De Iust., disp. 16, n. 49) does not seem sufficient; because the precept not to steal does not intend to avoid one's own profit, but the damage of the neighbor... If therefore the neighbor is not gravely injured, that action cannot be gravely prohibited. These are Lugo's words, not as though rejecting the common doctrine concerning the gravity of fault in these thefts, for he soon (ibid., n. 50) defends it with solid reasons; but wishing to suggest the less firm strength of that reason. And indeed by right of finding, alluvion, and prescription a man lawfully grows rich from another's thing.

440. Small thefts, which of themselves do not exceed venial sin, if they are morally united, can coalesce into grave matter,¹ in a fourfold way: - 1. By reason of intention: he who commits small thefts, whether against the same person or against diverse persons, with the intention of arriving at a notable sum, sins gravely, because by that very fact he intends to inflict grave damage either upon a determinate person or upon society. - Therefore he sins gravely who, when he intends to steal one hundred coins from Titius, so that he may execute the plan more safely, steals two or three coins again and again; likewise he who uses false weights, although each time he defrauds in small matter; or he who, under a feigned pretext, successively extracts a great sum of money from various persons: for then grave matter is in fact intentionally taken away.

¹ This indeed can be deduced from the fact that Innocent XI, March 2, 1679, condemned as scandalous and dangerous in practice this proposition (n. 38): "One is not bound under the penalty of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away by a few thefts, however great the total sum may be." (Denzing., n. 1055.)

Yet he who intends to steal a notable sum several times from the same person more probably does not sin mortally as often as he steals something small, but commits only one mortal sin, namely at that instant at which he enters upon the plan of stealing, - unless he revokes the intention previously conceived and afterward renews the same.

441. 2. By reason of accumulation: he who has already committed light thefts several times, even without the intention of arriving at a notable sum, sins mortally at the time when he notices that he is then at last completing grave matter, provided there is moral union between the various thefts, and a serious will of repairing the preceding thefts is absent: for knowingly and willingly he inflicts notable damage. But moral union exists when little thefts are committed within a short interval of time, e.g., within two months. But if there is a great interval between the various thefts, e.g., six months, the little thefts, from the common estimation of men, are not judged morally united, and therefore under this head they do not constitute grave theft.

442. 3. By reason of retention: he who knowingly and willingly retains a great quantity of another's good, unjustly obtained either from one or from several, sins mortally, even if no moral union is present between the various small thefts, because the retention of another's thing in great quantity, no less than the taking itself, inflicts great damage upon individuals or society.

443. 4. By reason of cooperation: those who by common counsel or concurrence, together or successively, steal a notable sum, sin mortally, although individuals steal only light matter; for individuals consent and cooperate in the whole damage. But otherwise it must be said if there was not mutual conspiracy or mutual help, but individuals stole independently from one another, although they noticed that notable damage was being inflicted upon the same owner. - Likewise if several, moved not by mutual conspiracy but by mutual example, have committed light thefts, they do not sin gravely against justice, although individuals sin, perhaps gravely, against charity, by reason of scandal.

444. Corollary: What matter is required in small thefts, that it may become grave? All concede that a greater quantity is required than if a thing of great price were stolen together and at once; for the owner in this case does not so much feel the damage, and therefore is less unwilling. But what that greater quantity may be can be determined only from the common estimation of the prudent; according to the more common opinion, if small thefts are committed against the same person, the matter is grave if it exceeds by half the sum commonly required for grave theft (e.g., if 30 fr. is held as grave matter, 45 fr. are required in this case); but if they are committed against diverse persons, matter is judged grave if it is twice as great (therefore 60 fr. in this hypothesis).

N. B. Even when small thefts do not attain mortal sin, some restitution is to be advised, lest otherwise penitents make a step from small things to greater ones.

82. The rules given above for discerning the gravity of theft (or rather the grave obligation of restitution in certain thefts) must be somewhat tempered, either because among the small things taken away there were many intervals, or because the owner is not judged to be so unwilling, or because the thing was not so much another's. Whence some things remain to be said: 1. on petty thefts; 2. on domestic thefts; 3. on thefts in public things.

Petty thefts are called thefts of lighter matter repeated rather often. Of themselves these petty thefts are venial sins; but they become gravely evil 1. from an evil intention and 2. from frequent repetition.

