As an analogue to "theft when necessary"

[Nevarlander]

… can one justify other sins when necessary?

By this, I mean that if, say, you’re starving and have no way to get food except by theft, it’s not wrong to steal because people deserve to have food (as least that’s how I understand Catholic teaching). If in your situation you can’t get it by stealing, but can by, say, prostitution, would it still be wrong for you to do that?

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

… can one justify other sins when necessary?

By this, I mean that if, say, you’re starving and have no way to get food except by theft, it’s not wrong to steal because people deserve to have food (as least that’s how I understand Catholic teaching). If in your situation you can’t get it by stealing, but can by, say, prostitution, would it still be wrong for you to do that?

I believe you have a bit of a misconception. All that happens when theft is committed to feed oneself (or family) is that the seriousness of the sin is lessened. It is still a sin though, it just might not be a serious.

As for your example, I would say no, as prostitution does not directly affect the hunger where as the theft of food does.

 

[PennitentMan]

As for your example, I would say no, as prostitution does not directly affect the hunger where as the theft of food does.

I think the OP intended to say that if came down to prostitution in order to feed the family. meaning, the mother had to become a prostitute in order to feed her family, does that lessen the sin of prostitution, as it would with stealing.

I would say no, since you could always steal rather than become a prostitute to get food.

But then, I do not know the first thing about the specific situation.

 

[Nevarlander]

This has nothing to do with a specific situation, it’s just pure moral brain-stretching. Curious as to how it pans out.

 

[dylanschrader]

I think there may be a poor definition of ‘theft’ at work. Theft is usurping another’s property against the unreasonable will of the owner.

Thus, an urgent necessity like feeding one’s starving family would mean that taking what belonged to another if that person had no reasonable reason to withhold help from you would not be theft at all, and not a sin.

See CCC #2408.

 

[PennitentMan]

Cool, thanks for clarifying

Yeah, I’d say one would have to exhaust all possible options before resorting to any sin, i.e. foodbanks, shelters, etc. Like BizCath said, it is still a sin n we are called to aviod all sinful situations weherever possible.

PM

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think the OP intended to say that if came down to prostitution in order to feed the family. meaning, the mother had to become a prostitute in order to feed her family, does that lessen the sin of prostitution, as it would with stealing.

I would say no, since you could always steal rather than become a prostitute to get food.

Thats exactly what I said.

Stealing food actually effects the issue of needing food where as prostitution does not. So prostitution is not mitigated by the need to eat.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

This has nothing to do with a specific situation, it’s just pure moral brain-stretching. Curious as to how it pans out.

And this is one very good reason why one should not deal in hypotheticals.

 

[PennitentMan]

Thats exactly what I said.

Stealing food actually effects the issue of needing food where as prostitution does not. So prostitution is not mitigated by the need to eat.

Thanks, got it!

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I think there may be a poor definition of ‘theft’ at work. Theft is usurping another’s property against the unreasonable will of the owner.

Thus, an urgent necessity like feeding one’s starving family would mean that taking what belonged to another if that person had no reasonable reason to withhold help from you would not be theft at all, and not a sin.

See CCC #2408.

But stealing food is theft. A store has a reasonable reason and so do other families.

Stealing is always a sin, it is just not as serious as sin in some cases.

 

[dylanschrader]

But stealing food is theft. A store has a reasonable reason and so do other families.

Stealing is always a sin, it is just not as serious as sin in some cases.

Yes. Stealing is always a sin, but what the Church is saying is that taking another’s property against his will is not always stealing. His will has to be reasonable.

It is not stealing if the owner’s consent is presumed or if his refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Yes. Stealing is always a sin, but what the Church is saying is that taking another’s property against his will is not always stealing. His will has to be reasonable.

It is not stealing if the owner’s consent is presumed or if his refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods.

Yes, but as can be seen in PennitenMan’s post, here it is to refresh our memory…

Cool, thanks for clarifying

Yeah, I’d say one would have to exhaust all possible options before resorting to any sin, i.e. foodbanks, shelters, etc. Like BizCath said, it is still a sin n we are called to aviod all sinful situations weherever possible.

PM

With out exhausting this possible options it would be theft.

Having said that though, the OP’s intent was not for a discussion on the taking of food when needed but on committing other sins in order to either get money to pay for food or to actual use those sins as payment for food.

His example was prostitution. Prostitution would not be covered in the thought you put forward.

Thank you for the reference to the Catechism. I see that I was wrong on this, it would not be a sin. But again, that is not what the OP wanted to discuss.

 

[dylanschrader]

Yes, but as can be seen in PennitenMan’s post, here it is to refresh our memory…

With out exhausting this possible options it would be theft.

Having said that though, the OP’s intent was not for a discussion on the taking of food when needed but on committing other sins in order to either get money to pay for food or to actual use those sins as payment for food.

His example was prostitution. Prostitution would not be covered in the thought you put forward.

Thank you for the reference to the Catechism. I see that I was wrong on this, it would not be a sin. But again, that is not what the OP wanted to discuss.

I’m not trying to say that prostitution or any sin would “be covered” under the idea that theft is licit when necessary. What I’m trying to do is make sure that we keep in mind that it is never permissible to do something evil in order that good may result from it. Thus, we may never commit a sin no matter how good a reason we seem to have.

But, we can’t use the analogy of theft if the example is not theft at all.

Theft–properly defined–is never permissible even if it seemed “necessary.”

The O.P. asked whether other sins could be justified when necessary. The point in properly defining theft is to emphasize that no sin is ever justified.