Seventh Commandment - Don't Steal

[AlegreFe]

Sure black isn’t white and sinful isn’t sinless.

At the same time not all sins are remotely equal in the consequences and punishment that attaches to them on a spiritual level. That’s why they’re classified into mortal and venial sins for starters (that’s sins ‘unto death’ (death of the soul) and sins ‘not unto death’ for those who know the biblical reference)

And a mother stealing to feed her starving baby during a hurricane is close to not being in the same ballpark as someone who willingly, voluntarily, and in a premeditated fashion, steals millions of dollars that they couldn’t possibly have any shadow of need for.

I don’t disagree with you here. I never said that stealing no matter what would have the same circumstances and punishments and that all would fall under the same category. And I do believe in mortal and veniel sin. I’m just saying that stealing is stealing. I never mentioned what the consequences could be for the mom and for a person that robs a bank, but both are still wrong. That would just add a lot more to my posts and you all know how long my posts could be sometimes. I just wanted to say that no matter the circumstances, stealing is wrong.

 

[AlegreFe]

The reason why I say stealing is stealing would be the same to say that someone is pregnant. You can’t be “a little bit” pregnant. You’re pregnant, period.

I don’t believe in giving the devil any kind of satisfaction at all.

That is not to say that I don’t believe that each sin has its own punishment and penance in measure. I never said that punishment would be the same no matter what. All I’m saying is that stealing is wrong. God can decide on what our punishment is for a particalur sin, even if two different people commit the same sin. In fact we ourselves can decide subconsciously with our own guilt and how we feel with what we’ve done. God gave us His heart and soul so we all have this kind of “inborn nature” if you will, to tell us what is wrong and right.

 

[Reuben_J]

**Although my neighbour has no absolute right to his property, I sin if I take it from him without his leave. Necessity does not make stealing into something other than stealing; I still commit sin, even if I’m taking food for my family from a shop in a looted & war-ravaged city - because that food has not been given or sold to me: I’m taking what is quite simply not mine to take. And that is a sin. **​

**Besides, necessity is always necessity if one’s thoughts about it can make it so - self-interest is far too dangerous for it ever to be safe to plead that it is necessary to take what is another’s. The commandment comes from outside us, because what is inside us is perverse & needs correction - we are not able to be trusted to be upright otherwise; because otherwise, we would be judge & jury in all moral decisions affecting us, & would judge unjustly when it suited us to. The commandment deals with our self-interest by making us subject to a law which not from us at all, but from God: we are made responsible to Him, instead of being left to our own crooked ways: & He says - “Thou shalt not steal”. **

As for robbery - that is a crime as well as a sin. To excuse a sin, is to acknowledge it to be a sin: if it were good & holy & right, it would need no excuse. No one excuses (say) Mother Teresa’s virtues - for virtues need no excuse. Even to risk wounding our fellow man in order to take his property makes robbery even worse than theft - it is to commit two sins instead of one. To excuse sin, & say it is no sin, is the devil’s temptation. (As well as itself also being a sin)

Very good post which I thoroughly agree with.

The seventh commandment is unambiguous at all. I would consider a particular act is a sin if it will something that I have to confess at the confessional box. If I am not sure it is a sin, I would be very sure it is a sin if I have to justify that action that it is not a sin. You are right. A holy act needs no justification; it is sin that we sometimes want to justify.

Even if we think it’s not a sin, then remember the standard of God. Put ourselves in the shoes of Jesus and use the general principle, WWJS (What Would Jesus Says) or WWJD (what would Jesus Do). If it’s such a difficult act to follow, and we need justification and say it’s not sin, then refer to His word - be holy (perfect) as your Father is holy (perfect). The standard of God is as high as the heaven. So can we say that it’s not a sin if it’s contradicting His commandment?