1. From an evil intention, indeed, if someone intends by many small thefts at last to obtain a notable quantity.

For example, if a servant intends to steal from his master 100 francs, and, lest he be detected, executes this proposal not once, but 50 times through the time of one year. This evil intention effects that the servant immediately sins mortally as soon as he gives consent to this proposal. But in each instance, when he steals 2 francs, he at least implicitly renews his evil intention and therefore sins mortally. Nevertheless he is not strictly bound in the confessional to say that he intended a theft of 100 francs and executed this in 50 instances, but it suffices if he confesses simply: I stole 100 francs; or, I had the intention of stealing 100 francs, and I did this according to such a quantity. The reason is that all those petty thefts coalesce into one moral act, unless perhaps the intention was at times revoked. For then there would be several sins.²⁰

2. From frequent repetition of petty thefts, even if an explicit intention of obtaining a grave quantity did not precede, there arises a grave sin of injustice and a grave obligation of restoring, provided the following three conditions are present: a) that between individual petty thefts there not be a notable interval; b) that the individual petty thefts have not been revoked or restored; c) that the total matter of all the united petty thefts be grave.

Therefore it is required a) that between individual petty thefts there not exist a notable interval, such as a time of 2 months is judged to be, if there is question of matter which, although it is not grave, nevertheless almost approaches grave matter. Thus St. Alphonsus.²¹ Whence, for example, if someone takes 10 francs from a rich man today and after two months again 10 francs and so thereafter, these petty thefts do not coalesce on account of the notable interval interposed between two petty thefts. Nevertheless I think that in practice such petty thefts repeated rather often at length sometime coalesce, because it is scarcely possible that from the beginning there is lacking an intention of arriving at a considerable sum. But if there is question of truly very small thefts, for example of half a franc, those do not coalesce even after a shorter interval, as for example after fifteen days.²² The reason for all these things is that according to the common estimation of men those petty thefts do not coalesce if so great an interval exists between the individual ones; and besides, because then grave matter will either never be present or not except after a long time. For example, a tailor retains only every two months a fragment of cloth, but ordinarily observes strict justice. Perhaps after 10 years all those fragments taken together (resegmina) will constitute grave matter. No one surely will say that between the first fragment and the last there still exists a moral union, and consequently that the tailor is bound to restitution under grave sin.

Then it is required b) that the individual petty thefts have not been revoked or restored. This is clear, because petty thefts revoked or restored, since in the being of morals they now do not exist, cannot coalesce with following ones.

Lastly it is required c) that the total matter of all the united petty thefts be grave. But commonly moral theologians opine that in petty thefts there is required a greater quantity than in theft which was committed once and all at once; namely, there is required a quantity greater by half, if the petty thefts were done from the same owner; but if something has been taken from several owners, there is required a quantity twice greater²³ or (if there are many owners) absolutely grave, namely 100 francs. The reason is clear from the things said above. For the gravity of theft must be weighed from the objective damage which has been inflicted upon the legitimate owner. Moreover the legitimate owner from whom some sum has been taken over a long space of time does not suffer so great a damage as he would suffer if this happened all at once and one time. But if there are diverse and many owners, still less damage has been caused to each one, and consequently only absolutely grave matter is deservedly assigned as inducing a grave obligation of restitution. If, for example, a tailor, working for some sufficiently rich clothing merchant, unjustly retains every week certain fragments of cloth at the price of 2 francs, he is not bound under grave sin to restitution unless the value of all the fragments has a quantity greater by half, i.e. 20 + 10 = 30 francs. But if those fragments pertain to several owners, a quantity twice greater (or absolutely grave) will be required, namely 100 francs. - After grave matter has coalesced from petty thefts, a grave obligation of restitution arises, as is clear from proposition 38 condemned by Innocent XI: "No one is bound under penalty of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away through a few thefts, however great the total sum may be."²⁴

In repeated petty thefts, the individual takings away considered separately are indeed only venial sins. But since the following petty theft is always an approval (at least implicit) of the preceding one, at length sometime it happens that the last petty theft, although light in itself, is an implicit approval of the taking away of grave matter and consequently constitutes a grave sin. But he who, after he has taken away grave matter by petty thefts, continues stealing, sins mortally as often as he attends to the matter already stolen and renews the intention of retaining it with the others. Thus the common opinion.²⁵ But in practice it suffices if the confessor knows the sum taken away by petty thefts and perhaps the time during which the petty thefts were done.

Almost the whole doctrine concerning petty thefts can be comprehended in this phrase:

Petty thefts constitute grave sin if they were perpetrated either with the intention of arriving at grave matter, or if, without a notable interval interposed, they have gathered grave matter.

Note. Petty thefts are often perpetrated in domestic matters,²⁶ or also by merchants and workers, for example, by innkeepers who mix water with wine, by farmers adulterating milk, by workmen subtracting small materials furnished to them.²⁷ In practice, on account of general customs perhaps to the contrary or on account of the consent of the owner in some way presumed, sometimes the obligation of restitution is not to be urged so strongly; nevertheless one must insist that those petty thefts cease. Besides, a longer discussion concerning merchants adulterating wares or secretly diminishing measure will return below, where purchase and sale are treated.

²⁰ Cf. above I, n. 376, concerning the numerical distinction of sins.

²¹ Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 530.

