Is stealing a small amount of money a mortal sin?

[crm0293]

I am aware that stealing is a serious sin, but is stealing small amounts of money like pocket change is as a mortal sin as shoplifting or robbing a bank?

I remember that I stole $10 from my mom’s credit card account because I wanted to download a game on my wii. Afterwards I told my mom about it and I will never do it again. Sorry if I am being scrupulous.

 

[Facite]

From The Faith Explained by Fr. Leo J. Trese,
‘We cannot measure moral evil with a yardstick - nor, compute it on an adding machine. So when someone asks, “How much of a theft does it take to make a mortal sin?” We cannot say, “Anything up to $49.99 will be venial sin; from $50.00 up will be a mortal sin.” We can only say in general that the theft of something of small value will be venially sinful; the theft of something of great worth (whether the great worth is relative or absolute) will be a mortal sin.’

Therefore, you must think, was the amount you stole of a great value? Was the ten dollars something your Mom really needed, or would she be not so much burdened with the fact that she lost 10 dollars? Then with the help of a confessor, you will be able to decide if what you did is a mortal sin. I will pray for you!

 

[sweetpetunia]

No, ten dollars is not considered grave matter, but obviously it could still land you in trouble with the law. Also, using her debit or credit card without permission would probably be considered identity theft as well, I think.

Grave matter is large amounts (such as a day’s wage) or special circumstances (such as a man’s last ten dollars to feed his starving family). Or at least that’s how a very conservative priest explained it once in a sermon I heard. Sounds like a venial sin to me, but you should still pay back your mom, even if she forgave you.

 

[tafan]

Therefore, you must think, was the amount you stole of a great value? Was the ten dollars something your Mom really needed, or would she be not so much burdened with the fact that she lost 10 dollars? Then with the help of a confessor, you will be able to decide if what you did is a mortal sin. I will pray for you!

I agree with the ;ast sentence, get the help of the confessor. But the quoted response from Fr Trese is incomplete. Now, this has been debated for ever by theologians.

Here is what Aquinas would say:

As stated above, (Question 59, Article 4 and Prima Secundae Partis, Question 72, Article 5), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity as the spiritual life of the soul. Now charity consists principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbor, which is shown in our wishing and doing him well. But theft is a means of doing harm to our neighbor in his belongings; and if men were to rob one another habitually, human society would be undone. Therefore theft, as being opposed to charity, is a mortal sin.

Now, he does provide an out:

Objection 3. Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.

…

Reply to Objection 3. Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.

So there are several things to take into account. The first thing: was the value such that it did realy harm to the owner of the property (pocket change from a beggar would be a mortal sin)? If so, yes it is a mortal sin. Secondly, and very important: What was your intent? Did you intend to harm the owner? If so, even though the relative value is small, it is a mortal sin.

Finally, the idea of harm of the owner based on the relative value to the owner cannot be taken too far. All theologians agree, although the sum is obviously undefined, that there is a level of value, when stolen from even the richest person, it is a mortal sin even though the owner may not ever miss it.

Talk to your confessor.

 

[jmjconder]

No, ten dollars is not considered grave matter, but obviously it could still land you in trouble with the law. Also, using her debit or credit card without permission would probably be considered identity theft as well, I think.

Grave matter is large amounts (such as a day’s wage) or special circumstances (such as a man’s last ten dollars to feed his starving family). Or at least that’s how a very conservative priest explained it once in a sermon I heard. Sounds like a venial sin to me, but you should still pay back your mom, even if she forgave you.

**I do not hold the same interruption of this Commandment. The Commandment “Thou shall not steal” does not place a monetary amount on it. If the Commandment read “Thou shall not steal anything under $100 and everything over was grave” that would be one thing. The Commandment does not say that. It is the intent/knowledge/willingness to commit the act that matters.

Stealing is stealing is grave matter under the guidelines set forth by the Catholic Church.**

 

[tafan]

Also note, that in Catholic Moral Theology, theft is very carefully defined

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

So when absolute necessity occurs (ie the classic taking a loaf of bread to feed my family from a rich person), theft does not occur.

Or more clearly by Aquinas:

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.

(boldness added).

 

[Facite]

I agree with the ;ast sentence, get the help of the confessor. But the quoted response from Fr Trese is incomplete.

Is there something I missed?

 

[tafan]

Is there something I missed?

The following statement by Fr Trese seens wrong to me. We can say more than this. As my quotes from Aquinas illustrated.

We can only say in general that the theft of something of small value will be venially sinful; the theft of something of great worth (whether the great worth is relative or absolute) will be a mortal sin.’

 

[aicirt]

I am aware that stealing is a serious sin, but is stealing small amounts of money like pocket change is as a mortal sin as shoplifting or robbing a bank?

