Sinfulness of - "stealing" when starving - the seventh commandment

[JRKH]

On another thread HERE the following exchange took place. Cince it would be getting off topic over there, Ghosty and I agreed to start a new thread…(name removed by moderator)ut appreciated.
The first response was to the OP’s situation…

You were correct in your morals, but incorrect in your argument. A starving person taking a loaf of bread from someone who is well fed is not actally stealing at all. The purpose of food is to satisfy bodily hunger, and if someone is truly starving then taking the bread is simply putting it to proper use. The well fed person who intentionally keeps food from someone who is starving is actually sinning.

So its not a question of relative moral gravity at all, but rather sin versus non-sin. Check out paragraph 2402 in the Catechism for information on the universal destination of goods. Basically, God gave Earth to all mankind, not individuals, but private property is the typical means by which everyone is assured their due. Private property does not negate the first principle that all goods belong to humanity in general, however, and therefore property rights can’t be used to keep food from the starving, or shelter from the homeless.

Peace and God bless!

I find your line of reasoning troubling…Not the premise so much as the application…

Originally Posted by Ghosty

I never said that taking was better than sharing, I said it wasn’t a sin. The starving person is under no obligation to wait for the well-fed to do the right thing. The underlying point is that the bread doesn’t properly belong to the well-fed in the first place.

Allowing for sharing is nice, but not necessary.

Peace and God bless!

I disagree that allowing for sharing is not necessary. It would seem to me to be a moral requirement that you ask before you take. I suppose that one can make the case that, having asked and been denied, the sin then being on the head of the greedy one, you could help yourself to what is needed and no more.
But to say that “Allowing for sharing is nice, but not necessary” flies in the face of the golden rule IMHO and the great command to love your neighbor as yourself. Would you want someone taking from you without asking???

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

I agree that one should ask first, out of kindness and respect, but not asking doesn’t make it theft. I can’t quote with this device I’m typing with, but check out paragraph 2408 of the Catechism. Taking is not theft if a) consent can be presumed, or b) refusal to share the item would be against just application of the universal destination of goods. In the case of the starving person both a and b come into play; consent to share can be presumed of the virtuous, and hoarding by the unvirtuous is a violation of the universal destination of goods. If asking first was strictly necessary, then presumption wouldn’t enter the equation.

Peace and God bless!

 

[april32010]

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

i am a fairly recent convert ,and its amazing how often i have had a conversion reading Church teaching.as with this ,i read it and a half hour ago i didn’t believe this.now i do.

 

[JRKH]

I agree that one should ask first, out of kindness and respect, but not asking doesn’t make it theft.

Amen…

I can’t quote with this device I’m typing with, but check out paragraph 2408 of the Catechism. Taking is not theft if a) consent can be presumed, or b) refusal to share the item would be against just application of the universal destination of goods. In the case of the starving person both a and b come into play; consent to share can be presumed of the virtuous, and hoarding by the unvirtuous is a violation of the universal destination of goods. If asking first was strictly necessary, then presumption wouldn’t enter the equation.

I will grant that there are times when one cannot ask, for various reasons. For example when the person is absent and the need extreme…
Likewise there are times when one may presume on ones neighbor - where they know the person and situation and can have reasonable expectation of assent.

However - wherever possible one should ask before just taking…

Peace and God bless!

And to you.

Peace
James

 

[Aelred_Minor]

It’s true, under dire circumstances a person can take something like food from someone else without asking permission, and it would not be stealing. The reason is that the food would in fact belong to the starving person, not to its previous owner. The starving person would merely be taking what is his or her own. In fact, depending on the details of the situation, the person attempting to withhold the food might be the one attempting what amounts to theft.

The key to understanding this is to understand that the goods of the earth have been given by God first of all to all humanity. Individual personal property is important, but is subsidiary to this universal destination of goods. As soon as personal property conflicts irreconcilably with the universal destination of goods, personal property rights cease, or shift in favor of the person in need.

 

[Swiss_Guy]

It’s true, under dire circumstances a person can take something like food from someone else without permission, and it would not be stealing. The reason is that the food would in fact belong to the starving person, not to its previous owner. The starving person would merely be taking what is his or her own. In fact, depending on the details of the situation, the person attempting to withhold the food might be the one attempting what amounts to theft.

The key to understanding this is to understand that the goods of the earth have been given by God first of all to all humanity. Individual personal property is important, but is subsidiary to this universal destination of goods. As soon as personal property conflicts irreconcilably with the universal destination of goods, personal property rights cease, or shift in favor of the person in need.

This is like the third time in my past 10-15 posts that someone has said in the post before my post what I was gonna say.

 

[Ghosty]

I agree completely that one should ask first. It is an exercise in prudence and humility. Not asking, while not always a sin, can lead you down the path of pride quite easily. When I say that asking isn’t necessary, I’m speaking in the strict sense that asking first is not a component in the sinfulness or non-sinfulness of the act of taking when in true need.

Asking first is almost always the better way. The exceptions would be when asking first would severely curtail the good, such as waiting for permission to use the neighbor’s hose to put out a raging fire, or waiting for permission from a boat owner to take a boat to rescue a drowning person. In these cases I would argue that asking is actually worse than simply taking.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JRKH]

I agree that one should ask first, out of kindness and respect, but not asking doesn’t make it theft.