²² Noldin, De praeceptis n. 422, thinks that already after a week those very small petty thefts do not coalesce.

²³ Thus St. Alphonsus, l. c.

²⁴ Denz. n. 1188.

²⁵ Cf. Billuart, De iure et iust. diss. 11, a. 4; Lehmkuhl, Theol. mor. I, n. 1117.

²⁶ Concerning which below, n. 83.

²⁷ Cf. below concerning the contract of purchase (n. 279).

83. Petty thefts are especially frequent in domestic matters, and not rarely are perpetrated by wives, children of the family, servants. The head of household is not customarily so unwilling against such petty thefts as if they were perpetrated by outsiders; indeed sometimes he is not unwilling against the taking away itself, but only against the clandestine mode of taking away. For he himself would have given the thing taken away, if a suitable petition had been presented to him. All theologians admit that in domestic petty thefts a greater quantity is ordinarily required for inducing an obligation of restitution. But a general rule which suffers no exceptions cannot be established in this matter. The following norms, however, can be held as directive:

1. In ordinary food and drink taken for one's own use, petty thefts never attain grave matter.²⁸

The reason is that the head of household is bound to nourish all his domestics suitably. But if he does not do this, the domestics have the right of taking that which the head of household unjustly denies. Yet also in the case in which suitable nourishment is provided, the head of household is not judged to be gravely unwilling if the domestics take something more, provided nevertheless that these foods a) are not handed over or sold to others, and b) there is not question of very precious foods. Certainly if there is question of very precious foods, for example Champagne wine, then the head of household is customarily gravely unwilling that this be consumed by his servants. But even in that case I would not oblige a wife or children of the family to restitution, because then also the head of household is judged to be unwilling more concerning the clandestine mode of taking away and the other evil effects following from it than concerning the taking away itself. - But when foods are given or sold by domestics to outsiders, the obligation of restitution can more easily be present. A wife indeed can lawfully give these things as alms, and children also to some extent; but servants cannot distribute them, and a fortiori cannot sell them, except those things which otherwise would certainly perish.

Concerning petty thefts in paternal tobacco made by children of the family, almost the same thing must be said as concerning petty thefts in food and drink. But the master ordinarily is gravely unwilling that servants should make petty thefts of this kind in tobacco; whence grave matter and the obligation of restitution can coalesce.

2. Wives are rarely bound to restitution on account of other petty thefts committed. For a wife is not a servant, but a companion of her husband, and consequently has some disposition over common goods. Therefore the husband is not gravely unwilling concerning the taking away itself of the thing, but rather concerning the clandestine mode of taking away. If a wife has taken certain things from her own goods, she is never bound to restitution, even if she acted against the will of her husband, to whom pertains only their administration.²⁹ There is almost only one case in which restitution would be necessary: if a wife, altogether unreasonably against the will of her husband, had gradually expended a notable sum of common money, for example by buying entirely superfluous ornaments.

3. Children of the family perpetrating domestic petty thefts are obliged to restitution if, all circumstances considered, the parents truly are gravely unwilling both as to the substance and as to the mode of the taking away.

In practice it is often most difficult to determine whether there is a grave obligation of restitution. If the parents are wealthy and spend many things profusely in the education of the offspring, it can more easily be presumed that they are not gravely unwilling if a son lives somewhat more splendidly and secretly spends a moderate sum taken from his father. But if the parents are not so rich, but sweat in the education of numerous offspring; if especially from the repeated petty thefts of one son his brothers and sisters suffer notable damage, then a stricter judgment must be brought. In this case the words of Proverbs can be applied: "He who withdraws something from his father and from his mother, and says this is not sin, is a partner of a murderer."³⁰ Hence Billuart rightly says³¹ that children of the family are gravely to be blamed and liable to restitution, not only while they steal monies or movable goods from their parents, retain the price of merchandise sold or at least part of it, contract debts to be paid by the parents, but also "while, having been sent to studies or to learn some art, they expend monies handed over to them for buying books, for paying board, etc. ... in drinking bouts, fornications, games, and other illicit and vain things."

All theologians indeed agree in asserting that petty thefts of children of the family coalesce to grave matter, but they wholly disagree in determining the gravity of matter. While Bannez teaches that grave matter is present if a son has stolen yearly 50 gold pieces (about 250 francs) from a rich father, Lessius, Navarre, and others maintain that two or three gold pieces already constitute grave matter.³² Modern theologians commonly assert that in thefts of children of the family, for grave sin there is required matter twice greater than in thefts of outsiders. - But since in practice children of the family who have committed petty thefts very rarely can restore, let the confessor prudently induce those penitents to ask pardon from their parents. For thus those children of the family are salutarily humbled and future sins are guarded against.

