(a) Indirect sterilization (also called by many therapeutic) is lawful when it is necessary to save life or health. The ethical principle involved is the indirect voluntary or the principle of double effect. Hence, vasectomy may be used to prevent idiocy or death, or to remove or allay physiological abnormalities that bring on certain sexual perversities or disturbances, if it is likely that these evils are imminent or present and that the operation will be beneficial.
(b) Direct sterilization by public authority includes both punitive and eugenical sterilization. The latter was condemned by Pope Pius XI in _Casti Connubii_. In context the Holy Father was dealing with the false claims made in the name of eugenics that the State might legitimately sterilize those who by reason of hereditary defect might be considered likely to generate defective offspring. This position is vehemently rejected: “Public magistrates have no direct power over the bodies of their subjects. Therefore where no crime has taken place and there is no cause present for grave punishment, they can never directly harm or tamper with the integrity of the body, either for the reasons of eugenics or for any other reason. St. Thomas teaches this when, inquiring whether human judges for the sake of preventing future evils can inflict punishment, he admits that the power indeed exists as regards certain other forms of punishment, but justly and properly denies it as regards the maiming of the body.”
In the same context, punitive sterilization, whether as punishment for crime or as deterrent, was also declared to be unlawful. However, fasciole 14 of the AAS for 1930 emended the text and seems to have withdrawn the formal condemnation of punitive sterilization. a subject of theological discussion at the time. The matter had not been closed and the emendation had the force of reopening the question.
Theological opinion is still divided as to the liceity of punitive sterilization. Some still maintain that since the state can inflict the superior penalty of death for serious crime, _a fortiori_ also the lesser punishment of sterilization. Others deny the liceity, for sterilization does not achieve the essential purposes of punishment; it is not corrective, preventive, retributive, or emendatory. Accordingly punitive sterilization is unreasonable and inconvenient. This latter view prevails among most modern moral theologians. Confirmation for the view is sought in the response of the Holy Office (AAS 32-73) that direct sterilization is prohibited by the law of nature. Since punitive sterilization has as its immediate effect, whether as an end or as a means, sterility of the generative potency, it may well fall under the category of direct and hence also under condemnation of the Holy Office.
1870. Other Bodily Punishments.—Other bodily harms (wounds, blows, restraint) may not be inflicted except under the following conditions:
(a) there must be sufficient authority. The State, being a perfect society, has greater coercive power, and may inflict penalties that are of a permanent character, such as death or mutilation or wounds (e.g., by branding); and it may impose restraint, not only from unlawful, but also from lawful acts. The family, being an imperfect society, has a limited coercive power, and hence the father, or those who hold his place (e.g., teachers), may administer corporal chastisements that are not of an irreparable kind to his children (such as beatings, whippings). Other persons may punish or restrain only in case of urgent necessity (e.g., one may hold a stranger who is about to commit murder; one may chastize a neighboring boy who cannot be kept from depredations on one’s property in any other way). It is not wrong, however, to inflict moderate bodily hurts, if the other person is not unwilling and there is a reasonable purpose, such as exercise, training in the art of boxing or wrestling, recreation, or mortification;
(b) there must be a sufficient reason for the harm done. The good of the public is a sufficient reason; for example, when a criminal is incorrigible and it is dangerous for him to be at large, it is not unreasonable to give him a life sentence. The good of the individual is also sufficient; for example, when a surgeon has to wound in order to cure, when a father has to use the rod in order to improve the child or to uphold discipline (Prov., xiii. 24, xxiii. 13);
(c) there must be moderation in the harm or pain inflicted. Thus, while children should not be spoiled, nor prisoners pampered, the other extreme of maltreatment or torture must be avoided. It is cruel to box children soundly on the ears, or to push them roughly about, or to tie them up in the dark, as they may suffer permanent injury from such methods. Likewise, it is barbarous to send convicts to a place or prison so horrible that they lose their minds or fall victims to lingering disease, or to inflict excruciating punishments by rack, thumb-screw, prolonged scourgings, etc.
1871. Injury to Health.—Harm unjustly done to the health of others is sinful, and, if the harm is great, the sin is mortal. Examples: (a) Harm to health is done negatively by omission of duty, as when a medical man or physical director does not use sufficient care and a patient thereby suffers detriment to health, or an employer does not see that his factory or place of business is sanitary, or that the work is not too exhausting with the result that employees lose their vigor. (b) Harm to health is done positively by acts or objects that tend to deprive another of the means to physical well-being (e.g., annoyances, noises that prevent sleep, adulterated food, maintenance of a nuisance which creates suffocating smells or harmful vapors, etc.), or that bring to another the infection of disease (e.g., when a well person is made to live or room with one who has tuberculosis).
