Stealing

[joshkt79]

I went shopping this past weekend at out local Wal-mart. I left there spending well over $200. While going over my receipt when I arrived home, I realized they did not charge me for an item that cost well over $40. It must have not scanned correctly, or whatnot, but I did not notice this until I got home. Is this considered “stealing”? What should I do? Let it go? Confess? Go back and pay/return the item?

Thanks and God Bless

 

[Bookcat]

You did not do anything then for such to happen…one realized it after the fact. Such was not stealing.

But one ought not decide to just keep it…one should go back and fix things…or give a call at least to a manager and discuss it.

 

[puzzleannie]

no it is not stealing since you did nothing wrong and had no intent to steal, but call the store manager before you go back because you might get in trouble if you try to walk back in with the merchandise. Yes you should try to pay for it if they allow you, but if you call, especially if it is a great effort to get back there, they might just give it to you, who knows.

 

[tafan]

It was not stealing at the time, you did nothing wrong. As soon as you realized the store’s mistake it is certainly a sin against the 7th commandment to not go pay for the item, in my opinion it is a grave sin. I was taught as a kid that stealing is almost always objectively speaking a mortal sin.

 

[RosaryFan]

I went shopping this past weekend at out local Wal-mart. I left there spending well over $200. While going over my receipt when I arrived home, I realized they did not charge me for an item that cost well over $40. It must have not scanned correctly, or whatnot, but I did not notice this until I got home. Is this considered “stealing”? What should I do? Let it go? Confess? Go back and pay/return the item?

Thanks and God Bless

Of course it is not stealing if you had no knowledge. I wouldn’t worry about returning to pay for it unless you’re heading in that direction. It wasn’t your fault - it’s one of those things, and I don’t think you’re expected to go out of your way to return to the store. If you happen to be going back, then bring your receipt and pay the difference, but if not, don’t worry. It wasn’t your fault. No need to confess.

I once left the supermarket with an entire 20-pack of toilet tissue which I didn’t pay for. It was on the bottom of the cart because it was so big, and I forgot to put it on the conveyor belt. I didn’t worry too much about it because, by the same token, I’ve gone home without items that I DID pay for. I figured it all evens out in the end. My point is, if it’s unintentional and too much of a burden to return to the store, no need to fuss about it.

 

[Bookcat]

I was taught as a kid that stealing is almost always objectively speaking a mortal sin.

Such would not be the case. Theft admits of parvity (smallness) of matter.

(I am here only addressing the line above…the general subject)

 

[Bookcat]

I was taught as a kid that stealing is almost always objectively speaking a mortal sin.

Theft admits of parvity (smallness) of matter.

(I am here only addressing the line above…the general subject)

 

[PattiDay]

It wasn’t stealing, and there is nothing for you to confess. But should you just let it go? Someone else made a mistake. The fact that you asked sounds like you might not want to take advantage of someone’s mistake, even if it’s a big giant corporation that seemingly won’t miss it. The important thing is your conscience and your standard of ethics. It’s my opinion that the store manager, if you were to call them, would say thank you for your honesty. Please accept it for free with our compliments. What does your conscience say?
God bless

 

[tafan]

I will agree that theft is not always a mortal sin, sorry for passing on that tidbit about my upbringing.

Having said that, I am quite appalled at the responses on this thread. The OP is in possision of an item, he did not pay for, which the owner had no intent on giving him for free and fully expected him to pay for it. No one is denying that it was all a mistake on the part of the original owner, which is why there was no initial sin.

But to keep the item without going back and paying for it is a sin, plain and simple. There is no grey ground. The ideas that the OP “ought not decide to just keep it” or that “even if it’s a big giant corporation that seemingly won’t miss it” or " I wouldn’t worry about returning to pay for it unless you’re heading in that direction" are just absurd. Wow, I am quite amazed at the lax moral standards.

