Thou shalt not steal - relationship with secular theft laws

[x1980x]

I was thinking about the Ten Commandments and their relationship with secular criminal law. At least here in the US, several commandments do not have equivalents in secular criminal law. For example, a person who makes and worships a graven image and does not honor their father and mother can generally not be sent to prison for this. The CC’s injunction against Murder, as far as I can tell, does not map 100% to secular definitions because abortion is always considered murder regardless of whether or not local secular law considers it to be a crime or not.

To what extent does the CC’s view of theft/stealing coincide with secular definitions used in criminal court? Assuming that the offender/sinner is of sufficient age and maturity and does not have a defense of not knowing the laws of God or Caesar,

1. Is it possible for someone, with Caesar’s permission, to take property that does not belong to them against the will of the owner in such a way that, even though they did not commit a crime, they are still guilty of the sin of theft/stealing? For example, could some forms of Civil Asset Forfeiture, Repossession, Tax Sales, Seizure for Debt, Condemnation, or Eminent Domain be considered to morally constitute theft even though the taking is permitted under local criminal law?
2. On the other hand, are there any cases where the CC would permit a person to knowingly and willingly commit a secular theft offense but not hold them guilty of any sin? For example, would the CC ever disagree with Caesar on the lawful owner of a piece of property, e.g. “A secular court said this car belongs to John, but a Catholic tribunal ruled that it belongs to Joe, so Joe may take it and do as he pleases with it without committing any sin, and the CC will ignore any criminal convictions sustained against him for such taking as immoral and void, for instance in a background check for admission to seminary.”

For the purpose of this question, “theft offense” means any offense that has as its nature some type of theft or stealing as its moral basis. For example, it covers secular offenses of “larceny”, “fraud”, “joyriding”, and “embezzlement”.

 

[waanju]

For #2, we are obliged to follow civil law as long as it would not be immoral to do so. (Which is why I, as an 18 year old, cannot drink alcohol in the US, though there is nothing intrinsically immoral with an 18 year old having a glass of wine at dinner.)

 

[Inego_de_Loyola]

It is not immoral to steal food if it is necessary for you or your families survival, but it is criminal to do so.

 

[bzkoss236]

Well, in regards to foreclosed homes, these are instances where the person hasn’t fully paid their debt to officially own these items, so the bank is effectively taking back what they own. However, if the person has even paid some money, then I guess technically they own part of the home. So it’s hard to say.

And with repossession, they are taking items to be able to sell to pay off your debt.

So, it’s hard to really say.

But for your number 2, we are told to follow civil laws unless it is something immoral.

 

[x1980x]

Well, in regards to foreclosed homes, these are instances where the person hasn’t fully paid their debt to officially own these items, so the bank is effectively taking back what they own. However, if the person has even paid some money, then I guess technically they own part of the home. So it’s hard to say.

And with repossession, they are taking items to be able to sell to pay off your debt.

So, it’s hard to really say…

I believe that creditors are allowed to ask a court for permission to seize unrelated property to pay a debt. For example, if you don’t pay medical bills, the doctor could sue you and ask the court for permission to take your car or garnish your wages. In that case, it’s not a matter of them taking property that you didn’t finish paying for - they are taking property from you because you owe them money. In such a circumstance, if the doctor were to just up and swipe your car in the middle of the night in order to satisfy your bill, that would be (secular criminal) theft because self-help debt collection is not legal unless provided for in the debt agreements (e.g. an auto loan with a right to repossession) or authorized by law such as a statute or court ruling. The taking becomes legal when the creditor goes to Caesar and says, “Can I take this?” and Caesar responds, “yes”.