1872. Theft and Robbery.—Having considered the injuries to person committed by homicide, mutilation, imprisonment, etc., we shall now take up the injuries to property committed by theft and robbery. Private ownership of property is allowed by natural and divine law, and it is necessary when, as at present, human affairs cannot be well managed under another system. It has its limits, however, since it is subordinate to the public good, and charity requires that those who have the goods of this world share them with those who are in need (see 1210 sqq.). The chief titles to private ownership are the following:
(a) original titles, which are those by which one takes possession and dominion of goods that have never had or have not now an owner, and these are reduced to two, namely, occupation (i.e., the taking possession of a material thing) and accession (i.e., the union of a material thing with one’s property);
(b) derivative titles, which are those by which one obtains dominion, through transfer of right, of the goods that belong to another. These titles are produced by the law itself (as in prescription), or by the law and the free will of man (as in inheritance from testament or from intestate), or by the free will of man (as in contracts).
1873. The Chief Kinds or Ways of Occupation.—(a) Animals.—Domestic animals (e.g., dogs, cats) may not be occupied, even though they have strayed from their owner; tamed animals (e.g., bees, pigeons, songbirds) may be occupied only when they have recovered their liberty; wild animals (e.g., birds, foxes, fishes, hares, etc., at large) may not be occupied, unless they are kept in a small enclosure from which they cannot escape.
(b) Land and Plants. These may be occupied only when they have no present owner.
(c) Treasure-trove.—This is a deposit of precious movables hidden away so long ago that it is impossible to discover the owner. According to natural law it may be occupied by the finder, but the civil law sometimes decides that the find must be divided with the owner of the place or with the government.
(d) Lost Property.—This embraces those movables which an owner has recently parted with, through accident or forgetfulness, without any intention of giving up his ownership of them, and which are now easily findable, although their owner is not known. The finder is obliged to make reasonable efforts to find the owner. If he neglects to make these efforts, proportionate to the worth of the found article, and is convinced that he might have found the owner, he is considered by some theologians to be a possessor in bad faith and bound to reserve the article for the owner or turn it over to the poor or to pious causes. Having made the effort unsuccessfully, according to natural law, he may use the article as his own. The prescriptions of civil law as to the time interval before he may begin to use the article must be observed.
(e) Abandoned Goods.—According to natural law one may occupy goods voluntarily relinquished by the owner (e.g., an old automobile left by the roadside), but the civil law sometimes awards certain classes of goods (e.g., immovables) to the State.
(f) Vacant Goods.—According to natural law the goods of one who died without heirs may be occupied; but under the civil law they usually devolve to the State, whether they be movables or immovables.
1874. Principles on Accession.—(a) According to natural law, if the two things united are separable, then each owner should be given his own property; but if the things are inseparable and one is more valuable, the owner of the more valuable part keeps all, but compensates the owner of the less valuable part; if the things are inseparable and of equal value, there is joint ownership.
(b) According to positive law, these natural principles are applied to various cases of accession, whether it be natural (as through growth of plants or deposit of land by rivers) or artificial (as through change made in a material by labor, or addition of one substance to another). These details are treated in books on law.
1875. Prescription.—Prescription laws (see 1798) are valid in conscience, since they are determinations about property rights made in the interest of the common welfare. But the following conditions are required for acquisition of property through prescription:
(a) the object of prescription must be a thing prescriptible according to natural and positive law. Thus, natural rights and public property may not be prescribed against;
(b) the subject of prescription must be a person capable of possessing, and he must be honestly convinced that he has a right to what he possesses;
(c) the claim of the subject to the object must rest on possession, on apparent title to the property, and on the lapse of the legal time during which possession has been held or ownership has remained undisputed.
1876. Wills.—A will is a declaration made in legal form (i.e., with the solemnities required by law) of the disposal to be made of one’s property after one’s death. Defects in a will or legacy sometimes operate to take away the moral obligations of observing it.
(a) Thus, if the defect is one of natural law (e.g., a will made under duress), there is no moral right or obligation produced by reason of the gift.