Amen…

I can’t quote with this device I’m typing with, but check out paragraph 2408 of the Catechism. Taking is not theft if a) consent can be presumed, or b) refusal to share the item would be against just application of the universal destination of goods. In the case of the starving person both a and b come into play; consent to share can be presumed of the virtuous, and hoarding by the unvirtuous is a violation of the universal destination of goods. If asking first was strictly necessary, then presumption wouldn’t enter the equation.

For everyone’s benefit…
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
I will grant that there are times when one cannot ask, for various reasons. For example when the person is absent and the need extreme…
Likewise there are times when one may presume on ones neighbor - where they know the person and situation and can have reasonable expectation of assent.

However - the idea of presumption that is referred to in 2408 is a dangerous one if not properly (carefully and diligently) applied.

Example from our more complex world - for consideration…
Should you “presume” that at store clerk should give you a loaf of bread because you are starving?
The store clerk is “well fed” and we can presume that the store owner is “well fed”…But the store clerk may not have the authority to “give away” that loaf of bread. And in fact his would be an obligation to prevent the theft of goods intended for sale…Are the items in the store being “hoarded”?

How would you apply the teaching here???

Thoughts?

Peace and God bless!

And to you.

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

i am a fairly recent convert ,and its amazing how often i have had a conversion reading Church teaching.as with this ,i read it and a half hour ago i didn’t believe this.now i do.

Amen!

The Faith will always challenge us, sometimes in shocking ways. This teaching in particular is difficult for us Americans, I think, with our emphasis on individualism. God’s teachings, however, have a sublime reason and resonance all their own, and it’s impossible to argue against them once they’re properly understood.

Thankfully God gives us the Grace of understanding and acceptance.

Peace and God bless!

 

[april32010]

Amen!

The Faith will always challenge us, sometimes in shocking ways. This teaching in particular is difficult for us Americans, I think, with our emphasis on individualism. God’s teachings, however, have a sublime reason and resonance all their own, and it’s impossible to argue against them once they’re properly understood.

Thankfully God gives us the Grace of understanding and acceptance.

Peace and God bless!

ain’t that the truth! i’ve been reading on the history of the Church’s teaching on usury,and to say is that it is challenging is a understatement.

 

[Bookcat]

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

(note it is NOT that the circumstance makes theft ok --it is that the object it self is a different object than theft–it is not theft).

 

[AbideWithMe]

It’s true, under dire circumstances a person can take something like food from someone else without asking permission, and it would not be stealing. The reason is that the food would in fact belong to the starving person, not to its previous owner. The starving person would merely be taking what is his or her own. In fact, depending on the details of the situation, the person attempting to withhold the food might be the one attempting what amounts to theft.

I think my dog follows this line of thinking.

 

[Ghosty]

I think my dog follows this line of thinking.

I’m sure your dog always thinks it’s starving, too!

 

[JRKH]

Would anyone care to address the scenario presented in post #7…
For convenience…I will repeat it here…slightly modified for clarity

Example from our more complex world - for consideration…
Can you “presume” that at store clerk should give you a loaf of bread because you are starving?
We can see that the store clerk is “well fed” and we can presume that the store owner is “well fed”…
But the store clerk may not have the authority to “give away” that loaf of bread. And in fact his would be an obligation, as servant to his master (the store owner), to prevent the “theft” (in the eyes of the law) of goods intended for sale…
Are the items in the store - intended for sale - being “hoarded”?

How would you apply the teaching here???

Thoughts?

Peace
James

 

[Ghosty]

I don’t think its all that complicated, though it would be awkard. The bread “belongs” to the starving person, so taking it isn’t theft. The clerk simply a “assistant of the steward”, and it is the steward’s (shop owner) duty to allow the starving person to take the bread. The clerk might be in trouble for allowing the person to take the bread, but only if the owner is unscrupulous.

If the clerk doesn’t know the condition of the starving person, they might stop the perceived theft in good faith, but not if they know the person is starving. The fundamental destination of goods is universal, and the clerk’s primary obligation is to that law, secondarily to the owner. The same is true of the owner themself.

Peace and God bless!

 

[JRKH]

I don’t think its all that complicated, though it would be awkard. The bread “belongs” to the starving person, so taking it isn’t theft. The clerk simply a “assistant of the steward”, and it is the steward’s (shop owner) duty to allow the starving person to take the bread. The clerk might be in trouble for allowing the person to take the bread, but only if the owner is unscrupulous.

If the clerk doesn’t know the condition of the starving person, they might stop the perceived theft in good faith, but not if they know the person is starving. The fundamental destination of goods is universal, and the clerk’s primary obligation is to that law, secondarily to the owner. The same is true of the owner themself.

Peace and God bless!

Thank you for your answer…Nicely written.

Of course it does not take into account the many variations on the matter…What “should” occur - what faith the owner/clerk hold to…criminal law (as opposed to moral law) issues and so forth…All issues not included but I am sure that they “crossed your mind” as you considered your response. - which was my purpose in asking the question…
So that we all learn…

I admit that this is an aspect of the seventh commandment that I have not looked into or considered. It is something that will require some reflection…

Peace
James

 

[JonCarlos1984]

Interesting thread. There tends to be no direct black/white answer when an issue has a multitude of different layers and complexities.