What if I stole?

[erbo]

Hey all,

I have a question for everyone:
If I knowingly and intentionally stole $10,000 from somebody, would I have committed a mortal sin?
What if I knowingly and intentionally stole $1 from somebody? Is that a mortal sin? Why?
What if it was $0.01?

I had an interesting discussion with another Catholic about this, and I found their answer very surprising. I’ll elaborate after I get some theological answers.

-erbo

 

[JLSamuel818]

Hey all,

I have a question for everyone:
If I knowingly and intentionally stole $10,000 from somebody, would I have committed a mortal sin?
What if I knowingly and intentionally stole $1 from somebody? Is that a mortal sin? Why?
What if it was $0.01?

I had an interesting discussion with another Catholic about this, and I found their answer very surprising. I’ll elaborate after I get some theological answers.

-erbo

Let’s look at the definition of a mortal sin shall we?

Mortal Sin :
-committed with full knowledge, both of the sin and of the gravity of the offense (though nobody is deemed to be ignorant of the moral law, embedded into the consciences of every human being);
-it must be committed with deliberate and complete consent, enough for it to have been a personal decision to commit the sin.

Each one is a sin because you stole. “Thou shall not steal”.

Secondly, you willingly knowing it was a sin, did it willingly anyway.
Then there is the reason behind it, did you do it to hurt them? Another sin. Or maybe greed? Another sin.

It all adds up.

Depending on the reasons you did it, like you stole because your brother was dying and you needed to help pay the hospital bills, or plain ignorance not know it was a sin to steal, then it’s just a sin.

But to do it for personal greed, or to personally hurt the person your stealing from, then it would be mortal.

EDIT: I could be wrong. This is my interpretation of what becomes a sin, or mortal sin. I could be wrong. I blissfully welcome any correction.

 

[tvdxer]

Hey all,

I have a question for everyone:
If I knowingly and intentionally stole $10,000 from somebody, would I have committed a mortal sin?

Yes.

Probably not, unless the victim was very poor or otherwise needed that dollar.

What if it was $0.01?

No. It would be very difficult for me (or any other thinking person) to consider a penny grave matter. There could be some bizarre set of circumstances that might make it a mortal sin, but generally, no.

 

[rpp]

Okay, here is my take on this. Theft is a sin. To a certain degree, the gravity of the sin depends on the need of the victim. Stealing $1 from someone who is wealthy may only be a venial sin. Stealing from a very poor, where that $1 may deprive someone of food, would certainly be a grave, and therefore potentially mortal, sin.

I think for most people, no matter who the victim is, tealing $10,000 would always be a grave sin as that amount of money can change the situation in most victims or perpetrators.

I may be wrong here, but I think that may be the case. Keep inj mind that I am talking about the gravity of a sin, not whether it is sinful. This in no way should be interpreted as me supporting some sort of relativistic morality. I categorically reject relativism and situational ethics.

 

[Joe_Kelley]

I remember hearing long ago that stealing less than a day’'s wage [for the victim] was a venial sin; more than a day’s wage was a mortal sin. I don’t think that is an official teaching, but it may be a reasonable guide line.

 

[rpp]

I remember hearing long ago that stealing less than a day’'s wage [for the victim] was a venial sin; more than a day’s wage was a mortal sin. I don’t think that is an official teaching, but it may be a reasonable guide line.

Now that you mention it, I think I recall hearing the same thing. I need to look that up. I seem to recall hearing something like that in the book, This is the Faith. Let me see if I can find it.

 

[rpp]

Joe Kelley;4935216:

I remember hearing long ago that stealing less than a day’'s wage [for the victim] was a venial sin; more than a day’s wage was a mortal sin. I don’t think that is an official teaching, but it may be a reasonable guide line.

Now that you mention it, I think I recall hearing the same thing. I need to look that up. I seem to recall hearing something like that in the book, This is the Faith. Let me see if I can find it.

Okay. I looked this up n the book This is the Faith by Canon Francis Ripley. TAN Publishing.

Now I do not want to violate any copyright restrictions here, so this is the gist from that book. Pages 96 and 97 cover the “Gravity of Theft”.

There were three points the author made:

1. 
   *]The Value of the thing stolen.
   *]The person or company suffering the loss
   *]The time over which the theft is spread.
   
   The value of the properly may be absolutely or relatively grave. To be absolutely grave does not take the victim into consideration. From the book: "Moral theologians are united in fixing this sum as the equivalent of the weekly wages earned by a person in the middle class of society.
   
