The Catholic bulletin. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1911-1995, 1918-02-23
THEFT.

The Seventh Commandments formal
ly forbids stealing: Chou shalt not
steal" Hence the first sin to cOnsid-
err, under this Commandment, is that
Of theft; all unjust taking away or
keeping what belongs to another We
must notice that only the unjust TAX
ing away or keeping Of our neighbours
goods is forbidden under pain of sin,
for it may happen that person may
be justly deprived or kept out Of the
use and enjoyment of what belongs to
| him. Thus, for example, person may
refuse to pay q fine inflicted by the
State for an infringement Of its laws.
In such a case the money may be TAX
Ell from him by the public officers in
the manner prescribed by law So, too,
in the case of an, insane person who
seeks possession of a deadly weapon,
which belongs to him, but which he
would probably use in a destructive
way. Not only may it be lawfully kept
from him, but it would even be a sin
to place it in his hands. In these and
like instances no sin is committed in
taking or OBTAINING what belongs to an
other, but in all other cases we are
strictly forbidden to deprive our neigh
Dor of what is lawfully his or to keep
him from the possession Of it.
First of all, those are guilty in the
highest degree of unjustly taking away
| what belongs TO another, who commit
| the sin of theft accompanied by VIC
lence. This kind of robbery is more
grievous than ordinary sins of theft
because OF the violence employed, and
the terror, anxiety, or personal INJURY
caused to the person who is plum
dered. Hence, too, the punishment in
flicted by the law in such cases is far
more severe than that melted out to
simple thieves. = 49,
The sin Of theft is Of itself grieVous,
as is clear from the fact that it is
against Justice and charity; and, as
before noted, St Paul classes it among
the sins that exclude the sinner from
the Kingdom of Heaven. However,
like other sins of injustice, it is some
times venial on account of light mat
ter; hence the practical question aris-
es as to when theft is a mortal sin and
when it is only yenial. What amount
must be taken TO constitute a mortal
sin of theft? The general principle on
which the quantity required for grave
sins depends is the damage caused by
the theft; for it is a grave sin to cause
grave damage without just reason
However, in the case of very rich per
sons or companies We must consider
not only the personal and particular
damage done to them by the theft, but
lionaire would not be appreciably
worse off for the loss of a few hun
dred dollars, but what harm is done
to the security of property and the
protection that society demands. So
we must have an absolute sum that
will determine the gravity of theft
without reference to the condition of
the owner. Theologians dc not agree
Oh this matter and it is difficult point
to decide owing to varying circum-
stances of time and place and con-
stantly changing values. Under pres
lent circumstances, in civilized cOun-
tries where similar conditions of com
merce prevail, the common opinion
fixes five dollars as the absolute sum
required for a grave sin of theft,
though in our own country, under nor
NAL conditions, some theologians, con-
sidering the purchasing power of
money here, require not less than ten
dollars, while others go much higher.
However, a mortal sin of theft may
fbe committed by stealing a much less
sum than any of the, aboye-mentioned
if the theft cause great harm to the
owner. 1t is the general opinion that
| the theft of one dollar from a poor
person, from one to two dollars from
a laboring man, from two to three
dollars from the middling rich class
and five dollars from those who are
Comfortably fixed" constitutes suffi-
4 cient matter for mortal sin. But
this rule, too, suffers many exceptions.
To steal only the value Of fifty cents
from a very poor person. who needs
it for food, or to steal tool of little
value in itself but which is indispen-
sable for mans daily work, would
be sin just as grievous as to steal
ten or more dollars from very rich
lperson.
Matter which in itself is grave may
become light on account of special cir
lcumstances. Thus, although grave
necessity does not excuse theft, yet it
may lessen the sin and cause to be
y venial what would otherwise be NOR
i tai. In the salneEWay.s less unwilling.
I ness on the part alof4 the owner may
q lessen the sin. AZ father is less nn-
willing, as a rule, that a little Of his