WHen you go in a retail store and put something in the basket, you are making an implied agreement to pay for that item before walking out with it. Though admittedly the OP did not mean to breach this agreement, it was breeched. If the situation was reversese and the OP was charged an extra $40, he would rightly expect a refund.

 

[RosaryFan]

But to keep the item without going back and paying for it is a sin, plain and simple. There is no grey ground.

I strongly disagree. If it’s a hardship to go back, then it’s not necessary to go back.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

Theft admits of parvity (smallness) of matter.

(I am here only addressing the line above…the general subject)

Right. And the gravity of the sin depends on the relative magnitude of the loss to the one it is taken from.

Thus it is a grave sin to steal $10 from a homeless person who needs it for his next meal, but $200 from Warren Buffet is a venial sin. Someplace I read that a day’s wage, for the one stolen from, is the line between venial and mortal. I don’t know a Church teaching on this, but that seems a reasonable rule-of-thumb.

On the other hand do not dismiss wrong doing as a minor matter because it is only a venial sin. One of the saints counseled that one should rather die than willingly commit even the least venial sin.

 

[puzzleannie]

It. I was taught as a kid that stealing is almost always objectively speaking a mortal sin.

it depends on the relative value of the item(s) stolen, intention, age and situation whether or not stealing in a specific case was mortally sinful. For instance stealing $10 from a poor man for whom that is a month’s income is a grave sin, even though for you it is chump change. Stealing $100,000 is still a mortal sin for you even if the victim, say a large corporation, is far wealthier. there is no dollar amount that objectively makes it a mortal sin. I think your teachers may have exaggerated to make a point.

there is no reason whatever to claim that in OP’s story there is any intent for wrongdoing or sin.

 

[tafan]

The point is very simple. You can try to justify it as not a big deal all you want due to the fact that walmart is a big company. I am not buying it. If you owe them money, you owe them money. Even a venial sin takes on more gravity when the morals decision is completely premeditated and without any excuse.

From the CCC

2401 The seventh commandment forbids unjustly taking **or keeping the goods of one’s neighbor **and wronging him in any way with respect to his goods. It commands justice and charity in the care of earthly goods and the fruits of men’s labor. For the sake of the common good, it requires respect for the universal destination of goods and respect for the right to private property. Christian life strives to order this world’s goods to God and to fraternal charity.

If everyone ignored the 7th commandment for small stuff, say $40 or less; a lot of goods and services would get a lot more expensive for all of us.

2409 Even if it does not contradict the provisions of civil law, any form of unjustly taking and keeping the property of others is against the seventh commandment

I will finally add Thomas Aquinas comment on the serious of theft:

newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm#article6

Whether Theft is a Mortal Sin

I answer that, 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.

We do not take the seventh commandment seriously enough in our society. The responses on this thread are embarrassing. The OP knew in his heart it was wrong to keep the item and not pay it.

I will admit to minor thefts not necessarily being mortal, but in general be very careful. The nun who taught me it was always mortal explained it thus (this is from memory, a long time ago): it is one of the most inexcusable of sins. It is almost always premeditated. Everyone knows it is wrong when they are doing it.

 

[Catholic90]

I would definitely call the store and explain what had happened. If it is a hardship to return, you could always MAIL the check in for the amount of purchase.

I find it disheartening to read of all those who say to “just keep it”. That is stealing.

So call the store, explain what happened, and they will say one of 2 thing: 1) you can keep it (clear conscious) or 2) tell you what you owe, so either return and pay or mail payment (clear conscious). Anything else is wrong.

 

[Catholic90]

Of course it is not stealing if you had no knowledge.** I wouldn’t worry about returning to pay for it unless you’re heading in that direction. It wasn’t your fault - it’s one of those things, and I don’t think you’re expected to go out of your way to return to the store. If you happen to be going back, then bring your receipt and pay the difference, but if not, don’t worry**. It wasn’t your fault. No need to confess.

