Anglican priest's new commandment: Thou shalt shoplift

  • Thread starter Thread starter NCSue
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
What he actually said is more nuanced than you report. His argument was that if one is starving or in other dire need then it may be on one level justified to take what you need from a large multinational retailer. The point he was making was that this would be preferable to commiting other crimes such as burglary, mugging or violent crime. He also stated that one should only take what one really needs and that one should not steal from small, local, independent or family run shops.

It is related to a moral dilemma commonly used for discussion in Ethic courses: would a man whose wife was dying be doing wrong if he stole the drugs that she needed to stay alive? It is not as straightforward as you might think.

It is always a problem when the highly educated and thoughtful person discusses things in public that are not black and white. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Benedict suffer from the same problem. This Vicar should have used his better judgement and not said anything about it all from the pulpit. This ‘storm’ and kind of reporting is so predictable.
 
Fran65 said:
What he actually said is more nuanced than you report. His argument was that if one is starving or in other dire need then it may be on one level justified to take what you need from a large multinational retailer. The point he was making was that this would be preferable to commiting other crimes such as burglary, mugging or violent crime. He also stated that one should only take what one really needs and that one should not steal from small, local, independent or family run shops.
Click to expand...
I can’t agree with his argument. It’s like saying that prostitution is justified in order to prevent child sexual abuse. Besides, where’s the evidence that committing “little sins” prevents “bigger sins”? Isn’t it just as likely that committing ANY sin can serve to desensitize the conscience and lead to still more (or even bigger) sins?
 
He’s not arguing that a small sin prevents a bigger sin. He’s saying that if it’s a case of saving a life then it would be justified. It is similar to the just war argument. Christians are justified in commiting violence and killing others if it is in the cause of protecting themselves and others. Think of it as like the difference between justifiable force when defending yourself and attacking someone for revenge. In the UK we have a case of a man who took a cricket bat to a house burglar, (after he had left his house) almost killed him and caused brain damage. He was jailed. In other cases the attacker has been acquited as the force used was reasonable in the circumstances. The vicar is saying here that it is reasonable in the circumstances to take desperately needed food.

He’s not saying steal steak if all you can afford is corned beef. He’s saying that if you are literally starving and have no money and nowhere to go for a legitimate meal then (and only then) you may be justified in taking enough to keep body and soul together for that day from a superstore.

Are you saying that you are one of those who would condemn starving child for stealing a stale loaf bread? It is a sin, no one is saying that it isn’t; however, it is understandable and forgiveable in the circumstances described.
 
Even his church hierarchy doesn’t defend his rewriting the commandments. When we humans set ourselves up in the position of God, overruling His law because we have a “better idea”, we’re in trouble.
 
Fran65 said:
What he actually said is more nuanced than you report. His argument was that if one is starving or in other dire need then it may be on one level justified to take what you need from a large multinational retailer. The point he was making was that this would be preferable to commiting other crimes such as burglary, mugging or violent crime. He also stated that one should only take what one really needs and that one should not steal from small, local, independent or family run shops.

It is related to a moral dilemma commonly used for discussion in Ethic courses: would a man whose wife was dying be doing wrong if he stole the drugs that she needed to stay alive? It is not as straightforward as you might think.

It is always a problem when the highly educated and thoughtful person discusses things in public that are not black and white. The Archbishop of Canterbury and Pope Benedict suffer from the same problem. This Vicar should have used his better judgement and not said anything about it all from the pulpit. This ‘storm’ and kind of reporting is so predictable.
Click to expand...
This is weird because I was going to bring up that exact Ethics dilemma. But in that dilemma the man first attempts to buy the drug and is refused because the pharmacist who developed the drug is greedy and wants much more money than the drug costs; the man offers to work for the pharmacist and is refused; the man begs; the man pleads; he is refused each time. His stealing of the drug is ethically correct because of two factors: (1) his wife’s life is much more valuable than the dollars the pharmacist is demanding because of greed; and (2) the man attempts to obtain the drug via legal means before he is forced to steal the drug.

The dilemma shows universal laws which transcend man-made laws. One of those universal laws is the value of human life.

Perhaps part of the sermon was omitted. It is hard to tell. I always question the information found on websites because so often much is left out.

But, if what the website provides is the entire sermon, the sermon itself is misleading. It should be made absolutely clear that every legal method be used to obtain food before one decides to steal it. And that would include going up to the Anglican church and asking the priest for food, or going to the Catholic Church and asking for food. Or going to Food Share, and any other charity and asking for food.
 