4. Servants perpetrating domestic petty thefts are to be judged more severely than wives and children of the family, because the consent of the legitimate owner can much more rarely be presumed. Unless there is question of food and drink consumed by the servants themselves,³³ or unless the presumed permission of the master is present, petty thefts of servants coalesce just as if they were committed by outsiders. For the master is not less but rather more unwilling that a servant, to whom he has committed the care of the domestic matter, should steal something for himself, than that an outsider should do the same; because thus from the infidelity of servants there threatens him a greater danger of grave damage.

What has been said concerning the petty thefts of servants is also valid concerning the petty thefts of workers in the workshops of the owner. But for discerning the obligation of restitution, it is necessary to attend above all to two things: 1. to the damage caused in reality, 2. to the customs perhaps existing in some workshop. For if the proprietor of the workshop in some way knows the custom of petty thefts perpetrated by the workers and does not strenuously contradict it, rarely is there a grave obligation of restitution. Nevertheless workers are seriously to be deterred from petty thefts of this kind.

²⁸ Thus also Billuart, De iur. et iust. diss. 11, a. 5; D'Annibale, Summula theol. mor. II, n. 252.

²⁹ Cf. the things said above, n. 15 sqq., concerning the dominion of wives.

³⁰ Prov. 28, 24.

³¹ De iure et iust. diss. 11, a. 5.

³² Cf. S. Alph., Theol. mor. l. 3, n. 543.

³³ Cf. above under n. 83, 1.

908. Theft light of itself can in many ways become grave (cf. n. 905), but especially: 1. through intention of arriving at grave matter; - 2. through grave damage coming from a light theft; - 3. through conspiracy; - 4. through multiplication.

I. Through intention of arriving at grave matter the thief sins gravely, for example a merchant using false weights, as often as by stealing some very small thing he renews, at least implicitly, his purpose.⁰² The reason is that an external act takes its malice from the internal act, which is gravely sinful. - Say the same concerning him who steals a small quantity with the mind of taking away a notable quantity if he could. But he is held to restitution only under light matter, because the matter is not grave.

II. Through grave damage, which the thief foresaw would come from his light theft, he likewise sins gravely. Thus, for example, to take away a needle from a tailor can be grave matter, if he could not have another by which he would be able to procure a living for himself (H. Ap., X, 22).

He who takes away from an owner a small thing very dear to him, for example a rare and singular flower, first fruits from a tree destined for honoring some distinguished man, and at the same time foresees that the owner will be gravely afflicted from such a loss, sins gravely against charity; but against justice lightly, unless perhaps grave damage is foreseen as to follow from it.

III. Through conspiracy, little thefts are committed when several persons, by common counsel and consent, at the same time or successively, steal some small thing from one or several. - Now, little thefts of this kind are grave sins if, taken together, they constitute matter either relatively or absolutely grave: for then the individual thieves truly and efficaciously cooperate in the whole damage.

We said: by common counsel, because if individuals act independently of one another, whether they were ignorant of, or knew, the damage inflicted by others, then none of them is the cause of the whole grave damage (III, 535 seqq.).

If several, moved by mutual example, commit light thefts, the individuals sin against charity by reason of scandal (and indeed they sin gravely if the total damage is grave, and they could easily have impeded it); but more probably they are not held to restitution solidarily as regards the whole; because example is not a cause directly influencing another's damage, but only an occasion (cf. n. 949, 2nd Cond., and 989). Nevertheless each one, as is clear, is held as regards his own part (III, 537; II, 45).

IV. Through multiplication, light thefts can coalesce into grave matter and induce a grave obligation of restoring.

Light thefts can coalesce physically or morally. Physically, if the things are preserved, so that the heap becomes grave matter. Morally, if the things are indeed consumed, but the thefts are repeated within a brief interval of time. For small little thefts ordinarily an interval of 15-30 days, for greater little thefts an interpolation of two months, prevents the little thefts from coalescing morally (III, 530).

The assertion is proved. 1. It is certain from the thirty-eighth proposition condemned by Innocent XI. - 2. As regards little thefts physically coalescing (whether they injure one or several), there can be a physical union, one heap, from which the thief is enriched unjustly and beyond measure. - As regards little thefts morally coalescing, there is something one in the genus of morals, from which notable damage can arise for a private person, or, if diverse persons have been injured, notable damage for the community and right order. Lugo, l.c., n. 37.

Note. The matter required in small thefts, that it become grave, is not always the same: 1. If they happen to the same person at diverse times, or to diverse persons (if they are few) at the same time, the matter is grave if it exceeds by half the sum commonly required for grave theft. - 2. If they happen to a few diverse persons by diverse occasions, the matter is judged of itself grave if it is twice greater than the sum commonly required for grave theft. - 3. Finally, if they happen to diverse persons in a great number, absolutely grave matter is required, or twice greater than absolutely grave, according as the thefts were committed once or by diverse occasions (III, 530). Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 1115.

