M
mannyefx
Guest
Ok! guys like the title says, is it a sin to steal food when you have no food to eat and you are completely broke and the only option you have is to die of hunger?
Is it a sin to steal food when you are really hungry and have not food?
- Status
P
Pitcharan
Guest
MARK 2:25-27
*He answered, “Have you never read what David did when he and his companions were hungry and in need? In the days of Abiathar the high priest, he entered the house of God and ate the consecrated bread, which is lawful only for priests to eat. And he also gave some to his companions.”
Then he said to them, “The Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath. *
O
odhiambo
Guest
To answer your question directly, yes, yes it is a sin. There are mitigating circumstances, yes, but it does not take away from the fact that it is a venial sin,
M
mdgspencer
Guest
There is a classic situation in Catholic moral theology–is it all-right to steal a loaf of bread when you are starving to death. The answer is yes. A classic book of Catholic moral theology, the Franciscan Herbert Jone’s “Moral Theology,” speals of this under the heading, “Reasons that permit one to take things belonging to another.” This moral theologian explains that “extreme need justifies one in appropriating enough of another’s goods to alleviate one’s extreme need.”
It also explains that “more may not be taken than is required to alleviate the said need; there must be no other way of acquiring what is necessary (e.g. by asking); the one from whom it is taken must not be in equal need; in many cases the things may only be taken after the manner of a loan. Consequently if one has hopes of coming into better circumstances later, he musy be determined to restore the value of the things he consumed in the time of need.”
“Grave need does not justify such action.”(section 331)
Jone also explains that people do have the right of private ownership–but “since the first purpose of the goods of this world is the maintenance of life, it follows that a person in extreme need may take from the possessions of another as much as is required to relieve this extreme need.”(section 247)
It also explains that “more may not be taken than is required to alleviate the said need; there must be no other way of acquiring what is necessary (e.g. by asking); the one from whom it is taken must not be in equal need; in many cases the things may only be taken after the manner of a loan. Consequently if one has hopes of coming into better circumstances later, he musy be determined to restore the value of the things he consumed in the time of need.”
“Grave need does not justify such action.”(section 331)
Jone also explains that people do have the right of private ownership–but “since the first purpose of the goods of this world is the maintenance of life, it follows that a person in extreme need may take from the possessions of another as much as is required to relieve this extreme need.”(section 247)
P
Petergee
Guest
Sorry, you are mistaken, it is not a sin at all. The starving man’s right to life overrides the bread-owner’s right to his private property.
Even the Jewish rabbis teach that it is permissible to break any of the Commandments in order to save a life.
S
socialcath101
Guest
Wow I didn’t know that lol…
O
odhiambo
Guest
Thanks Petergee.
I have always believed that stealing is stealing, irrespective of the circumstances. Your response, however, sent me back to the basics and this is what I found in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
Article 7
The Seventh Commandment.
You shall not steal.186 .
**Respect for the goods of others **
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.191
In view of the above, I stand corrected and the wiser as far as the Seventh Commandment is concerned
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Are we presupposing that the theft occurs when the hungry person hasn’t the means to purchase sustenance?Thanks Petergee.
I have always believed that stealing is stealing, irrespective of the circumstances. Your response, however, sent me back to the basics and this is what I found in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
Article 7
The Seventh Commandment.
You shall not steal.186 .
**Respect for the goods of others **
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.191
In view of the above, I stand corrected and the wiser as far as the Seventh Commandment is concerned
Need alone does not justify theft. It must be accompanied by the lack of means to obtain the necessaries of life.
P
Petergee
Guest
The OP said “you are completely broke”.
O
odhiambo
Guest
Well the Catechisms identifies the situation in which "
“…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”
If the only way to provide for food is to steal it, then it follows that there is no other means to get the food legitimately. That is the way I understand it now.
T
tvdxer
Guest
No. In cases of extreme necessity like this, all necessary goods are commonly owned.
B
Buck_Crosswhite
Guest
Yes I am.
B
Bookcat
Guest
The circumstance in the above does not make it “right” to steal. Rather what is described above in the CCC quote is simply “not theft” (via the object).Thanks Petergee.
I have always believed that stealing is stealing, irrespective of the circumstances. Your response, however, sent me back to the basics and this is what I found in the Cathechism of the Catholic Church.
Article 7
The Seventh Commandment.
You shall not steal.186 .
**Respect for the goods of others **
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.191
In view of the above, I stand corrected and the wiser as far as the Seventh Commandment is concerned
D
Dakota_Roberts
Guest
If there is serious danger of death by starvation then it is in fact permissible to take it.
P
Petergee
Guest
Well that’s getting into semantics now, but yes, the circumstance doesn’t make theft right. It means that in the circumstances, the owner’s consent to taking the goods can rightly be presumed, and that it would in fact be an injustice and a sin for the owner to refuse consent.
As the Father of the Church St Basil the Great put it, if you have more than enough (food, clothes etc.) for yourself and your neighbour has none, you are not doing something extraordinarily noble by giving to him from your excess. You are simply returning to him what rightfully belongs to him (and so avoiding the sin of wilfully continuing to deprive him of his own property).
B
Bookcat
Guest
It is not so much getting into “Semantics” but is getting down to the reality. The circumstances do not make “theft” justified. The very nature of the action is different.
It is simply “not theft”.
(such was my point…I know of course you agree that it is not theft…but explaining here why I pointed out what I did)
Catechism:
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.191 scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s2c2a7.htm#II
It is important to point this out for some can become confused and think that the intention or the circumstances “make theft ok” …and that in other sins…they can “make it ok”…
Important readings from the Catechism on the subject for all who read this:
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#I
scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c1a4.htm#II
A
AllSeasons
Guest
This thread got me started thinking about a related question. If we have an ample supply of a certain good, and someone else in need asks us for it, is it always a sin to refuse?
F
FaithByProxy
Guest
I may be completely wrong about this, as I still have a great deal to learn, but I imagine it would be.
In that case, your brother is asking you for something in his hour of need that you have more than enough of, and you are unwilling to give it to him. That is completely contrary to the idea of charity.
At least that would be my understanding of it.
J
Julia_Mae
Guest
But that isn’t your only option which is the problem with these hypotheticals. By the time to you are in danger of dying of starvation, you won’t have the energy to steal. Or eat.
The real options are essentially: steal or beg. Barring begging working out there is steal or suffer. All of this presupposes a constant state of supplication to God in faith. Being willing to die in order to not sin is the fast track to Sainthood. Why would you even bother avoiding death?
P
Petergee
Guest
Wow. So in your opinion if someone has no food and no money, the right thing to do, if he can’t beg the food/money, is for him to starve for weeks until he is half-dead and unable to swallow food, and only then would it be OK to take food belonging to others, and even then it would be unworthy of him.
In addition to the basic overriding command of charity mentioned above, the Church says that it is a grave sin, and not saintly at all, to deliberately starve oneself to death when there is food available. And as mentioned taking someone else’s food in this circumstance is no sin whatsoever. It is not theft. It is taking what rightfully belongs to him.
- Status