Posted by JReducation in a simialr thread. The url is given below.
The Catholic Church has never encouraged anyone to steal. However, there is a principal in moral theology that stealing food because one is hungry and has no way of getting food does not carry subjective culpability.
Click to expand...
Objectively, the act is still stealing and is morally wrong. But subjectively that individual’s freedom to choose the higher good is impaired, if no one gives him food. To be morally culpable, you must be free to choose the higher good.
Click to expand...
This is not the same as encouraging people to steal.
Click to expand...
Fraternally,
Click to expand...
Br. JR, OSF
Click to expand...
forums.catholic-questions.org/showthread.php?t=408748
 
I think the priest would have been MUCH better off advising members of his congregation to help those who are disadvantaged. I’m appalled that people are excusing the priest for encouraging people to shoplift from the pulpit.
 
LittleSoldier said:
It should be made absolutely clear that every legal method be used to obtain food before one decides to steal it. And that would include going up to the Anglican church and asking the priest for food, or going to the Catholic Church and asking for food. Or going to Food Share, and any other charity and asking for food.
Click to expand...
Absolutely.

One of the saddest things that I have heard in the UK is that the Anglican Franciscan monasteries and St Clare convents have stopped opening their doors to the passing homeless and hungry because of the problems that they have had with drug users. If they know you or know of you from other sources then they will provide charity, but you can no longer knock on the door and ask to stay as a stranger. Part of the problem is the aging and frail nature of many of their ordained.
 
So if a child cannot obtain charity then he should lie down and die of starvation rather than take food?
It is a good thing that the Magisterium disagree with you.
2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others. 2408 CCC
Click to expand...
 
Fran65 said:
So if a child cannot obtain charity then he should lie down and die of starvation rather than take food?
Click to expand...
So if we parishioners see a child starving, we should watch as he languishes and dies of starvation?

Jesus told us to feed the hungry.

At NO location were we told to steal so we wouldn’t BE hungry.
 
If you read the catechism, what it makes plain is that in the case where food is not obtainable by any other means, then he is not culpable for stealing the food that he needs to survive the night.
 
NCSue said:
So if we parishioners see a child starving, we should watch as he languishes and dies of starvation?

Jesus told us to feed the hungry.

At NO location were we told to steal so we wouldn’t BE hungry.
Click to expand...
If a person has no other recourse than to steal food, it is acceptable to do so. The human life which would be saved is far more valuable than the profit the store would make from selling the food that the person is stealing and the universal law of sanctity of human life is far more important than any man-made laws against stealing.
 
Did the priest make is abundantly clear that ALL other LEGITIMATE means were to be used first? I see no evidence of that in the articles I’ve read on this story.
 
I don’t know. However, journalists are not known for nuance and often paint issues as black and white as it makes for more readers and more reaction.
 
This whole thread is still bugging me.

I looked up the section of the catechism that deals with this issue (2408). It says:

“The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing…) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.”

I can understand a priest offering absolution for a person who has committed theft under such circumstances. I cannot understand or condone a priest offering a suggestion that this is the appropriate way to handle such circumstances, however. It’s one thing to forgive a sin, and quite another to advise another to commit one. And to do so from the pulpit is unacceptable in my opinion.
 
NCSue said:
Did the priest make is abundantly clear that ALL other LEGITIMATE means were to be used first? I see no evidence of that in the articles I’ve read on this story.
Click to expand...
See post #6. I wondered about the same thing.
 
NCSue said:
I can’t agree with his argument. It’s like saying that prostitution is justified in order to prevent child sexual abuse. Besides, where’s the evidence that committing “little sins” prevents “bigger sins”? Isn’t it just as likely that committing ANY sin can serve to desensitize the conscience and lead to still more (or even bigger) sins?
Click to expand...
St. Thomas can clear this up for you:

newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article7
 
LittleSoldier said:
After reading Part 7 I glanced through some of the rest of it and all I can say is wow, I’m dizzy!! That looks like some of the ballot measures I’ve seen. 😉
Click to expand...
I had an assignment in this last college semester in logic on “Whether every lie is a sin” from the Summa. We had to pick out syllogisms from his arguments. That one question took over an hour just to get at least some ideas of what he was saying. Even now I still don’t fully understand it. St Thomas was beyond genius :eek:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top