Can someone explain to me why the ends don't justify the means?

[Bookcat]

It’s an end around the notion of consent. I understand the construction.

Most reasonable people would agree stealing food to prevent starvation is a valid reason to steal. So if we are going to make it ok, it must not be really stealing. It’s an exception to the rule. A valid one but an exception none the less.

It is NOT stealing --it can be called stealing in human civil law but this is* not a civil law forum* --rather it is a Catholic Moral Theology Forum – where one discusses the moral nature of acts and omissions and principles etc.

Morally it is not stealing – it is not by definition theft.

It is not an exception anymore than a chicken is an exception to a duck or the marital act is an exception to fornication or adultery. Differing moral objects of differing natures and definitions are present.

I bid you good day and to readers I refer them to the Catechism et al.

 

[John_Martin]

You take great care to point out the victim of the hypothetical crime is also a Catholic. What if they are not?

It’s special pleading to say Catholic stealing in cases of starvation is unique and not stealing.

BTW I do think it is a valid reason to steal.

Of course I take great care to point it out, because the woman with starving children is a thinking woman, not a scheming sinner. A thinking person always goes to the best place to find what they seek.
Also, I take this care to help you to see that you are missing a whole new world by not being Catholic, a richer reality than you have ever dreamed existed. You are stuck with black and white deeds, even if you find circumstances to excuse the deeds. A true “thief” also has excuses. But you are missing the world seen by the starving woman and her Catholic neighbor where there is need and love and compassion and no sin, no guilt, but honesty and justice.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

It is NOT stealing --it can be called stealing in human civil law but this is* not a civil law forum* --rather it is a Catholic Moral Theology Forum – where one discusses the moral nature of acts and omissions and principles etc.

Morally it is not stealing – it is not by definition theft.

It is not an exception anymore than a chicken is an exception to a duck or the marital act is an exception to fornication or adultery. Differing moral objects of differing natures and definitions are present.

I bid you good day and to readers I refer them to the Catechism et al.

I understand that the Church can set any definition anyway they’d like and as Catholics we are beholden to the new definition. I do understand it, but I do see that they are simply calling a valid exception a “new” thing not the sin that it is addressing.

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner.

If you take something that isn’t yours, it’s theft.

There is no theft if consent can be presumed

You can’t steal something if it’s given.

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.

Here we have the exception. If your neighbor lacks charity in a dire situation you can steal from him because God gave everything to everyone. An exception to the rule.

Earlier in the Catechism it explains how private property is necessary but really God gave everything to everyone.

In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

It’s walking a fine line. Private property is ok but if you aren’t charitable like you are supposed to be we give people permission to steal from you.

I like the construction, I’m not arguing against it but I see it for what it is. The end justifying the means. The end does justify the means under certain conditions BUT the only one that can determine whether that end is justified, is the Church, according to the Church.

 

[Bookcat]

Again not going round and round again -I do not have the time etc - See the various posts above and the Teachings of the Church and Moral Theology.

And I refer all readers to the Church.

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Of course I take great care to point it out, because the woman with starving children is a thinking woman, not a scheming sinner. A thinking person always goes to the best place to find what they seek.
Also, I take this care to help you to see that you are missing a whole new world by not being Catholic, a richer reality than you have ever dreamed existed. You are stuck with black and white deeds, even if you find circumstances to excuse the deeds. A true “thief” also has excuses. But you are missing the world seen by the starving woman and her Catholic neighbor where there is need and love and compassion and no sin, no guilt, but honesty and justice.

John Martin

You didn’t answer. What if the neighbor isn’t Catholic? Perhaps she was another country where Catholicism/Christianity isn’t the predominate faith. Meaning there isn’t any Catholics to steal from.

 

[John_Martin]

You take great care to point out the victim of the hypothetical crime is also a Catholic. What if they are not?

It’s special pleading to say Catholic stealing in cases of starvation is unique and not stealing.

BTW I do think it is a valid reason to steal.

Oh, just to answer your question, “what if they are not (Catholic)?” If they are not, the woman with starving children will do the same, and when arrested by the authorities, if the victim presses charges, she will plead “not guilty (of sin, of theft)” and tell her story, and give her theological exposition to the court. The court will then decide whether to submit to the higher authority of God’s Law with reference to this act of hers, or to grant her clemency but still call it “theft” in their eyes, or to require a punishment of her, still calling it “theft”. She will submit to any of the rulings, but will still not regard it as “theft” because she must remain faithful to her real King, and she will not try to proclaim that any means were justified by the end of feeding her children.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

Oh, just to answer your question, “what if they are not (Catholic)?” If they are not, the woman with starving children will do the same, and when arrested by the authorities, if the victim presses charges, she will plead “not guilty (of sin, of theft)” and tell her story, and give her theological exposition to the court. The court will then decide whether to submit to the higher authority of God’s Law with reference to this act of hers, or to grant her clemency but still call it “theft” in their eyes, or to require a punishment of her, still calling it “theft”. She will submit to any of the rulings, but will still not regard it as “theft” because she must remain faithful to her real King, and she will not try to proclaim that any means were justified by the end of feeding her children.

