Can someone explain this to me?

[TravisandJill]

Please explain the part about children being bound to make restitution for the theft of their parents.
eucharisticadoration.com/articles/175/1/The-Seventh-Commandment/Page1.html

"Stealing is forbidden because of the uselessness of stolen goods, for they are of no spiritual value: “Treasures of wickedness shall profit nothing.” (Prov. 10:2.) Wealth can indeed be useful for alms-giving and offering of sacrifices, for “the ransom of a man’s life are his riches.” (Prov. 13:8.) It also should be known that a thief may lose not only his own soul, but also the souls of his children, since they too, are bound to make restitution.

St. Thomas Aquinas."

Thank you

 

[dmar198]

Please explain the part about children being bound to make restitution for the theft of their parents.
eucharisticadoration.com/articles/175/1/The-Seventh-Commandment/Page1.html

"Stealing is forbidden because of the uselessness of stolen goods, for they are of no spiritual value: “Treasures of wickedness shall profit nothing.” (Prov. 10:2.) Wealth can indeed be useful for alms-giving and offering of sacrifices, for “the ransom of a man’s life are his riches.” (Prov. 13:8.) It also should be known that a thief may lose not only his own soul, but also the souls of his children, since they too, are bound to make restitution.

St. Thomas Aquinas."

Thank you

Perhaps it means that if a thief passes on stolen property to his or her kids, they can’t keep those goods because the thief had no right to give away property that didn’t belong to him (or her). It was someone else’s property, and thus the inheritance is invalid, and the stolen goods still belong to whoever they were stolen from.

In short, if a thief’s children have someone else’s property, they need to return it to the original owner because that’s who it belongs to.

Does that make sense?

 

[TravisandJill]

Yes that makes sense assuming the children knew the item to be stolen. The paragraph made it seem as if children were responsible for the sins
of the parents but I’m sure the Church does not teach that right?

 

[dmar198]

Yes that makes sense assuming the children knew the item to be stolen. The paragraph made it seem as if children were responsible for the sins
of the parents but I’m sure the Church does not teach that right?

Right. If the children were unaware that their parents passed stolen property on to them as part of their inheritance, it would appear to me that the children could not be in sin over something they were not aware of.

 

[phil19034]

Right. If the children were unaware that their parents passed stolen property on to them as part of their inheritance, it would appear to me that the children could not be in sin over something they were not aware of.

Right… But if the offspring know that they are inheriting “blood money” for example and accept it, then that’s sinful.

Note: I used the word offspring rather than children because I think the age of the children is an important factor.