Theft of Cash when is too much too much?

[OSN]

This is a spin off from a previous thread in regards to sin, and it reminded me of something I have recently heard on the radio, and I hope this link works.

$750
Quick summary is that a D.A has made a statement of not prosecuting theft in the amount of $750 or less and that it is basically giving people a green light to steal up to that amount.

one more link

https://www.fortworthcriminallawyertx.com/Is-theft-a-misdemeanor-or-a-felony/
Very generic link I found in regards to laws regarding theft of money.

So the rub is, where does the Church stand in regards to sin, and confessing stealing money, because in the fore mentioned thread this spun from, a comment of and I am paraphrasing since I cant figure out how to copy and paste, and who ever made the comment is welcome to clarify or correct If I got it wrong. Was to not fall into scruples or " waste " time in the confessional ( and i used quotes on waste because really it isn’t a waste of time to clear ones conscience during reconciliation ) over small matters.

Thing is, it is a slippery slope, to say it isn’t a terrible sin to steal x amount of money, starts the stone rolling. An at some point someone has to draw a line and say , don’t steal more than this amount .
An then it spirals into other categories related to sin, which again gets the stone rolling and forcing a line in the sand that says. It is almost as if, venial sins become the gateway to mortal sins,… perhaps.

 

[Vico]

…
where does the Church stand in regards to sin, and confessing stealing money,
…

Catholic Encylopedia

There is no doubt but that small pilferings perpetrated at different times, whether to the prejudice of one or of many owners, can eventually coalesce and reach a sum forbidden under pain of mortal sin. The contrary doctrine was condemned by Innocent XI. The reason, of course, is that the damage wrought is serious. This coalescence may be brought about by the specific intention of the thief in his petty stealing to ultimately arrive at a conspicuous amount. When several persons join forces to steal from another and the loss incurred is notable, then each one contracts the guilt of grievous sin, even though his own contribution to the wrong-doing has been but small. One who hoards the proceeds of his petty thefts is chargeable with mortal sin when the sum accumulated is grave. Even when he has disposed of his ill-gotten goods as fast as they were acquired, his thievings will still be held to coalesce unless there has been a considerable interval of time between them.

Delany, J. (1912). Theft. In The Catholic Encyclopedia. New York: Robert Appleton Company. http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/14564b.htm

 

[OSN]

A very interesting find there Vico, and thanks for the response. What that appears to suggest though still, is that stealing money, under a small amount is at least, not a mortal sin. Would that be correct ? While not excusing theft of the small amount of money, and in turn that small theft, would be a venial sin.

The problem though I see is that this labeling gives one an excuse to say, well, I am only going to steal $50.00, this one time. I need it for what ever reason. An in the end, it is just a venial sin, and I can go to reconciliation an things will be fine and it won’t happen again. It is the matter of just having the discussion that the Church had to come to a point to debate and then come to some conclusion. To me it would seem easier to just say theft is a sin, to then say either all theft is venial or mortal, and leave it at that. and not nit pick over the amount.

 

[otjm]

What I was taught is that stealing from someone might vary in its seriousness by the person from whom it is stolen.

While a District Attorney might not bring a case under $750 (or that might be the level between being charged with a misdemeanor and a felony), stealing $10 from someone who id dirt poor is far more serious than stealing $10 from someone who is rich.

Both are sins; but one has a dramatic impact (the poor) and the other is negligible in impact (although you still have no right to it.

As to “found” money (e.g. in the street, under the cushions of a couch in a public area or, for example, at Good Will), part of the issue is the amount; a small amount (and no, I don’t have a dollar level) may simply make it yours; coupled with that is the near impossibility in many if not most cases of determining who the owner is. If in doubt, one can certainly give it to the police (who normally seem to hold it for possible identification as to amount and location) and that might be returned to you. If it is, it is yours.

 

[OSN]

I would agree that stealing from the poor would be far more serious, but then I guess we have to flip the scenerio and ask, what happens when the poor steal to survive ?

I do not see an easy answer to any of this . It is though a decent way to spend ones time debating rather than being troubled with other issues that do not needs one attention.

 

[Beryllos]

If someone’s conscience is well-formed, they would no more likely steal a penny than a thousand dollars.

On the other hand, if they decide to steal based on the amount, or whether they are stealing from a rich person or a poor person, or a small business or a trillion-dollar corporation, or the government, then they don’t understand Christian morality.

 

[Vico]

A very interesting find there Vico, and thanks for the response. What that appears to suggest though still, is that stealing money, under a small amount is at least, not a mortal sin. Would that be correct ? While not excusing theft of the small amount of money, and in turn that small theft, would be a venial sin.

The problem though I see is that this labeling gives one an excuse to say, well, I am only going to steal $50.00, this one time. I need it for what ever reason. An in the end, it is just a venial sin, and I can go to reconciliation an things will be fine and it won’t happen again. It is the matter of just having the discussion that the Church had to come to a point to debate and then come to some conclusion. To me it would seem easier to just say theft is a sin, to then say either all theft is venial or mortal, and leave it at that. and not nit pick over the amount.