909. It is asked: Whether he sins gravely who, after grave matter has been completed, steals still some other light thing?

Resp. It is disputed. The more probable opinion, however, denies, unless, an interruption having been made, for example by the will of restoring, the thief reaches, or intends to reach, another new grave quantity. The reason is that the little theft with respect to taking is certainly light; but with respect to detention it seems to constitute one sin with the preceding: for sin is not multiplied when the purpose of not restoring is renewed or confirmed, but only when it is morally interrupted, as we said in the treatise on Sins (n. 328, Rule 3). Cf. III, 538.

910. From these things you will resolve: 1. Tailors, and their servants, sin gravely against justice, where they reach grave matter, by retaining for themselves or selling fragments of cloth still useful to the owners, which remain over. - Except if somewhere

a custom flourishes that less is paid, and the fragments remain to the tailors; or if it is certain that wealthy owners do not wish fragments to be restored to themselves, or care little about them.

2. Those who dig coal are prohibited from carrying it away for their own use unless a certain price has been paid. - Nevertheless, those who sometimes carry away coals necessary for their family, although they are to be reproved, do not seem to be compelled to restitution; for in mines there is so great an abundance of coals that owners are scarcely to be judged altogether unwilling, and ordinarily they do not employ solicitude to detect thieves of this kind. - It must be said otherwise concerning those who frequently do this, or take away a great quantity of coals deposited on the banks of rivers or elsewhere (Konings, 703, 8).

3. Those who cut wood in the forests of their own community (or neighboring community) do not sin, nor are they held to restitution, unless they make great destruction with damage to the community; because a law strictly prohibiting every cutting of wood is judged to be penal: hence only the penalty is to be paid, and indeed after the sentence of a judge. - But otherwise in the forests of private persons, unless the matter concerns some rather small tree, or dried woods, for which the owner's consent can be presumed (III, 529, q. 1). - As regards the poor, it is certain that they can gather dried woods not only for burning, but also for selling, if they are in grave necessity. Cf. Gopfert, II, n. 148, where there are many things.

4. Those who eat fruits in the vineyards or orchards of others can easily be excused, provided they carry nothing outside, and the fruits are not rare and of great price. That this is probably licit is gathered from Deut., 23, 24 (likewise Luke, 6, 1), and from the law of charity which among Christians mitigates the rigor of right. - This at least is certain, "that in thefts of exposed things, as are fruits beside roads and woods in forests, that the theft be grave, greater matter is required" (H. Ap., X, 23). Yet we would add this: that the value of fruits, even exposed ones, in the common estimation, has much increased today.

911. Note. The confessor, in small thefts, indeed ought not to urge restitution, yet neither should he easily dissimulate, but according to the condition and capacity of persons should always enjoin some restitution, to be made to the creditors themselves or to the poor. For otherwise, when they are dismissed with impunity, penitents become more prone to little thefts of this kind, and they make a step toward greater ones (Lessius, l. 2, c. 12, n. 50; Ami du Cl., 1903, p. 97).

407. Principle IV. Small thefts can morally be united and coalesce, both by reason of intention into one grave injustice, and by reason of moral conjunction into one gravely unjust damage, and by reason of physical conjunction into one gravely unjust detention.

1° By reason of intention, if someone commits small thefts either against one person or against several persons, with the intention of arriving at a notable sum, or of becoming notably richer, or of bringing grave damage. This man, on account of the intention, sins gravely from the first theft, and commits only one mortal sin, unless he revokes the intention and afterward renews it.

Thus he who, intending to steal two hundred coins, so that he may carry out his plan more safely, again and again steals two or three coins; he who uses false weights, although on each occasion he defrauds little; he who, under a feigned pretext, successively begs a great sum of money from various persons. The same holds of an innkeeper who is accustomed to mix a little water with wine, unless there is a general custom; - of tailors who retain for themselves or sell fragments of cloth still useful to the owners, which are left over, unless somewhere a custom is in force or less is paid while the fragments remain to the tailor, or unless it is established that wealthy owners do not wish the fragments to be restored to them or care little about them; - and something similar holds of millers who retain for themselves a small part of the grain or flour.

2° By reason of moral conjunction and unjust damage, if someone has committed several light thefts without the intention of arriving at grave matter, - which besides he did not preserve by accumulating but consumed by dissipating successively, - nevertheless afterward, by adding theft, in fact arrives at a quantity gravely harmful; provided that a) the thefts are not too distant, so that they cannot morally coalesce into one; b) the individual thefts have not been efficaciously revoked or restored; c) and the thief notices that relatively grave matter is being completed. This man sins venially on each occasion, but in the last act by which he completes grave damage he sins mortally, because then knowingly and willingly he inflicts notable damage. Thus if a grave quantity is taken away from the same owner; for if it is done from diverse persons, grave damage is brought to no one and only light thefts are committed, unless they were so very frequent that from this great damage threatened the common good and public security.

