B
bibleman
Guest
this is a question i hear very, very frequently, people say what Robin hood did was right? this is a hard question, can someone help out and tell me if what he did was really bad or if he had any alternatives?
- Status
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
What a great question!
Unfortunately I don’t know the solution
He stole, he killed, and he defined legitimate authority
He was charitable, he fed the hungry, comforted the afflicted, sheltered the homeless and, and the end of the day, was supporting the REAL legitimate authority (Richard over John).
Unfortunately I don’t know the solution
He stole, he killed, and he defined legitimate authority
He was charitable, he fed the hungry, comforted the afflicted, sheltered the homeless and, and the end of the day, was supporting the REAL legitimate authority (Richard over John).
T
tuopaolo
Guest
I support Robin Hood all the way! 
When you take property to feed the poor who are in extreme need, that is not stealing.
When you take property to feed the poor who are in extreme need, that is not stealing.
A
Almeria
Guest
Really? Please cite this one, I’m rather interested in hearing where this is in Catholic teaching.I support Robin Hood all the way!
When you take property to feed the poor who are in extreme need, that is not stealing.
C
Church_Militant
Guest
Yeah…me too
J
jeffreedy789
Guest
i, too, have heard this. that the church teaches that taking food for people who are starving is not theft. but i don’t know where to find it. anyone know where it’s found?
M
mattkennel
Guest
From the Catechism of the Catholic Church
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.
From Gaudium et Spes
69. God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.(8) Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others.(9) On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10) If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.(11) Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,”(12) and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.
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.
From Gaudium et Spes
69. God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.(8) Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, man should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others.(9) On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10) If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.(11) Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,”(12) and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.
M
mattkennel
Guest
Also, I believe that Robin Hood specifically “stole” in order to get back the unjust taxes imposed by Prince John the usurper. This certainly sounds legit to me.
F
Fox
Guest
Steve,
It wasn’t a legit authority, Prince John the usurperer was trying to take King Richard’s power away, and almost succeeded. He had no right to do so. Robin Hood stood for the rights of the poor and I support him.
It wasn’t a legit authority, Prince John the usurperer was trying to take King Richard’s power away, and almost succeeded. He had no right to do so. Robin Hood stood for the rights of the poor and I support him.
S
Sir_Knight
Guest
Aren’t we always told that two wrongs don’t make a right? Wouldn’t that apply in this case?
S
Steve_Andersen
Guest
Well
(1) The King was off campaigning and his brother was left in charge
(2) The Sheriff was a legally appointed royal official
(3) The ban on peasants hunting in the forest wasn’t Prince John rule but an old royal prerogative
(4) I already mentioned that Robin supported Richard upon his return
(5) it’s only a story…but I suport him too
F
Fox
Guest
Steve,
- True. Prince John went too far!
- I think he was corrupted from his power.
- The royality should of seen the problems with this “rule”.
- True.
- It is a good moral story. hey are finding out more and more that Robin Hood could of been a real blooded person.
T
Timidity
Guest
Um… Robin Hood, of course, didn’t do anything, because there was no such person.
Secondly, as with most legends, there’s isn’t a “one definitive legend” to go by, so there’s no way to reach an agreement about what he did or didn’t do.
Having said all that…
King Richard had been kidnapped, and Prince John was taxing the subjects for his ransom. But Prince John had no intent to pay the ransom, so he was, in fact, stealing from the people. Robin Hood was merely returning this stolen property.
Really, though, the Robin Hood legends are really about the tranfer of power from the Danes to the Normans, Robin is the great hero of the common man (Danes), fighting an oppressive Norman regime. This is much like the Arthur stories arose about a great Celtic leader at a time when the Danes were conquering the Celts.
Secondly, as with most legends, there’s isn’t a “one definitive legend” to go by, so there’s no way to reach an agreement about what he did or didn’t do.
Having said all that…
King Richard had been kidnapped, and Prince John was taxing the subjects for his ransom. But Prince John had no intent to pay the ransom, so he was, in fact, stealing from the people. Robin Hood was merely returning this stolen property.
Really, though, the Robin Hood legends are really about the tranfer of power from the Danes to the Normans, Robin is the great hero of the common man (Danes), fighting an oppressive Norman regime. This is much like the Arthur stories arose about a great Celtic leader at a time when the Danes were conquering the Celts.
M
mattkennel
Guest
Sir Knight:
However, if Prince John’s actions in fact constituted a kind of theft, then Robin Hood would in fact be taking back what rightfully belonged to the poor. If you steal my apple, you commit a wrong, but if I take it back from you I don’t therefore commit a wrong in return.
G
gurneyhalleck1
Guest
Modern version:
Robin Hood and Little John: Democrats
Autocratic rich folks: Republicans
Robin Hood and Little John: Democrats
Autocratic rich folks: Republicans
P
pira114
Guest
In THAT case, what he did was totally wrong.Modern version:
Robin Hood and Little John: Democrats
Autocratic rich folks: Republicans
H
hxcCatholic413
Guest
haha
B
benidict
Guest
Im very sorry. And I dont intend to be mean. But if you have the time to sit and debate within yourself, about the moral actions of a fictional character…Maybe its time to get out more.
You frequently hear people say what robin hood did was right? are you part of a club? The only time robin hood has come up in my conversations, was when I went with a friend of mine to go see the movie last year. I found it to be different, in that it was a prequel to the events of the normal story. Good acting though. 
B
benidict
Guest
Yes, there is a hint of socialism in this story isnt there?
Not communism though. communist are socialist that are serious…
B
benidict
Guest
And the outfits? definitely wrong…Who the heck was his tailor? Maid Marian should learn how to work a loom…
- Status