(b) If the defect is of positive law only and makes the will rescindable (e.g., a will not subscribed, as by law required, in presence of the testator), the gift is good in conscience until adverse decision of court.
(c) If the defect is of positive law only and makes the will _ipso facto_ invalid (e.g., a legatee acts as witness to a will), the gift is good in conscience, if there is question of pious causes, since property donated to God may not be alienated by human laws. But the Church desires civil formalities to be observed in the making of wills (Canon 1513).
(d) If the defect is positive and _ipso facto_ invalidating, and there is question of profane causes, the will is not good in conscience, even before declaration of court.
1877. Contracts.—A contract may be deined as a mutual agreement concerning the transfer of a right.
1. A contract is a mutual agreement, i.e., there must be consent of at least two parties to the same object. An offer made but not accepted is not a contract, for only one party consents.
2. The contractants transfer a right which produces in most instances under justice a corresponding obligation of doing or omitting something. Promises, pledges, pacts, etc., while they impose obligations based on truthfulness, loyalty, etc., are not contracts. See 1888 (a).
3. The obligation in justice may be on both sides (bilateral) or only on one side (unilateral), but consent must be on both sides.
The elements of a contract are made up of essentials and accidentals. (a) The essentials include the subject-matter, the parties contractant, their agreement, and the external form that manifests the agreement. (b) The accidentals include bonds, oaths, conditions and modes.
1878. The subject-matter of a contract—that is, the thing or action or forbearance with which the agreement is concerned—must have the following qualities:
(a) it must be something possible, for one may not undertake what one cannot perform. Thus, one cannot bind oneself by an accessory contract (such as suretyship), if the principal contract itself is _ipso facto_ invalid. But if the impossibility is only moral (i.e., great difficulty), one who knowingly undertakes the arduous is bound to fulfill his promise; if it is only partial, one is held to the part that is possible; if it is culpable, one is bound to repair damage caused the other party through non-fulfillment;
(b) it must be something disposable, for one may not transfer that over which one has no right of control or transfer. Thus, one may not contract to sell public property that is _extra commercium_, or property of which one has only the possession, or goods over which others have a claim (e.g., a debtor may not bestow gifts to the detriment of creditors’ rights), or goods not transferable for pay (e.g., payment for a favorable decision by a judge, or property owed to a third party) or for money (e.g., academic degrees, public offices, Sacraments, indulgences);
(c) it must be something existent and determinable, for no one wishes to contract for a right that is valueless and illusory. Thus, one may not sell shares of a stock company that has no assets, or an indefinite house or lot or chattel;
(d) it must be something good and lawful, for one may not bind oneself to iniquity. If it is sinful (e.g., a contract to sell a house in order to spite a third party), the agreement is _per se_ valid. But if the substance is evil (e.g., a contract for fornication made with a prostitute), the agreement is null before the performance of the promised sin; but it seems to many that after performance of the sin the promisor is obliged to pay the money promised, unless the law makes the contract void (see 1886 c). If the law merely denies protection to a sinful engagement, or forbids it under penalty, it would seem that after performance of the sin one may follow, as far as strict justice is concerned, the rule that right is with the possessor. In the United States immoral and illegal contracts and those that are opposed to public policy are generally regarded as null, but in some cases the law declares immoral conditions _de futuro_ non-existent and considers the agreement to which they are added as valid (e.g., wills and gifts _inter vivos_ in some codes).
1879. Sinful Contracts.—There is no form of contract that may not be made sinful as to its substance on account of the wicked offer or consideration (e.g., sale may deal with immoral objects, labor may be given to criminal projects), but there are certain forms of contract that are particularly open to abuse and hence are frequently associated with evil circumstances or results. Some contracts are often illicit according to natural law.
(a) Thus, a gift is sinful, on the part of the donor, when it is made by an employer for the purpose of seducing a servant, and on the part of the servant, when it is accepted for the purpose of encouraging the unlawful attentions of the employer; but if the gift is unconditional, there is no obligation in justice to return it.
(b) Borrowing is sinful, when the lender is in greater need, or when one becomes unduly obligated to the lender; lending is sinful when the lender cannot afford to part with the thing loaned, or when the borrower is encouraged in thriftlessness, or when he will make evil use of the thing borrowed, etc.
(c) Wagers are frequently sinful, since many of them are incitements to sin (e.g., a bet that another is afraid to get drunk), or results of sinful motives (e.g., bets made in order to deceive, or to satisfy avarice, or to live without work), or causes of great evils (e.g., destitution of families, frauds, scandal, and corruption).