Proper sin is mortal sin and it results in a loss of charity, whereas venial sin weakens charity.

That article states for the USA, “ten to fifteen dollars” in 1912. In 2018, with inflation, that is USD 262.70 to USD 394.04.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

I’ve always wondered about this argument of How much… If I stole a 10 dollars from a family in Africa that would be life threatening possibly. But If I stole 10,000 from Bill Gates it would not even be noticed. So which one is mortally sinful?

 

[AlNg]

If someone’s conscience is well-formed, they would no more likely steal a penny than a thousand dollars.

True, but time was short and I had to make a Xerox copy at work and it was a personal copy, not related to work at all. I told the secretary that I wanted to pay for the copy since it was personal (and it amounted to about 10 cents or less). She said that she and everyone else made personal copies and that I should not worry about it. However, it is a theft of ten cents and you say that a well formed conscience would not steal one penny, let alone ten cents. Should I then mail a check for ten cents to the head of the company since the secretary said that she would not take the payment. I doubt that she was given permission or has the authority to let someone make a personal Xerox copy without paying for it since it is understood that the Xerox machine is for work purposes.

 

[Hoosier-Daddy]

no, that shrinkage is factored into the employer employee relationship. As long as liberties are not taken to extremes the agreement is that there will be subtle “permissions”

 

[otjm]

Stealing from a family in Africa would be considered a grievous sin. stealing from Bill Gates will get you 5 if you are caught.

 

[otjm]

It is not stealing; a multitude of offices have a policy that allows minimal copying, pens, etc.

And the check bit is funny; it costs way more to process the check than the amount for which it is written.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

However, it is a theft of ten cents and you say that a well formed conscience would not steal one penny, let alone ten cents.

A well formed conscience would apply common sense to know that sometimes applying a strict, literal “letter of the law” framework will lead to a silly outcome, like you feeling guilty about making a photocopy.

 

[BartholomewB]

You offered to pay and the person in charge of the Xerox machine refused your offer. That’s it. You did what you had to do. Your conscience need trouble you no longer.

 

[Beryllos]

I sounded very sanctimonious there, and upon reflection I realize that I am hypocritical as well. There are indeed gray areas, and I fall into them myself. Every day, I excuse myself for sins because I don’t see the harm in them. Even with stealing.

 

[lilypadrees]

Stealing any amount of money is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

 

[AlNg]

a multitude of offices have a policy that allows minimal copying, pens, etc.

Suppose that a particular office does not have such a policy but in fact has a policy that the Xerox machine is to be used only for official business.

And the check bit is funny

How else would you repay the ten cents if the secretary refuses to accept the money.

Stealing any amount of money is wrong, regardless of the circumstances.

So it is wrong to make a Xerox copy without permission.

 

[lilypadrees]

Yes, it is. It’s wrong to do anything without permission.

 

[LawyersGunsAndMoney]

Suppose that a particular office does not have such a policy but in fact has a policy that the Xerox machine is to be used only for official business.

This is like trying to turn yourself in at the police station because you drove 47 mph in a 45 mph speed limit area. Yes, that’s what the letter of the law says, but common sense tells you that the intent is not to actually bother about such a tiny, technical infraction.

Your company’s policy is meant to prohibit people from using the office equipment to run off 500 copies. No one is going to care if you made a single copy. You’re just being too literal here. Common sense is your friend. You’re okay.

 

[Busyfather]

I too have worried about the severity of such a theft. While the judicial system has to at some point define where prosecution should occur, the church is very digital; you steal, you’ve sinned. A company the size of Xerox has the legal bandwidth to examine finite HR details that a small company with few employees likely would not. A friend of mine owns a manufacturing company and while it’s understood, even if not spoken, that office consumables may be occasionally used for non-work related benefit, it can’t be taken to an extreme. That’s where common sense comes in, a 1/4 used up pencil isn’t regarded the same a stapler for example.
I had a bit of a moral dilemma in 2003 after working a new job for less than a year I had settled in quite well and was very comfortable with the plant manager, the production manager (my boss) and the owner of the 50 employee company. I only had two weeks paid vacation but upon accepting the job made sure that I could be granted additional unpaid time off if necessary as I had the majority of my family 500+ miles away. The time came, I needed it & I followed protocol for requesting time off and it was granted. A couple weeks later my check did not reflect the unpaid 1 week off, it was as if I had worked as normal (I was salary so bi-weekly checks were very consistent). I momentarily thought of telling no one as it represented a windfall to me but I suspected this was accidentally overlooked. The next day I spoke with the plant manager about it and let him know what happened (HR was his responsibility, not my immediate supervisor’s) he told me not to worry about it and that I was doing a good job. I was pleased as my conscience was cleared but part of me still worried that it was the owner’s money that was now in my bank account and he likely was not privy to details of this resolution. I still think about it on occasion but I think that if the owner did not want this to happen (still no idea if he cares or cared one way or the other), the responsibility was on him to install a plant manager who’s opinions on such matters exactly matched his own.