In practice: only those are judged to be morally united which are committed within a short interval, for example, within two months; and for very small thefts, still less time is required. Things rather notable, repeated rather often, finally coalesce at some point, because it is scarcely possible that the intention of arriving at a notable sum be lacking; the contrary is true for very small things.

3° By reason of physical conjunction and unjust detention, if someone, knowingly and willingly, retains in itself or in an equivalent a great quantity of another's good, even if taken away from several persons through light thefts. This man sins mortally, even if no moral union is present among the little thefts committed, because the detention of another's thing in a great quantity, no less than taking away, brings great detriment upon society. For just as it is disordered to become rich unjustly, so it is gravely disordered to become notably rich from injustice. Whence Innocent condemned proposition 38: "One is not bound under the penalty of mortal sin to restore what has been taken away by a few thefts, however great the total sum may be."

Light thefts following upon grave matter already completed do not constitute a new mortal sin, unless they again reach a new grave quantity, or unless they are considered as one thing with the preceding grave matter, because then they include approval of it (I, n. 550).

Many add: also by reason of conspiracy; but this pertains to another question, namely, concerning cooperation in others' sins (n. 317).

408. Remarks. - 1. All concede that, for constituting a grave sin by coalescing small thefts, a greater quantity is required than if a thing of great value were stolen at once and once for all; because the damage is not felt so much and does not bring equally grave sadness and displeasure; - unless however a little time intervenes, for example, one or two days: for then the same quantity suffices, because the taking is judged to be one and the owner to be equally unwilling.

2. That greater quantity can be determined only from the estimation of prudent men, all circumstances having been considered. In ordinary circumstances, the prudent estimation of St. Alphonsus can be observed, according to whom, if the thefts are made at intervals from the same owner, a quantity greater by half is required; if from diverse owners, a quantity twice as great as otherwise would be demanded in the same circumstances.

3. Even if small thefts do not attain grave sin, some restitution under light obligation is to be imposed, lest penitents make a step from small thefts to greater ones, and lest by multiplying small ones they then attain grave matter.

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.

Because this can happen in many ways, it also raises many questions.

For it can be that all the petty thefts are done with the intention of aggregating a grave quantity; it can also be that they are done without this intention. Again, it can be that those petty thefts are done against the same person, or against several different ones; taking from one a single dipondium; from another another thing.

As to the first. I assert first that he who from the beginning intends to take from one a grave quantity sins mortally by that intention; and afterwards, while he commits the individual petty thefts, he also sins mortally. Thus they teach commonly. Sanchez Tom. II. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. Less. tom. I. l. 2. cap. 12. Fort. dub. 7. num. 36. Rebellius p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 4. num. 30. Petrus Navar. l. 3. de restit. cap. 1. num. 50. Sotus l. 5. de Iust. quaest. 5. ad 3. Medina de Restit. quaest. 10. Lopez p. 1. cap. 93. Fagundez in septimum praeceptum decal. l. 7. cap. 15. num. 3. Bassaeus v. Furtum 1. numer. 8. and the following:

It is proved, because, as the S. Doctor argues in 7. praeceptum decal., to damage another gravely is mortal; but he intends thus to damage: Therefore.

I assert second that the same must be said of him who intends to take a grave quantity from several. Thus the Doctors alleged.

It is proved, because that wicked intention is mortal: Therefore, since the individual petty thefts proceed from that will, they will be deadly. Otherwise they would not be gravely reproached by God with those who use false measures; Oseae 12. Chanaan in manu statera dolosa. Proverb. 11. Statera dolosa abominatio est ante Deum. For although each one is damaged but moderately, yet the Republic is gravely offended, because innumerable evils are poured in. And from this crime merchants very rarely escape, as the S. Doctor warned cap. 6. in Decalogum.

Yet Lessius notes, num. 49. com., that in the individual petty thefts a new mortal sin is not committed, but the one already begun is continued; for even if the same will continues, it can be that in each one it is not renewed, but he steals by the power of the first wicked will.

Hence they also deduce that he is held to restitution, which, if it be too arduous to be made to each individual, must be made to the poor.

The greater question is: If in the individual petty thefts he has no further mind of stealing, nor from the beginning conceived the mind of arriving at a notable quantity, but commits the smallest petty thefts from the occasion offered; whether in the last one, by which grave matter is made, he sins mortally, if he remembers the others, although he does not intend to steal gravely.

And indeed, if he does not advert to it, he is only materially so situated, as Nauar. teaches Sum. Lat. cap. 17. num. 130. Sanchez Tomo 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 20. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. dub. 9. Fagundez num. 11.