I wish I will not be face with the extreme example, and if I do I would certainly fall, even with very much less. But we know that we have the saints and godly characters in the Bible who showed us that we can choose death for God than life for sin. But best of all, we know that we can turn to God when we fall who will raise us again. But perhaps, in His word, we will not be put to the test which we cannot endure.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Many thanks for the response. I gather some people think stealing is a sin but there might be mitigating circumstances, while others think it’s a sin without mitigation.

How about robbery? If you hold a knife to someone, or kill someone, to take what belongs to him/her for yourself, is there any mitigating circumstances? If one is starving is it right to rob? Is it right to kill someone so that one can feed?

Muchos Gracias,
Rodrigo

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Many thanks for the many insightful responses. I gather some people think stealing is a sin but there might be mitigating circumstances, while others think it’s a sin without mitigation.

How about robbery? If you hold a knife to someone, or kill someone, to take what belongs to him/her for yourself, is there any mitigating circumstances? If one is starving is it right to rob? Is it right to kill someone so that one can feed?

Muchos Gracias,
Rodrigo

 

[Genesis315]

I think you might be misunderstanding this a wee bit. You should read that again; what I have in bold.

The way that I see it in this scenario is that it might possible that a person would first ask for some help, in this case food and/or clothing, and if the one who is being asked refuses out of greediness and shelfishness, then I guess this means that at this time the person starving can continue to plead and then maybe let them know that they are taking it anyway. That’s what this looks like to me, but who knows, I could be wrong.

No matter what, I still say stealing is wrong. No matter what the circumstances, stealing is wrong. I would rather ask friends and/or family members or even beg. But I would pray to God first before anything else. I always believe that God will provide. I always have hope no matter what.

I understand your line of thinking, but you bolded the wrong part. The key issue I was discussing was not the idea of the possibility of consent, but rather the idea of the doctrine of the universal destination of goods.

---

What this doctrine entails is this: The fruits of Creation are gifts from God to ALL mankind—in other words, they all have a universal destination. Every human being has a God-given right to the bare necessities. God has given each person that much and He has destined enough goods to go to each person. Therefore, if someone does not have what God has set aside for them and which they should receive as of right, taking from someone who has more than they need is not theft at all, but simply claiming a rightful possession.

Of course, these are extreme circumstances and all other methods of obtainign one’s rightful share should be exhausted first. Again, the rightful share are the most bare necessities to maintain life.

 

[Genesis315]

Many thanks for the response. I gather some people think stealing is a sin but there might be mitigating circumstances, while others think it’s a sin without mitigation.

How about robbery? If you hold a knife to someone, or kill someone, to take what belongs to him/her for yourself, is there any mitigating circumstances? If one is starving is it right to rob? Is it right to kill someone so that one can feed?

Muchos Gracias,
Rodrigo

We can use reasonably necessary force to protect our God-given rights. I don’t see why as a last resort such force would be prohibited in protecting one’s right to the bare necessities of life.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

Dear Genesis,
Would a starving person have the moral right to kill someone else to obtain food? Surely that would break at least 2 commandments: thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not commit murder.

Besides, I don’t think there is a God-Given right for anyone to steal anything, including food, that doesn’t belong to him/her. Or is there?

 

[Reuben_J]

We can use reasonably necessary force to protect our God-given rights. I don’t see why as a last resort such force would be prohibited in protecting one’s right to the bare necessities of life.

The extreme examples given are rather hypothetical and these might not happen at all to those who have faith in God - the Lord of providence.

The key issue I was discussing was not the idea of the possibility of consent, but rather the idea of the doctrine of the universal destination of goods.

What this doctrine entails is this: The fruits of Creation are gifts from God to ALL mankind—in other words, they all have a universal destination. Every human being has a God-given right to the bare necessities. God has given each person that much and He has destined enough goods to go to each person. Therefore, if someone does not have what God has set aside for them and which they should receive as of right, taking from someone who has more than they need is not theft at all, but simply claiming a rightful possession.