(d) Gaming is sinful when the form of the sport is objectionable (e.g., the ancient gladiatorial fights in which the combatants killed each other), or when the motives or circumstances are wrong (e.g., to play as a professional gambler so as to avoid work, to play cards all day Sunday, to play for higher stakes than one can afford, to spend time in “gambling hells”).
(e) Lottery is sinful when the object is bad (e.g., the raffle of an important office with the risk that incompetent persons may be chosen), or when the circumstances are bad (e.g., if persons are led into superstition or idleness and prodigality).
(f) Speculation is sinful in many instances, since it often brings on a gambling fever that makes the speculator useless to himself and his dependents, and causes poverty and crime.
(g) Pawning of property is often unjustifiable, since it makes persons deprive themselves of necessary property in order to indulge in some useless or extravagant whim with borrowed money.
1880. Illegal Contracts.—For reasons of public policy the positive law puts its disapproval on many of the above-mentioned contracts, at least in certain instances.
(a) Thus, sometimes the law makes a contract unenforceable in court, though the natural obligation is not affected. Hence, if a wager is only denied a hearing before a judge, the winner may keep his gains, and the loser should pay.
(b) If the law merely declares that a contract is illegal, the effect seems to be that the contract retains its natural validity unless the party who has suffered by it wishes to disavow it. As to the sinfulness of such a contract, that depends on whether or not the law is penal or preceptive in intent. Thus, many regard laws that make betting illegal as preceptive under venial sin, while others regard them as punitive only. Other examples of illegal contracts are: gifts made to a judge in connection with a trial; lottery, in Great Britain and the United States; certain games of chance, in some States; and in Canon Law, as regards the clergy, alcatory games for money, speculation and trading (Canons 138, 142).
(c) If the law makes a contract voidable, the effect is that the contract possesses its natural force until adverse decision is given by court. Hence, if a wager is voidable in law, the winner may keep his gains until obliged by a judge to give them up, but the loser is not bound to pay, unless he confirms the wager.
(d) If the law makes the contract ipso facto void, the agreement loses its natural force (see 558-560). In most of our States, wagering contracts are illegal and void whether by statute or by judicial decision. In many of these States the statute permits the recovery of the money from the winner or the stakeholder. Gifts offered as bribes are invalid, and those who give or take such gifts are guilty of serious sin and of a criminal offense. In some of our States, certain gaming contracts are also null.
1881. Qualities Necessary in the Parties Contractant.—The parties contractant must have the following qualities:
(a) from natural law it is necessary that they have the use of reason sufficient to understand what they are doing. Incompetent are babies and the insane, and also those who are totally drunk or otherwise temporarily deranged. Less competent are the half-witted and those who need a guardian in important matters;
(b) from positive law it is necessary that they be not legally excluded. In Canon Law administrators of church property and solemnly professed religious are unable to make certain contracts (Canons 1527, 536). In civil law there are restrictions on the contractual powers of minors, wives, aliens, guardians and corporations. Persons not yet conceived are not capable in civil law of receiving a donation, and there are many prohibitions against the tender or acceptance of gifts by those who can reasonably be suspected of exercising undue influence or of being subject to undue influence.
1882. Legal Privileges of Minors.—The law grants certain benefits to minors and the like; for example, in some cases they are not bound by a non-executed agreement, while the other party is bound, or in an executed contract they may recover property without restoring or offering to restore the consideration, if they have nothing with which to replace it.
(a) Minors and other persons who are legally incompetent to contract, may avail themselves of the benefits of the law with a good conscience, if they are in good faith; for it is just that the law should protect those who are unable to protect themselves, and those who make contracts with such persons should know that they (the competent parties) act at their own risk.
(b) Minors and other persons legally incompetent may not avail themselves of the benefit of the law if they have acted in bad faith (e.g., if a minor by deceit induced the other party to sell to him).