The first opinion is that he does not sin in that last taking of the worthless thing; yet he sins in the retention, because, positing that last petty theft, the grave matter is completed, which he unjustly retains. Thus Nauar. Summa Latina, cap. 17. num. 139. Vega l. 14. in Concil. Tridentinum cap. 11. Graff. p. 1. decis. lib. 3. cap. 5. num. 51. et lib 2. cap. 95. num. 18. Carbo de restit. quaest. 2. Lessius l. 2. de Iust. cap. 12. dub. 8. num. 43. Iason leg. si idem cum eodem, ff. de iudic. omnium iud. and there, Decius num. 1. and 16. Claudius num. 1. and 2. Farinac. consil. 78. num. 3. Filliuc. tomo 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 243. Rodriquez Summa tomo 4. cap. 118. num. 29. Salas in p. 1. quaest. 58. tract. 13. disp. 16. sect. 17. num. 88. Tolcius l. 5. cap. 16. num. 4. and others. Diana judges it probable p. 1. Tract. de Paupertate Relig. resol. 34. who says that, in the sentence of Nauarrus and the others, when they existed, it is precisely then a sin not to restore, and the thief would have become richer from it. Thus teach Granado in primam 2. contr. 6. tract. 2. disp. 2. sect. 5. num. 49. Lorca p. 1. tom. 2.

Indeed Emanuel Sà asserted that he neither sins mortally nor is held to restitution, v. Furtum, num. 8. Nauar. lib. 3. consil. 3. de statu Monachorum, num. 17. Berarducius in Summa Corona, p. 1. cap. 1. num. 18. and Fernandez in Exam. p. 1. cap. 6. §. 2. num. 12. These speak of things stolen from one and the same, much less from several.

But the COMMON sentence is that a mortal sin is probably committed in that last petty theft of a most trifling thing, with advertence to the past thefts, if in it the grave quantity is completed. Thus Sanchez Tom. 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 6. Rodriquez Tomo 1. Summa in 2. edit. cap. 150. num. 8. concl. 8. Valentia 2. 2. disp. 5. p. 5. in finem. Sayrus l. 9. cap. 15. num. 22. Petrus Ledesma 2. Tom. tract. 8. cap. 21. num. 2. Lopez p. 1. cap. 93. col. 2. quaest. 2. Nauar. l. 3. de restitut. cap. 1. p. 1. dub. 5. a num. 52. Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 1. num. 30. Maior in 4. dist. 1. 15. quaest. 25. Ioan. Medina Cod. de restitut. quaest. 10. Sotus lib. 5. de Iust. quaest. 3. art. 5. ad 3. Mercado l. 3. de contract. cap. 4. fol. 129. Couar. l. 1. var. cap. 3. num. 11. Corduba Summa, quaest. 70. p. 2. Bartholomeus Medina l. 2. quaest. 88. art. 4. ad 3. Vasquez ibi disp. 146. cap. 2. num. 5. ibi Zumel art. 4. Aragon 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Salon. ibi, controu. 3. quaest. 20. Azor. tomo 1. lib. 4. cap. 9. quaestio 11. Reginaldus T. 1. l. 23. cap. 1. quaest. 4. Ledesma T. 2. tract. 8. cap. 10. Tannerus disp. 4. quaest. 8. dub. 6. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 3. num. 23. Caspens. tract. 18. disp. 5. sect. 5. Faust. in thesi. l. 8. quaest. 189. Baffaeus, v. Furtum, t. 1. n. 8. They speak, moreover, even if the petty thefts are taken from many. Diana says this must be embraced, adding some appendices with Baffaeus. A moral continuation is indeed required. They add that with respect to someone at least of the community there ought to be such a loss.

The reason is, because from that last petty theft, joined to the others, a notable injury is composed; for even if no damage is inflicted on one only, nevertheless it is inflicted on the Republic; otherwise someone could enrich himself by taking an obol from each individual workman.

Nor does the distinction of the first opinion please; for to retain and to usurp is the same sin: Therefore he who sins mortally by retaining sins also by usurping. See Sanchez Tomo 1. decal. lib. 2. cap. 4. num. 10.

This seems to be the sentence of D. Bonauentura in Confessionali, cap. 5. part. 20. where he notes the penalties given for false measures and weights ex C. Mogunt. namely thirty days on bread and water, and he adds various penalties of exile; and as if concerning falsifying. And Lex Cornelia, and tit. de ordin. circa Amenam, circa finem. Hence a grave argument is drawn: If those petty thefts from various persons were allowed, without restitution or grave guilt, grave evils of false measures and weights could be poured into the Republic. But S. Bonaventure places these there in order with respect to the matter necessary for confession.

Moreover, that a very small quantity added to the others, and with them constituting grave matter, makes a mortal sin, not indeed a solitary one but with the others, the Doctors commonly judge, a long list of those reported by Fagundez in septimum Praeceptum decal. l. 7. cap. 5. num. 4. and they are almost in the manner alleged.