   Relatively grave is determined by the situation of the victim and is equivalent to a the victim’s daily wage or less. More than that and it is absolutely grave.
   
   The book goes into a great deal of detail, and much more eloquently, that I can post here. To learn more about this book, check it out this link.
   
   The printed edition of the book.
   An MP3 audio CD of this book.
   
   Thanks for poking my memory Joe. :tiphat:

 

[erbo]

The value of the properly may be absolutely or relatively grave. To be absolutely grave does not take the victim into consideration. From the book: "Moral theologians are united in fixing this sum as the equivalent of the weekly wages earned by a person in the middle class of society.

Relatively grave is determined by the situation of the victim and is equivalent to a the victim’s daily wage or less. More than that and it is absolutely grave.

Very interesting, and I thank you for that. I had a discussion with a priest about just this. I held the position that that theft is against the 10 commandments, and therefore is a grave matter. Therefore, anything of any value that was intentionally stolen was a mortal sin. The priest responded that the amount should be taken into account, and therefore, stealing $1.00 would not be a mortal sin.

So when it comes to sins, is it a matter of principle? In principle, stealing $10,000 is the same vile act as stealing $1.00.

Also, does the Church have any official teaching on this (Catechism, Canon Law, etc), or is it one of those gray areas?

Thanks to everyone for their answers!

-erbo

 

[Joe_Kelley]

rpp - Thanks for looking that up. - Joe

 

[Joe_Kelley]

When I had a polygraph years ago they required that we lie on certain questions so they could calibrate the results. One of the questions was “Have you ever taken a pen home from work?” The required answer was “No”, since everyone has. I doubt that any of us are guilty of even a venial sin for taking a pen.

Incidentally, the one administering the test warned me never to lie. He says I am one of the poorest he ever encountered.

 

[rpp]

When I had a polygraph years ago they required that we lie on certain questions so they could calibrate the results. One of the questions was “Have you ever taken a pen home from work?” The required answer was “No”, since everyone has. I doubt that any of us are guilty of even a venial sin for taking a pen.

**Incidentally, the one administering the test warned me never to lie. He says I am one of the poorest he ever encountered. **

Unless you are a professional poker player, that is a skill that is best not to develop!

 

[ConallCernach]

In order for an action to be sinful there are three elements:

Object, intent, and circumstance.

Since we are talking about stealing we can ignore the circumstance (this is because you only need the object, intent or circumstance to be immoral. As such circumstance is not important to this question. But would be more like “If I were to help the poor instead of going to Mass, would it be sinful?”).

Object:
The object is actually taking from another person. As weird as it sounds, this is morally neutral (I can explain why). The major factor is the intent.

Intent:
What is the intent behind the taking? Are you doing it to just amass more money? To live easier?

Or were you in desperate need in which you could get money in no other way (this is very unlikely because you could usually beg the person you intended to rob) .

So ultimately the sin here is the intent to steal, cause harm. If you wish to rob a person of a penny, as I understand it could be as detrimental to your soul $10,000 or $1.

Pax

 

[Appleby]

Okay. I looked this up n the book This is the Faith by Canon Francis Ripley. TAN Publishing.

Now I do not want to violate any copyright restrictions here, so this is the gist from that book. Pages 96 and 97 cover the “Gravity of Theft”.

There were three points the author made:

1. 
   *]The Value of the thing stolen.
   *]The person or company suffering the loss
   *]The time over which the theft is spread.
   
   The value of the properly may be absolutely or relatively grave. To be absolutely grave does not take the victim into consideration. From the book: "Moral theologians are united in fixing this sum as the equivalent of the weekly wages earned by a person in the middle class of society.
   
   Relatively grave is determined by the situation of the victim and is equivalent to a the victim’s daily wage or less. More than that and it is absolutely grave.
   
   The book goes into a great deal of detail, and much more eloquently, that I can post here. To learn more about this book, check it out this link.
   
   The printed edition of the book.
   An MP3 audio CD of this book.
   
   Thanks for poking my memory Joe. :tiphat:

1. 
   To me it’s stealing if:
   
   (1) You know the money or the object does not belong to you;
   (2) You did not ask permission to take it; and
   (3) You have no intention or ability to replace or return it.
   
   That is, theft has nothing whatsoever to do with how rich the owner is and how much you believe you ‘need’ it and the owner doesn’t. A typical bleat in our laundry room when someone is caught helping herself to someone else’s soap is, “I didn’t know it was yours!”
   
   The really important thing in this case is whether or not the thief knew IT WASN’T HERS.

 

[Revelation1412]

Don’t steal - As bad as things are, sometimes we just need to remember that there are a lot of people out there who are having even a more difficult time than we are.