John Martin

The civil stuff is going to happen regardless of the faith of the victim.

What I was asking is why the significance of a Catholic victim. If the taker of the food thinks she’s making a moral decision regardless of the outside influences (as shown by your civil scenario, i.e. I follow God’s laws not man’s) why is the faith of the victim significant? Does it make it more or less moral if they share your faith?

 

[Bookcat]

this is* not a civil law forum* --rather it is a Catholic Moral Theology Forum

.

 

[John_Martin]

The civil stuff is going to happen regardless of the faith of the victim.

What I was asking is why the significance of a Catholic victim. If the taker of the food thinks she’s making a moral decision regardless of the outside influences (as shown by your civil scenario, i.e. I follow God’s laws not man’s) why is the faith of the victim significant? Does it make it more or less moral if they share your faith?

What she did was moral no matter what the faith of the one whose food she served to her children. That was clear (to her, not to you, because you do not have the same lawgiver that she has). Her mind was not asking “To steal or not to steal?” Her mind was asking, “Where can I get food yet not cause scandal to those who are weak in faith or to those who have no faith, since the world does not see my deeds from the same Lawgiver that I have?” So, not to cause the weak in faith (the Americanized Catholics I mentioned) to lose their faith, and so as not to foster non-Catholics into speculations about ends justifying means in order to find ways of justifying their sins, she chose to go to a person of strong faith and understanding, and it was not in vain. He did not press charges but instead helped her further. So the “civil stuff” does not happen “regardless”.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

What she did was moral no matter what the faith of the one whose food she served to her children. That was clear (to her, not to you, because you do not have the same lawgiver that she has). Her mind was not asking “To steal or not to steal?” Her mind was asking, “Where can I get food yet not cause scandal to those who are weak in faith or to those who have no faith, since the world does not see my deeds from the same Lawgiver that I have?” So, not to cause the weak in faith (the Americanized Catholics I mentioned) to lose their faith, and so as not to foster non-Catholics into speculations about ends justifying means in order to find ways of justifying their sins, she chose to go to a person of strong faith and understanding, and it was not in vain. He did not press charges but instead helped her further. So the “civil stuff” does not happen “regardless”.

John Martin

So scandle is the moral difference. If the victim isn’t Catholic an explanation of why stealing isn’t stealing would be needed.

I think most people would understand that stealing to prevent starvation is a valid reason.

 

[John_Martin]

So scandle is the moral difference. If the victim isn’t Catholic an explanation of why stealing isn’t stealing would be needed.
I think most people would understand that stealing to prevent starvation is a valid reason.

We will let the Doctor of the Church answer for the Church:
**Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need? **

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): “If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks.” Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that “there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness,” and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.
Objection 3: Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one’s neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one’s own needs.
On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.
I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose *Loc. cit., A[2], OBJ[3]] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. (ST II-II, Q66 A7)
You could be a fourth Objection, calling it stealing, but saying it is okay. St Thomas gives an answer sufficient for Faith to understand it is not stealing and not seeking to harm our neighbor through taking of his possessions to remedy the manifest and urgent need. Now, you have already said you have no man as an authority over you to believe submissively what he tells you, so this will have no impact on you because you do not subject yourself to Thomas, nor to the Church of which he is Doctor.

John Martin

 

[Roscoe_Turner]

We will let the Doctor of the Church answer for the Church:
**Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need? **

Objection 1: It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): “If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks.” Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.
Objection 2: Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that “there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness,” and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.
Objection 3: Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one’s neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one’s own needs.
On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another’s property, for need has made it common.
I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man’s needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man’s needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose *Loc. cit., A[2], OBJ[3]] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): “It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man’s ransom and freedom.”
Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery. (ST II-II, Q66 A7)
You could be a fourth Objection, calling it stealing, but saying it is okay. St Thomas gives an answer sufficient for Faith to understand it is not stealing and not seeking to harm our neighbor through taking of his possessions to remedy the manifest and urgent need. Now, you have already said you have no man as an authority over you to believe submissively what he tells you, so this will have no impact on you because you do not subject yourself to Thomas, nor to the Church of which he is Doctor.

John Martin

I’m not disagreeing with him. The destitute aren’t morally culpable for stealing. It is an exception to the rule. If you have enough you shouldn’t steal. Seems straightforward.

If everyone followed Jesus’ advice we’d all be in the same boat.

Luke 18:22

When Jesus heard this he said to him, “There is still one thing left for you: sell all that you have and distribute it to the poor, and you will have a treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

It would all be community property. We’d all be “the poor”

Luke 6:30

Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

You can’t steal if it’s given to you.

But as long as people hold on to things as their own and not communal property we will have theft. We can’t blame the destitute for having nothing and taking what they need if no one will give it to them. They take for good reasons. They are justified by their situation.

Matt 25:40

And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’