1901. What is grave matter in theft of sacred objects? (a) If these objects have a value that may be measured by money (e.g., the gold or jewels that enter into a reliquary), grave matter is estimated by the material value, just as in profane objects. (b) If these objects have no monetary value (e.g., sacred relics), grave matter is judged from the dignity or rarity of the object. Thus, it would be a serious sin to steal even the smallest splinter from the True Cross.
1902. It was said above (1898) that the gravity of theft is estimated, not only by the property loss, but also by the personal loss, that is, the reluctance, unwillingness or sorrow of the owner at the deprivation of his goods. This does not mean that a greater unwillingness on the part of the owner increases the gravity of the theft, if the owner"s unwillingness is excessive or unreasonable (e.g., it is not a mortal sin of theft to steal a dollar from a miser, if the miser on account of his love of money feels the loss as keenly as another person in his place would feel the loss of $40). But a less unwillingness of the owner diminishes the injury, and hence increases the amount necessary for grave matter. There are three reasons especially that diminish the unwillingess of the owner at the loss of his property.
(a) Thus, by reason of the persons who steal, the owner is less unwilling when these persons have a greater claim on his affection (e.g., his children or wife), or when custom permits them to some extent a greater freedom than is granted to others (e.g., servants, employees).
(b) By reason of the things stolen, the owner is less unwilling when these are things of less value, like crops, that are produced mostly by nature and are left exposed, such as fruits growing by the wayside, branches and pieces of fallen timber lying on uncultivated land.
(c) By reason of the manner of the theft, the owner is usually less unwilling when goods are taken gradually and on several occasions, or piecemeal, than when they are taken all at once.
1903. The Common Opinion on Domestic Thefts and Grave Matter.--(a) In theft from one"s parents about double the usual quant.i.ty is required.
But in an individual case the parents may be just as unwilling, and with good reason, to be despoiled by members of the family as by outsiders, and in such a case the rule would not apply. Hence, in considering thefts by children one must bear in mind the ability of the family to suffer the loss, the number of the children, the uses to which the stolen goods are put, the liberality or thrift of the parents, the affection or dislike which the parents have for the child who steals, etc. Thus, if poor parents are denying themselves in every way in order to rear and educate a large family, thefts from them are a serious matter.
(b) In theft from one"s husband even a greater amount is required. But there are exceptions, as when the husband is especially unwilling to have his property stolen by his wife, for example, when the money she takes is devoted, not to the benefit of the family or other useful purposes, but to vanity or sin, or to the great detriment of the husband or family (see 1799).
1904. Theft from One"s Wife or Minor Child.--(a) According to the law in the United States, a wife cannot steal from her husband nor the husband from the wife, but this principle has reference to the common property of which husband and wife are joint tenants (Robinson, _Elementary Law_, 563). Both husband and wife may have also their own separate property, and in that case either of them is guilty of injustice if he or she damages or takes without leave the goods of the other.
(b) According to American law, the father has the right to the earnings of his minor children who live with him and receive their maintenance from him; but the law gives the father no right over the separate real or personal estate of these children. Hence, a parent would be guilty of theft if he unlawfully took or used the individual property of his child.
1905. The Common Opinion on Thefts Committed by Employees.--(a) If the things stolen are small articles which the employer customarily supplies for his help (e.g., food and drink for domestic servants, pencils and paper for his clerks), the theft is not serious as a rule.
But there are exceptions, as when the employee gives or sells to others these articles, or when he uses or wastes them to such a degree that the employer suffers a considerable loss. And one should also consider such circ.u.mstances as the great or small value of the services given by the employee, his good or bad standing with the employer, etc.
(b) If the thing stolen is not meant for consumption (e.g., furnishings of the home or office, merchandise of the store, tools or machinery of the factory) or is of a very precious kind (e.g., rare wines or expensive brands of tobacco), grave matter is of the same amount as when an outside person does the stealing. In fact, the guilt of the employee is more serious on account of his abuse of confidence or violation of contract. The property of employers would be subject to constant risk, if employees were permitted greater liberties than outsiders.
1906. Theft of Things about Whose Loss the Owner Is Less Concerned.--(a) Vegetation that Belongs to the Public and Is Left Unprotected.--If these things are of minor importance (e.g., wild fruits or berries, broken twigs, branches, etc., in public lands), it seems that it is not theft to take them, at least when one is poor and a member of the community; for laws against such acts are generally regarded as penal. But one sins, and may even sin gravely, when extensive damage is done to public property (e.g., by cutting down trees, carrying away flowers and plants, injuring shrubs, etc.).
(b) Vegetation that Belongs to Private Parties and Is Left Unprotected.--If only a small quant.i.ty is taken (e.g., an apple or a bunch of grapes hanging over a public highway taken by a pa.s.serby), it seems no theft is done, unless the owner or law expressly forbids. But it seems to be a venial sin to take more (e.g., as much as a hungry person can eat), and a mortal sin to take a quant.i.ty whose market value is equal to grave matter.