 

[Appleby]

During Hurricane Katrina there were films of people, including police officers, looting a Wal-Mart. The honest people took food they desperately needed and left name, address and promise to pay.

The dishonest, including the police officers who were seen wheeling shopping cartloads of goodies out the door, took flat screen teevee sets, stereos, high-end appliances and beer. This film was on YouTube at the time and you may still be able to find it.

In an emergency situation like that, anyone could be forgiven (provided they made at least an attempt at restitution) for taking food and water. There is absolutely no reason or excuse to loot electronics or beer.

 

[Praline]

To respond to the last post… and of course this is just my feelings… I live in this area.I was a few state away during Katrina. I watched on TV people walking off with TV, computers, etc. That is STEALING!
But food and water is different!!! ( In my opinion, of course) I think that if you are thirsty or hungry, especially with kids, you need to get them food. I cannot see why it would be wrong to take water and food from a store… most of the food will be bad by the time the owners get back.You can always go back and offer to pay for what you took after the crisis is over.
I usually have nonperishable food in my pantry. I get paid once a month and buy in bulk. I also have food in my freezer. I would hope that if there was ever a storm, and someone is hungry and knows that food is there , they can get it without causing any more damage. I would be really upset if I knew someone actually went hungry when they could have eaten my food. BUT, leave my computer, my clothes, my books, …
As a matter of fact, if someone had gone in my house and emptied my freezer, they would have done me a BIG favor. lol Because of the rotten food, I had to buy a new side by side refrigerator that was only 2 years old.
I think circumstances determine right or wrong ( in some cases).

 

[Appleby]

To respond to the last post… and of course this is just my feelings… I live in this area.I was a few state away during Katrina. I watched on TV people walking off with TV, computers, etc. That is STEALING!
But food and water is different!!! ( In my opinion, of course) I think that if you are thirsty or hungry, especially with kids, you need to get them food. I cannot see why it would be wrong to take water and food from a store… most of the food will be bad by the time the owners get back.You can always go back and offer to pay for what you took after the crisis is over.
I usually have nonperishable food in my pantry. I get paid once a month and buy in bulk. I also have food in my freezer. I would hope that if there was ever a storm, and someone is hungry and knows that food is there , they can get it without causing any more damage. I would be really upset if I knew someone actually went hungry when they could have eaten my food. BUT, leave my computer, my clothes, my books, …
As a matter of fact, if someone had gone in my house and emptied my freezer, they would have done me a BIG favor. lol Because of the rotten food, I had to buy a new side by side refrigerator that was only 2 years old.
I think circumstances determine right or wrong ( in some cases).

I agree with you with the proviso that the people who are stealing the food and water realize that they are taking what does not belong to them, and they make some kind of effort either to pay back the victims or help others who are in the same situation when the occasion arises. Stealing is wrong no matter what your motivation may be; but there are times when in a way it is borrowing – because you mean to pay it back some way. I cant rmmber how it goes, exactly, but there is a verse about lending to the Lord and I think with food and water and emergency supplies if you try to repay it somehow – even indirectly – I would call it that. If you only take what you need.

 

[baltobetsy]

From the Catechism of the Catholic Church:

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.

 

[rpp]

To me it’s stealing if:

(1) You know the money or the object does not belong to you;
(2) You did not ask permission to take it; and
(3) You have no intention or ability to replace or return it.

That is, theft has nothing whatsoever to do with how rich the owner is and how much you believe you ‘need’ it and the owner doesn’t. A typical bleat in our laundry room when someone is caught helping herself to someone else’s soap is, “I didn’t know it was yours!”

The really important thing in this case is whether or not the thief knew IT WASN’T HERS.

You missed the point of my post. There was not an attempt to someone justify theft. Rather my posts were clearly intended to address the severity of theft as a sin. Theft is always sinful; no one has suggested otherwise. The question at hand is at what point does it become grave enough to be a potentially mortal sin.

 

[Appleby]

You missed the point of my post. There was not an attempt to someone justify theft. Rather my posts were clearly intended to address the severity of theft as a sin. Theft is always sinful; no one has suggested otherwise. The question at hand is at what point does it become grave enough to be a potentially mortal sin.

No, I didn’t miss the point – my point is that THOU SHALT NOT STEAL doesn’t have any loopholes. Any more than Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery does. If you tell your kids it’s okay to steal if, until, unless, because … where does it end?

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.

Even if the people to whom the property belongs object? How much force are you entitled to use if they tell you that you can’t have their property?