Interesting. …

Was it a nun, or a mother, who decided against abortion eventhough by carrying on with the pregnancy might cost her life? I thought she was cannonised later.

Which is more virtuous, to steadfastly obey the commandment of God at the expense of oneself, or to save oneself and commit transgression in migitating circumstances, eventhough it may not be a sin?

The Isrealites didn’t die of starvation because God gave them manna. It would be good if there are some migittaing stories in the OT or NT where good God’s people resorted to steal, rob or kill to save themselves from starvation.

Just a thought.

God has given each person that much and He has destined enough goods to go to each person.

Then how can we go hungry and God allow us to contradict his commandment to avoid hunger? Contradiction of God, no?

 

[Gottle_of_Geer]

Many thanks for the many insightful responses. I gather some people think stealing is a sin but there might be mitigating circumstances, while others think it’s a sin without mitigation.

How about robbery? If you hold a knife to someone, or kill someone, to take what belongs to him/her for yourself, is there any mitigating circumstances? If one is starving is it right to rob? Is it right to kill someone so that one can feed?

Muchos Gracias,
Rodrigo

**Robbery is wrong - in all circumstances. If I rob to eat, that means I lack faith in God’s Providence (as an OP pointed out). And IMO one has to say “I”, because a lot of people are desperately poor, so it’s easy for one to talk when one is not being tested, as they surely are; so one has to bring the issue right home, to the self. **​

Christians are meant to be, well, Christians: not in some things, but in every thing, always Including temptations to rob others - they are temptations: so they are to be rejected, entirely. The fact that one makes so many wrongful compromises anyway, is no reason at all to do so yet again; on the contrary, it’s a good reason to stop doing so. It is better to be wronged than to do wrong - non-Christians worked that out, before Christ came; so that leaves no room for Christians to do violence or homicide, AFAICS - & as we are imperfect, we cannot afford to let ourselves condone what we know to be imperfect behaviour ##

 

[mjdonnelly]

There are other things one can do if one is starving and doesn’t have money. I’ve seen homeless people beg or hold up signs. I have given many times in such cases. If someone is capable, they can get a second job or change jobs if you really need it and not because you want excess… anything but stealing.

You missed a point in my example.

Money has no meaning. You have nothing and I’m preventing you from getting anything. There is no one to beg from, there is no job you can do. Just the 2 of us and I have all water and food imaginable, you have nothing. That is an absolute of my example.

 

[ricko]

If you have to take something out of necessity it is not stealing nor is it a sin. Everyone that has abundance has an obligation to share it with the needy. If food is required, or it is to be thrown away, it is not a sin to take it. God did not intend us to starve or to suffer to comply with the strict letter of the law. Did not Moses steal grain to feed the Hebrews? Did not the Apostles eat grain from another’s field? Did not God command that owners allow the poor to glean their fields? Clearly the wish of God is that all of mankind be partakers of the fruits of the earth. In fact the real sin would lie with the wealthy that do not share with the poor.

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."238 “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”:239
We have an obligation to care for our neighbor in his need. If anyone denies him his needs and he has to steal, we have the sin but he, in his need has none.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I do believe stealing is a sin, no matter how starving one is. It is a stealing nonetheless, those the circumstances might be understandable and the level of sin lessened by the extreme circumstances. I have no hesitation in stealing a can of milk powder if my baby were crying for milk (for instance) - and suffer the consequences for it.

However, I don’t think armed robbery is an excusable sin - particularly if people get killed. The moral equivalence between mere pilfery and armed robbery is vastly different - they are at the opposite ends of the scale. An armed robbery where someone gets killed is even worse. No matter how hungry one is there is no excuse to kill someone else. If we excuse that then we’re no better than a pack of hungry dogs who’d fight each other over a carcass.

My view is thus the 10 Commandments are non-negotiable - if you break them you have sinned. Expiation of these sins or repentance is another matter. One can commit a small sin and then ask for forgiveness if there are mitigating circumstances - but the sin has definitely already occurred.