I once left the supermarket with an entire 20-pack of toilet tissue which I didn’t pay for. It was on the bottom of the cart because it was so big, and I forgot to put it on the conveyor belt. I didn’t worry too much about it because, by the same token, I’ve gone home without items that I DID pay for. I figured it all evens out in the end. My point is, if it’s unintentional and too much of a burden to return to the store, no need to fuss about it.

Oh, that just strikes me as so wrong. It is stealing. You got something you did not pay for it AND you knew you did not pay for it.

 

[Bookcat]

I will admit to minor thefts not necessarily being mortal, but in general be very careful. The nun who taught me it was always mortal explained it thus (this is from memory, a long time ago): it is one of the most inexcusable of sins. It is almost always premeditated. Everyone knows it is wrong when they are doing it.

Yes even venially sinful theft is still sinful! And as pointed out usually very deliberate. And one has to make restitution for what is stolen…

Fr. John Hardon S (who is now “Servant of God” …in the process of possible canonization) defines it and details it this way: catholicreference.net/index.cfm?id=36824

 

[RosaryFan]

Oh, that just strikes me as so wrong. It is stealing. You got something you did not pay for it AND you knew you did not pay for it.

Yes, I knew it AFTER the fact. I had an infant at the time and to turn around and go back to the store would have been a hardship. As I said, there were times when I didn’t even turn around and go back when I DID pay for something and they forgot to put the bag in my cart! (Not that I should have to explain myself to you, mind you.)

Consider this… Owner of the “mistakenly stolen” item is ABC, Corp. The CEO of ABC, Corp. is some multi-millionaire. So I’m going to waste $3.70 in gas to go back to the store to “make right” a mistake by multi-millionaire’s employee so that I can put an additional $3.70 in multi-millionaire’s pocket? That sounds right to you? I don’t think so. HARDSHIP.

Since when are we obliged to suffer hardships to correct someone else’s error? How is it sinful to opt out of that? I think it is nothing less than a heroic effort to do otherwise.

It’s a simple matter of common sense.

 

[Bookcat]

Yes, I knew it AFTER the fact. I had an infant at the time and to turn around and go back to the store would have been a hardship. As I said, there were times when I didn’t even turn around and go back when I DID pay for something and they forgot to put the bag in my cart! (Not that I should have to explain myself to you, mind you.)

Consider this… Owner of the “mistakenly stolen” item is ABC, Corp. The CEO of ABC, Corp. is some multi-millionaire. So I’m going to waste $3.70 in gas to go back to the store to “make right” a mistake by multi-millionaire’s employee so that I can put an additional $3.70 in multi-millionaire’s pocket? That sounds right to you? I don’t think so. HARDSHIP.

Since when are we obliged to suffer hardships to correct someone else’s error? How is it sinful to opt out of that? I think it is nothing less than a heroic effort to do otherwise.

It’s a simple matter of common sense.

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…(etc)

I think yes…for something that was so little as $3.70 that was their mistake…and would cost the person to return both money, time and difficulty with an infant. It would seem that one could even presume that the store would understand the person not taking it back.

Of course if it is a store they return to often they could mention it next time they go for example to the manager.

 

[RosaryFan]

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…(etc)

I think yes…for something that was so little as $3.70 that was their mistake…and would cost the person to return both money, time and difficulty with an infant. It would seem that one could even presume that the store would understand the person not taking it back.

Of course if it is a store they return to often they could mention it next time they go for example to the manager.

I agree with 2408 of the Catechism, except in this particular case, it is not theft.

 

[tafan]

I agree with 2408 of the Catechism, except in this particular case, it is not theft.

Sorry, not buying it. Calling the store takes a phone call, putting a check in the mail costs 40 cents. Justify it all you want, I don’t by it; especially when you justify it by saying the store made money from my other purchases.

Consider this analogy, I loan some tools to a friend. When he is done he puts them on a box and returns them. He mistakenly puts one of his tools in the box. Well, it was his mistake, and he got the free use of my tools, there is nothing wrong with me keeping it. Absurd.