Truly, indeed, in the external forum there is no heaping up of several moderate thefts to one penalty of death, as Iason says in Leg. si idem cum eodem, num. 3. and 4. ff. de iudic. omnium iudicum, where Decius num. 1. and 16. and Claudius num. 1. and Farinacius consilio 78. num. 3.

But Diana limits the second sentence: those trifling things are gathered into one, if the mass is made from the same kind of business, or from the mind of enriching oneself. Thus also Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 3. num. 44. Tanner. t. 3. disp. 4. quaest. 6. dub. 9. num. 247. Bonac. de contract. disput. 2. quaest. 8. puncto 2. But this reason does not please Sanchez Sum. t. 2. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 16. and deservedly; for what reason is there for the taking to be mortal, if the grave matter coalesces from different businesses?

Next he says, those petty thefts coalesce into one when between them there is not a great interpolation of time; and it will be notable, according to Sanchez and others, if it is of one year, or according to Filliucius Tomo 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 244. and Diana, of one month, or half.

He adds, third, that a much greater quantity is required to constitute mortal matter, and the fault is the smaller the more numerous are the owners into whom the damage is divided. Thus also Sanchez num. 17. Rebell. num. 43. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 5. num. 36. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. disp. 8. num. 46. and Diana concludes that a double quantity is required than in other thefts.

He says, fourth, that the said sentence has no place with respect to the trifling thefts of eatables, which are committed by servants and maidservants, that they may eat. Thus also Megala num. 43. Lessius num. 48. Nauar. cap. 17. n. 138. Reginald. Tom. 2. lib. 23. cap. 1. num. 22. Petrus Nauar. de restit. l. 3. cap. 1. num. 5. dub. 6. num. 202. Sayrus l. 9. cap. 15. num. 17. Bannes 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Caietanus, v. Furtum, and others in Fagundez lib. 7. cap. 11.

Finally he notes, that those stealing thus are not held under mortal fault to restitution of the whole stolen quantity; but only to that part, upon the restitution of which the notable quantity ceases, sought for mortal theft. Thus Aragon. 2. 2. quaest. 66. art. 6. Rebell. p. 1. l. 3. quaest. 15. sect. 4. num. 29. Megala 2. 2. l. 2. cap. 1. quaest. 5. num. 25. Nauar. de restit. lib. 3. cap. 1. p. 10. dub. 8. num. 62. Filliuc. tom. 2. tract. 31. cap. 10. num. 247. and others, to whom Caspensis subscribes Tract. 18. sect. 9. Baff. v. Furtum 1. num. 8.

This, however, does not please me; for restitution is compelled by justice gravely injured; but the injury is grave by reason of the whole, not of the particle alone, and although this raises it up to matter grave, it is not alone, nor the greater part.

He adds also another question: Whether a Religious, gradually filching eatables for his own use together with another companion, sins mortally when they reach a grave quantity: He answers negatively, and alleges many Doctors.

From what has been said it also follows that, if many together, each stealing a little, steal from one, so that they make grave matter, all are held in solidum to restitution. Thus Sanchez Tomo 2. Decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 19. Petrus Navar. l. 3. de restit. cap. 1. num. 41. Less. l. 2. cap. 12. dub. 9. Fagundez l. 7. cap. 14. Bassaeus num. 9. Understand this, if they agree on the petty thefts by communicated counsel.

But if not by communicated counsel, yet accomplices of one another's theft, advertent of the notable damage; whether they sin mortally is asked.

They commonly answer affirmatively. See the Doctors in Bassaeum, Fagundez num. 14. Yet others deny, in the same ibi, num. 6. and Sanchez T. 2. decal. l. 7. cap. 21. num. 21. Caspensem tract. 18. disp. 5. sect. 9. and Diana p. 1. Tract. 17. resol. 42. Vasquez p. 25. disp. 146. num. 6.

You will object. If by proceeding from an obol to a ducat there is a certain quantity which makes a mortal sin; and what is less is not a mortal sin: Therefore every theft will be by its nature either mortal or venial, because it is incredible that by the addition of one obol the matter of sin can be so changed, that what was venial becomes mortal.

Tanner. ANSWERS num. 122. by denying the consequence, because prudent estimation and the providence of God require that one finally arrive at a notable quantity, which will easily be persuaded if we consider also in natural things that the last degrees of quality dispose to the induction of a substantial form; thus the last particle of water hollows out the stone, sinks the ship; the last blow kills.

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:

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

2. In England, on account of the lesser value of money, is a larger sum required for grave matter than among other nations of Europe?

3. Do small thefts coalesce, and how?

4. What is to be said of the case?

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

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.

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

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.

3. Do small thefts coalesce, and how?

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.

4. 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.