BTW: I didn’t know any of the prophets had committed the sin of stealing - is there one who had committed armed robbery?

 

[Reuben_J]

If you have to take something out of necessity it is not stealing nor is it a sin. Everyone that has abundance has an obligation to share it with the needy. If food is required, or it is to be thrown away, it is not a sin to take it. God did not intend us to starve or to suffer to comply with the strict letter of the law. Did not Moses steal grain to feed the Hebrews? Did not the Apostles eat grain from another’s field? Did not God command that owners allow the poor to glean their fields? Clearly the wish of God is that all of mankind be partakers of the fruits of the earth. In fact the real sin would lie with the wealthy that do not share with the poor.

2446 St. John Chrysostom vigorously recalls this: "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs."238 “The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”:239
We have an obligation to care for our neighbor in his need. If anyone denies him his needs and he has to steal, we have the sin but he, in his need has none.

Christians can be faced with a dilemma on issue like this. I think this is because of the loving and merciful nature of God that we know of. At some point the line that separates sin and moral obligation becomes very thin and grey. I would see justification for stealing must be based on moral value rather than religious.

The scripture references that you quote do not condone stealing at all. It’s hard to believe that Jesus would do that. Rather Jesus’ standard would be higher than the rigid laws of the OT.

The seventh commandment should be tied up with the 10th and even the 9th. While the OT says it is wrong to commit adultery, Jesus says it’s wrong even to see woman with lust in our heart. Similarly while the OT says it is wrong to steal, Jesus says it’s wrong even to have the intention in our heart to steal. Ancient Hebrews, unlike modern day Americans. can be quite possessive and usually consider wives as husbands’ belongings. The reason why I say the 7th commandment should tie with the 9th too. When discourses are emphasized like that, it should leave for no room for doubt in interpretation.

If adultery is committed because of the need of the body for sex (very seldom adultery is purely relationship where sex is not involved) and it is condemned, similarly if theft is committed because of the need of the body for food, it should be similarly condemned.

God will not contradict himself in his commandments. Sure it’s hard especially if it’s at a point of near death for one not to struggle to survive. But what would Jesus says? We are to be like him in order to follow him. And that’s his commandment - to take up our cross. In some situation that cross may lead to actual physical death not only just dying to the self as we all like this commandment to be.

The mercy and the love of God perhaps come into play in deciding the punishment for stealing in mitigating circumstances.

Peace and God bless.

 

[jimmy]

I agree with Gottle of Geer. Nothing can justify doing evil. Stealing, or taking what is not yours is always evil. No matter how much you need it you can’t justify it. But that does not mean that some person who was starving and stole a peace of bread has the guilt of the sin on their conscience. It depends on where the person is in their spiritual life. If a monk was to steal bread if he was starving he would definately be sinning and he would be guilty of theft. He would have to confess it.

 

[ricko]

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.

The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

"In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself."188 The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

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

I am dishearted in some of the comments made regarding stealing by persons who are greatly in need. Where is our charity? Where is our compassion? If you were God you would condemn a man to hell for stealing for feeding his starving family? Perhaps you would not think so if it was YOU who was starving? I’ve had a taste of it last year when hurricane Rita hit. Though I didn’t steal I experienced doing without food, water, electricity for several days. Totally cut off from the rest of the world with no communication. I can surely imagine what it would be like for a family to go without food.

 

[Reuben_J]

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.

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

But as for “There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods” that can be problematic. At what level when we can presume? What is the degree of reason when we can take the decision into our own hands? Can we imagine a scenario when this happen? In a riot, a holocaust, disaster, war, etc.? Refer post by Gottle of Geer #22 “ … The commandment comes from outside us, because what is inside us is perverse & needs correction - we are not able to be trusted to be upright otherwise; because otherwise, we would be judge & jury in all moral decisions affecting us, & would judge unjustly when it suited us to. The commandment deals with our self-interest by making us subject to a law which not from us at all, but from God: we are made responsible to Him, instead of being left to our own crooked ways: & He says - “Thou shalt not steal”.

