HISTORY channel special on the commandments

[SANxJONERO]

Has anybody seen it? I only got to catch some of it, but I thought it was interesting how they were saying that someone starving w/no money could take food & it wasn’t considered stealing. What do you think about it?

 

[Thoma25]

Why would someone consider stealing instead of finding work or, barring that, asking for charity?

 

[SANxJONERO]

Why would someone consider stealing instead of finding work or, barring that, asking for charity?

Maybe doing those things weren’t easy either.

 

[aicirt]

Has anybody seen it? I only got to catch some of it, but I thought it was interesting how they were saying that someone starving w/no money could take food & it wasn’t considered stealing. What do you think about it?

Taught that by the nuns in Catholic school many moons ago. It is not a sin to steal in order to save yourself or your family when you are in dire circumstances.

Another…if you find money or a lost object, you must make every effort to return it because you never know if that person is in dire circumstances and needs it more than you.

 

[aicirt]

Why would someone consider stealing instead of finding work or, barring that, asking for charity?

Sometimes work isn’t available and maybe no one is offering help. Imagine being in a war with children trying to survive in a burned out city.

 

[Phemie]

Surely if killing in self-defense is OK then stealing food in self-defense should be OK also.

 

[Timothysis]

Stealing food to provide for yourself and especially your family is not a sin, provided there is no other option available at the time; stealing a big screen tv so you can watch the big game in hi definition is. There is a very big moral difference.

 

[Thoma25]

Sometimes work isn’t available and maybe no one is offering help. Imagine being in a war with children trying to survive in a burned out city.

The key word here is “sometimes.” I agree that in extraordinary situations, there are mitigating circumstances that lessen or eliminate culpability altogether. However, these extraordinary circumstances hardly upset the normal laws of morality for the vast majority of us throughout our lives. Normally when this question is brought up, it is to justify the actions and mindset of those within our own society. For instance, many poor families who are having a difficult time in this economy may turn to stealing what they can’t afford, and I have personally known of individual cases of this in my own community. I also know that such actions can’t be easily excused or justified, because there are both charities and charitable people offering assistance year-round to those in need. I also know that a trip to the local Catholic Church would ensure that one is given proper care. Thus the entire moral question of whether it is licit for the needy poor to steal from the rich is, in our society, simply not applicable and fosters an unhealthy attitude.

Rather than asking what the exceptions are to the prohibition of stealing, it may be better to ask in what extraordinary and rare cases these exceptions would be allowed, and under what circumstances.

 

[aicirt]

The key word here is “sometimes.” I agree that in extraordinary situations, there are mitigating circumstances that lessen or eliminate culpability altogether. However, these extraordinary circumstances hardly upset the normal laws of morality for the vast majority of us throughout our lives. Normally when this question is brought up, it is to justify the actions and mindset of those within our own society. For instance, many poor families who are having a difficult time in this economy may turn to stealing what they can’t afford, and I have personally known of individual cases of this in my own community. I also know that such actions can’t be easily excused or justified, because there are both charities and charitable people offering assistance year-round to those in need. I also know that a trip to the local Catholic Church would ensure that one is given proper care. Thus the entire moral question of whether it is licit for the needy poor to steal from the rich is, in our society, simply not applicable and fosters an unhealthy attitude.

Rather than asking what the exceptions are to the prohibition of stealing, it may be better to ask in what extraordinary and rare cases these exceptions would be allowed, and under what circumstances.

Yes, it would have to be dire circumstances because we do have charities where food is immediately given and there should be no reason to starve. Dire to me would be war, a natural calamity such as a hurricane when you have no food in your house, you and/or your children are hungary and you ask for food but are turned down.

I have a difficult time understanding taking charity and, when you are no longer poor, not willing to pay it back. Keep in mind, I’m talking about people who have achieved a good level of life and have the money for luxury items, (champagne, designer handbags, expensive vacations) but ignore their responsibilities. I’m thinking of unpaid student loans.

Equally disheartening is having a decent but certainly not mind blowing salary and doing things with your money to put you into a poorer economic situation. For example, bread earner with four kids with a working wife probably considered low middle class by economic standards and blowing $500 a month on lottery tickets. He is stealing from his family.

Neither of these are on welfare but are circling the rim.

 

[graceandglory]

Sometimes work isn’t available and maybe no one is offering help. Imagine being in a war with children trying to survive in a burned out city.

Stealing food to survive for yourself and your kids, and maybe some others is a whole lot different than stealing TVs and computers… just saying.

 

[aicirt]

Stealing food to survive for yourself and your kids, and maybe some others is a whole lot different than stealing TVs and computers… just saying.

Totally agree…unless you stole the computer to sell for food for the starving kids and yourself.

 

[Thoma25]

Stealing food to survive for yourself and your kids, and maybe some others is a whole lot different than stealing TVs and computers… just saying.

That’s true, but we’re largely referring to stealing necessities. Stealing luxuries certainly can’t be justified, especially televisions.

But another dimension to this question is, if we take the most extreme example of, say, war which has destroyed a city, and the people within it have extremely limited resources, who are the needy stealing from? Other people who are also needy. Granted there may be some with a slight surplus, and greater leniency is of course given to those who are trying to feed their children, the sick and injured, etc; but the general theme here would be the destitute stealing from the destitute, so the question really boils down to this: all things being equal, is your life more valuable than your neighbor’s? I’d say that the greatest ideal would be that of self-sacrifice above self-entitlement. Those who seek to save their life will lose it, while those who lose it for the sake of Christ will save it. What greater thing would there be to die in imitation of Christ for another, in extreme circumstances? In a Nazi concentration camp, St. Maximilian Kolbe offered to die in place of another prisoner who had a wife and children and, his offer being accepted, was starved and dehydrated for three weeks, then given a lethal injection.

Of course, we are human and we don’t always live the example of Christ, which is why mitigating circumstances can greatly reduce the guilt of sin, even if it is a grave matter. The best rule of thumb would be to be strict with oneself, and more lenient in judging the guilt of other peoples’ actions in cases such as these.