1907. Travelling Without Paying Fare.--Is it theft to ride in public conveyances without paying the fare?
(a) If one rides without payment or ticket, it seems that theft is committed, unless the company is willing to give a free ride. It may be said that the company suffers no loss on account of one pa.s.senger who has not paid for his transportation, since the same number of cars and the same expenses would be required even without that pa.s.senger. But since the owners are unwilling to furnish their service gratis, he who takes it without pay is guilty of theft.
(b) If one rides without payment, but uses the ticket of another, there is no injustice if the rules of the company permit this (e.g., A buys a round-trip ticket, but gives the return ticket to B), but there is fraud if the rules of the company and the agreement of the purchaser make the ticket non-transferable (e.g., B uses the half-rate ticket which A had received as a personal privilege from the railroad company).
1908. Small Thefts Which Amount to a Large Sum.--Small amounts stolen may acc.u.mulate 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 acc.u.mulate 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.
1909. Small thefts that grow into a large theft are mortally sinful in the following cases:
(a) they are mortally sinful by reason of the previous intention when one steals a little now and a little again, but has it in mind from the outset to steal a total sum that will be grave matter, or when one conspires with others to steal a notable sum although one"s own share will not be a notable amount. In these cases the purpose is to commit a grave injustice, either against an individual (if all is taken from one person) or against society (if portions are taken from various persons), and hence one is internally guilty of grave sin, even though one has not yet performed it externally. Examples are merchants who use false weights and measures, or who adulterate their commodities with small portions of water, etc., and thus make large profits by minute cheating;
(b) they are mortally sinful by reason of the subsequent intention when one had no purpose to steal a large amount, but adverts to the fact that a small theft here and now committed will const.i.tute grave matter if added to previous petty thefts, or that the amount of stolen goods now possessed is large, and nevertheless resolves to go ahead with the theft or to retain the stolen goods. This does not mean that a number of venial sins coalesce into a mortal sin (see 189), but only that the object of a sin which is slight in itself becomes serious on account of the circ.u.mstance that it is morally connected with previous sins. The last act in a connected series must not be taken singly, but in connection with the acts that precede, as is seen in the violation of a fast or in omission of parts of an hour. In the cases now considered, therefore, grave injustice is actually and purposely done, and mortal sin is committed, even though there was no thought of this in advance.
1910. The case of young men who are educated free of charge in the expectation that they will go on to the priesthood and who do not persevere.--(a) If they act in bad faith (i.e., if they enter the college or seminary merely to get their education, or to avoid work, or if they remain after they have abandoned thought of the clerical state), they are guilty of theft and bound to rest.i.tution.
(b) If they are not in bad faith (i.e., if they wish to try out their vocation, or if they begin with the intention to persevere), they are not guilty of injustice. This is true, even though they are rejected on account of idleness or other faults, provided there was no intention to defraud.
1911. In the following cases small thefts which added to others make a large sum seem not to be the cause of grave loss, and hence not mortally sinful:
(a) the small theft of one person following on the small thefts of others, when there is no bond of example, advice, conspiracy, etc., to unite the various thefts; for none of the thieves can be held responsible for the part of the loss caused by the others. Example: t.i.tus, knowing that Balbus has been cheated by various persons to the amount of $9 and that $10 will be a serious loss to Balbus, proceeds to steal $1 from Balbus:
(b) the small thefts of several persons who steal together, and who influence one another only by example; for example is an occasion, not a true cause of the imitator"s act (see 1447, 1763). Example: Semp.r.o.nius and Claudius go into a store together and find that there is no one around. Semp.r.o.nius thereupon steals a number of articles and leaves. Claudius notices this and steals other things, which will make the total loss serious.
1912. 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 rest.i.tution 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.
1913. 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 s.p.a.ce, sufficient to prevent union between thefts, but that two months is too short a s.p.a.ce 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 surpa.s.s 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 pa.s.sed.
1914. Species and Number of Petty Thefts that Coalesce into Grave Matter.--(a) If the thefts proceed from a previously formed purpose of stealing by installments a large sum, each of them is a mortal sin, but they do not form numerically distinct sins, unless there was a revocation of the intent (see 214, 215).
(b) If the thefts did not proceed from a previously formed plan, those that preceded the culminating theft (i.e., the one whose addition makes the quant.i.ty grave) are so many separate venial sins of theft. The culminating theft is a mortal sin, if the thief adverts to the fact that he has now stolen a notable sum; otherwise it is a venial sin. The act, after the gravity of the matter has been noticed, is the initial mortal sin, if it means consent to the grave injustice done (e.g., retention of the ill-gotten goods, intention not to make rest.i.tution); it is an additional mortal sin, if it means a renewal of consent to the grave injustice previously done (e.g., the theft of a new small amount with the purpose of keeping it as well as the rest).
1915. Sum Required for Grave Matter in Petty Thefts that Coalesce.--(a) According to one opinion, it is always larger than the sum required for grave matter in a theft of the same amount on a single occasion; for the owner does not feel the loss so much when his goods are stolen in small amounts and at different times. Thus, a man is less unwilling to have $100 stolen from him through pilferings of cents and dollars over a period of a year or two than to have it all stolen from him on one day.