Then there’s the question - do later on we need to return or pay for the property we have taken in the circumstance?

I am dishearted in some of the comments made regarding stealing by persons who are greatly in need. Where is our charity? Where is our compassion? If you were God you would condemn a man to hell for stealing for feeding his starving family? Perhaps you would not think so if it was YOU who was starving? I’ve had a taste of it last year when hurricane Rita hit. Though I didn’t steal I experienced doing without food, water, electricity for several days. Totally cut off from the rest of the world with no communication. I can surely imagine what it would be like for a family to go without food.

I can understand your concern and as Christians we are called to be charitable. I am very sure if the world is filled with good Christians, there will be no need for stealing. However being charitable got nothing to do with watering down the commandment of God. The world can be filled with all the calamities and wicked people but these will not diminish the thrust of God’s commandments. Jesus clearly put forth this message when he redefined the commandments.

I did comment about us being tempted to interpret sins based on Christian morality, which is merely justification to sin. Christian morality should not be confused with religious commandments.

Ultimately it’s God’s judgment that decides things. This is where we are confident of His mercy and not before; as we cannot undo His commandments.

Peace and God bless.

 

[Rodrigo_Bivar]

I think the charity is in the forgiveness of a sin - not in the denial of it. The Seventh Commandment is an explicit prohibition of stealing, no ifs no buts. If one breaks that commandment one has sinned. Period. End of story.

But there are mitigating circumstances and the degree of sinning is lessened according to them. Also, the act of contrition and the asking of forgiveness are necessary for the expiation of this sin. Otherwise, it is justification for poor people to keep on stealing to feed themselves. They don’t work - they idle all day and then when they’re hungry they steal what does not belong to them - on the false understanding that they have committed no sin because they are starving.

No. I don’t believe Moses meant the seventh commandment to be negotiable. A sin is a sin - forgiveness of that sin is another matter.

Agree?

 

[Valke2]

I think the charity is in the forgiveness of a sin - not in the denial of it. The Seventh Commandment is an explicit prohibition of stealing, no ifs no buts. If one breaks that commandment one has sinned. Period. End of story.

But there are mitigating circumstances and the degree of sinning is lessened according to them. Also, the act of contrition and the asking of forgiveness are necessary for the expiation of this sin. Otherwise, it is justification for poor people to keep on stealing to feed themselves. They don’t work - they idle all day and then when they’re hungry they steal what does not belong to them - on the false understanding that they have committed no sin because they are starving.

No. I don’t believe Moses meant the seventh commandment to be negotiable. A sin is a sin - forgiveness of that sin is another matter.

Agree?

I think that if you steal something in order to save your life, with the specific intent of making restitution to the person you are stealing from, it is not a sin. There’s an overriding principle in the laws of MOses which states that any commandment (with the exception of a about 3) must be violated if to do otherwise will result in death.

 

[Reuben_J]

I think that if you steal something in order to save your life, with the specific intent of making restitution to the person you are stealing from, it is not a sin. There’s an overriding principle in the laws of MOses which states that any commandment (with the exception of a about 3) must be violated if to do otherwise will result in death.

It’s still a sin since you are acknowledging it’s wrong which need to be restituted. This is what the Catholic Sacrament of Penance all about. You confess your sin to a priest and be sorry for it. Eventhough you’re given absolution, you’re not fully forgiven until you make restitution to the person you’ve wronged. In other word, until you make it right with the person you wronged or if that person forgives you (of the debt, payment, etc.).

But of course the fact that you are intending to make restitution makes that a very ‘small’ (venial) sin. Again it’s depending on how much the thing you’ve stolen meant to the owner. So you see, one can’t take stealing for granted as it is forbidden by God.