I remember that I stole $10 from my mom’s credit card account because I wanted to download a game on my wii. Afterwards I told my mom about it and I will never do it again. Sorry if I am being scrupulous.

Sure it’s a sin and you knew that. You went and told your Mom and promised never to do it again. So don’t.

Thing to remember when tempted is just maybe the person might need that money more than you and that includes pocket change. This goes for store owners too. They have to pay for the stuff they sell. It isn’t free. Everytime someone steals something from them, prices go up so people like your Mom have to pay more.

Don’t worry about it anymore. You did the right thing and it is over.

 

[sweetpetunia]

**I do not hold the same interruption of this Commandment. The Commandment “Thou shall not steal” does not place a monetary amount on it. If the Commandment read “Thou shall not steal anything under $100 and everything over was grave” that would be one thing. The Commandment does not say that. It is the intent/knowledge/willingness to commit the act that matters.

Stealing is stealing is grave matter under the guidelines set forth by the Catholic Church.**

I mean grave as in “grave matter” (mortal sin with proper knowledge and consent), not grave as in it “matters” to God. Obviously all sin matters to God. Catholic teaching is that mortal sin requires *three * things (not two!): 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) full consent. If any one of the three is missing, it is only a venial sin. One can fully know and consent to a sin and it would still remain venial if the matter was not grave.

Theft is only grave matter if, as was mentioned by myself and others in this post, it were of great absolute or relative value. The priest I mentioned used a day’s wages as a rule of thumb for absolute value. Taking it from a starving family would be great relative value. There is also the case (as Tafan mentioned) of the universal destination of all goods.

 

[tafan]

I mean grave as in “grave matter” (mortal sin with proper knowledge and consent), not grave as in it “matters” to God. Obviously all sin matters to God. Catholic teaching is that mortal sin requires *three * things (not two!): 1) grave matter, 2) full knowledge, and 3) full consent. If any one of the three is missing, it is only a venial sin. One can fully know and consent to a sin and it would still remain venial if the matter was not grave.

Theft is only grave matter if, as was mentioned by myself and others in this post, it were of great absolute or relative value. The priest I mentioned used a day’s wages as a rule of thumb for absolute value. Taking it from a starving family would be great relative value. There is also the case (as Tafan mentioned) of the universal destination of all goods.

I disagree that theft is only grave matter based on the item being of great value (relative or absolute). First of all, the exceptions commonly made for theft being a venial sin is when the item is of small value. And there is a lot of items that fall in-between being of great value and small value.

Secondly, the intent to do harm to the owner, is of primary importance. And one can do harm, via theft, from a owner even when stealing something of small value.

Your understanding is too lax, IMO. I would say, in general theft is grave matter; but there are exceptions.

 

[sweetpetunia]

I disagree that theft is only grave matter based on the item being of great value (relative or absolute). First of all, the exceptions commonly made for theft being a venial sin is when the item is of small value. And there is a lot of items that fall in-between being of great value and small value.

Secondly, the intent to do harm to the owner, is of primary importance. And one can do harm, via theft, from a owner even when stealing something of small value.

Your understanding is too lax, IMO. I would say, in general theft is grave matter; but there are exceptions.

I don’t think we actually disagree. My explanation is simplified for this specific case put forth by a specific, presumably very young, poster. I absolutely agree that great value can be more than a dollar sign. That is what is meant by relative great value. If the O.P. had stated he/she had stolen someone’s inexpensive but necessary medication, well, then obviously it is of great relative value, and my response would not have been the same. If that was done with malice and forethought, then yes, it is certainly worse! You’re absolutely right that malice and forethought heightens the gravity of sin. Usually, stealing with the intent to cause harm entails that one was stealing something of great relative value, if not absolute value. Still, I think it is at least theoretically possible to commit a mortal sin of stealing without the intent to do harm to the owner, and also to commit a venial sin of stealing with the intent to do harm to the owner.

Here, I’ll put forth a case for you for the second one. I was at a fast food restaurant, and saw three teenage boys together. One said, “I’m going to the washroom. X, don’t touch my food. Y, guard it for me.” While he was gone, the other two boys laughed, and each ate a fry. The boy came back and his buddies told him they each ate a fry (presumably just to make him mad, because they told him when he came back). Now presuming there are no complicating factors (poverty, health issues, etc.) and that the other two boys did this just to bug him (wanting to make him angry is the intent to do harm), is this necessarily a mortal sin? (I am not trying to minimize the wrongness of so-called “pranks” that involve taking what doesn’t belong to us. Obviously they are against both God’s law, and civil law, and are very, very wrong, but I don’t think that they are necessarily what the Church would call mortal sins.)

But I appreciate your feedback and thanks for clarifying