(b) According to another opinion, grave matter for petty thefts is not larger than grave matter for large thefts of the same amount, if the petty thief had the intention all along to acc.u.mulate a notable sum.
But some who are of this opinion make an exception for the case when the petty thief steals not from one but from several owners, for in this way the loss is distributed and less harm done. Grave matter in this case, they say, is the same as absolutely grave matter.
1916. There are various opinions on the amounts required for grave matter in the case of petty thefts that coalesce. (a) If all the thefts are against the same person, the usual opinion fixes grave matter at one and one-half times or twice the amount fixed for large thefts. Some authors limit this to cases wherein the thief had not the purpose from the beginning to steal a great amount (see 1915), and some state that the amount for large thefts which is considered is the relative, not the absolute sum. (b) If the thefts are against different persons, some think that grave matter is the same as the absolute matter of one large theft, while others make it one and one-half times or twice that amount. Here again some moralists limit these increases in the sum for grave matter to cases wherein there was no purpose from the beginning to steal a notable amount.
1917. Theft from Joint Owners.--Is it a grave sin to steal a considerable amount of property that belongs to joint owners? (a) If the amount taken is absolutely grave, the sin is serious for the reasons given in 1898 sqq.; (b) if the amount taken is relatively grave (e.g., because a community is very poor, or because the owners are only two or three and the individual loss is heavy), the sin is serious; (c) if the amount taken is not relatively grave, as happens when an organization is not poor and has many members or when the loss will be so distributed among the joint owners as to be little felt by them individually, the sin is not serious.
1918. Rest.i.tution in Cases of Theft.--(a) Rest.i.tution is owed for the property stolen. He who stole a serious amount but gave back part, retaining only what is light matter, is bound under venial sin to restore the rest. Confessors should urge rest.i.tution even of small amounts, when possible, in order to deter men from theft, and it may sometimes be useful to require children to seek a condonation from their parents for a similar reason. (b) Rest.i.tution is owed also for damage caused by the theft (see 1895). Thus, if one steals the tool of a poor farmer, which is of little value in itself but which brings on him a serious loss, one is responsible for the loss as well as for the tool.
1919. Cases of Doubt.--(a) Doubts of Law.--The rules given by moralists on grave matter in thefts are not to be regarded as certain and authentic, since they are only the opinions of theologians, and have no obligatory sanction from the Church. They are reasonable and well founded, indeed, but in spite of them there will occur cases wherein it is doubtful whether a theft is mortal or venial (see 1896). It is no disgrace to be ignorant in such difficult cases, for St. Augustine himself admitted that he did not always know where to draw the line.
Hence, confessors should not feel obliged to decide with finality in every instance whether the sin committed was in itself grave or light; on the contrary, it will sometimes be necessary to avoid a definite answer, while calling attention to the sinfulness of all theft and the duty of rest.i.tution. But the obligation of rest.i.tution should not be imposed as certain, where the doctors disagree.
(b) Doubts of Fact.--The application of the rules for grave matter will also be at times very difficult on account of uncertainties about circ.u.mstances of time, person, etc. In such cases one must have recourse to the systems for decision in the presence of a doubtful conscience. If a thief does not know from whom he stole, it may be doubtful whether the matter is relatively grave or only light; but the presumption then will be that the loser was a person of average means.
Again, when there is a strong likelihood that an owner was not greatly unwilling, one must insist that the thefts cease for the future, but one cannot always impose rest.i.tution. If a petty thief does not know how much he stole, or whether all the thefts were from the same person, or whether the intervals between the thefts were great or small, or whether he had the intention from the outset to take a large sum, the confessor will have to form an opinion by questioning the penitent on the time of his last confession, the amounts he generally took, the general frequency of the thefts, etc.
1920. Conversion of Others" Property.--The conversion of property owned by others or held by them may be permitted, or at least tolerated, when the owner or possessor would be unreasonable if he objected as in the following cases:
(a) in extreme necessity, for according to natural law each one has the right to preserve his life by using the temporal things of the earth (see 1571). In danger of death things necessary for escaping the danger become common property, and no injury is done by the person in danger if he uses the goods of another person to save his own life;
(b) in certain cases when occult compensation is the only way in which one can defend or secure one"s right to property, for it is not wrong to take what is one"s due, if this is done without harm to the rights of others.
1921. Conditions for Lawful Occupation of the Goods of Others in Extreme Need.--(a) The occupation must be necessary for securing one"s own or another"s natural right to some supreme good, such as life or what is almost the equivalent of life (e.g., freedom from cruel restraint, escape from fearful disease). A supreme good is at stake, then, when one is in extreme, quasi-extreme, or most grave need (see 1236), that is, exposed to the certain or very probable peril of losing life, limbs, liberty, sight, chast.i.ty, etc.; occupation is necessary when there is no other way (e.g., by begging) to avert the danger.