1883. Qualities Necessary for Valid Consent.—The agreement or consent of the contracting parties must have the following qualities:
(a) it must be internal, that is, one must accept in will and not merely in words the proposal or consideration offered by the other party. If one consents only to the form of the contract, the contract is null, and the same is probably true if one does not accept internally the obligations of the contract; if one consents to the obligations, but does not intend to fulfill them, the contract is valid, but unlawful. One who contracts invalidly sins, and is bound in the external forum to keep the contract seriously made, and in the internal forum to repair the damage to the other party by giving true consent or making restitution. One who contracts unlawfully also sins, and is bound to the engagement;
(b) it must be external, that is, one must manifest in some sensible way one’s agreement to the proposition contained in an offered contract. Silence gives consent only when the contract is favorable to the party who is silent, or when that party should and easily could manifest his lack of consent, if the proposal did not please him. In the case of contracts between parties who are not in each other’s presence, the intimation to the offerer of the offeree’s acceptance is not necessary for validity, if the contract is gratuitous; but the contrary seems to be true, at least _per se_, if the contract is onerous. We shall speak later (1885) on the legal formalities required in contracts;
(c) it must be mutual, that is, there must be a meeting of minds in the same sense, or agreement of both parties to the same thing. Mutuality requires that consent be contemporaneous, that is, that the acceptance of one be given while the offer of the other still holds good. But it does not require that the parties be in each other’s presence, or that they contract through direct personal communication, or (at least according to natural law) that the knowledge of the accomplishment of mutual agreement be known to the offerer. The law in the United States generally is that an offer may be withdrawn immediately or after a reasonable time, unless it was made on time for a consideration; and that a contract between the absent begins only on receipt by the offerer of the acceptance of the offeree, if the former stipulated for this, or if the offerer uses one means of communication as his agency and the offeree another. In other cases it begins the moment that acceptance is entrusted to the agent of the offerer;
(d) it must be free, that is, it must have the advertence and voluntariness necessary for a human act. If the contract is of grave import, there should be the same kind of deliberation as is necessary for commission of a mortal sin (see 173 sqq.); if it is of lesser import, the deliberation should correspond with the seriousness of the case. But some authors think there should be perfect deliberation in every contract, since the contractants are assuming obligations of justice.
1884. Defects that Invalidate Consent.—The defects that vitiate consent by taking away knowledge or choice render contracts either void or voidable (see 40-55). These impediments are the following:
(a) error, which is a judgment of fact or of law in reference to the contract, not in harmony with the truth, but not maliciously caused by other persons. If error is substantial (that is, about the nature of the contract or the nature of the subject-matter of the contract), the agreement is naturally void; if error is only accidental (that is, about features of the contract, subject-matter or co-contractant, that are only incidentally intended), an onerous agreement is naturally valid, but positive law in the interest of freedom will often grant the privilege of rescindment (see Canon 1684, n. 2). But if error cannot be proved, courts will stand for the validity of a contract;
(b) fraud, which is error or mistake about a contract caused in one of the parties by the dishonest representations of the other party or of a third person (e.g., when an insurance agent deceives about the benefits, or a policy-taker deceives about his age or health). Fraud exists, then, when there is intention, at least indirect, to mislead, and statements, acts or omissions calculated to mislead; but the usual boasts of vendors and advertisers about the wonderful excellence of their wares are not fraudulent, since the public understands that such talk must be taken _cum grano salis_. The effects of fraud on the value of contracts are the same as those produced by error; but it should be noted that the person guilty of the fraud is bound to make good the losses of the injured party, even though the contract be valid and not rescindable, or though the guilty person be not a party to the contract;
(c) fear, which is a disturbance of mind caused by the belief that some danger is impending on oneself or others (see 41 sqq.). It makes a contract invalid in natural law, when it takes away all consent (e.g., when it overpowers the reason, or makes one dissent internally from what is agreed to externally), and probably also when it takes away perfect freedom in a gratuitous contract, or makes one enter into a contract for immunity from an unjust vexation; it renders an act or engagement invalid according to positive law in many special cases (e.g., the Canons declare null elections, resignations, marriages, vows, etc., which are made under the influence of fear). Contracts are considered naturally voidable if one of the parties unjustly extorts the consent of the other by grave fear, or if a third party intimidates a person into bestowing something through gratuitous contract; and the positive law generally treats agreements entered into under grave fear as rescindible (see Canon 103, n. 2). Fear unjustly caused, even though it does not make a contract void or voidable, is at times a reason for the duty of restitution, as when a third party by his unjust threats forces an innocent person to make expensive contracts as a measure of protection, and probably also when a third party directly constrains one to make an onerous contract with a person who knows nothing about the coercion. Fear, no matter how great, does not in any way weaken a contract, if there is consent and the fear is induced by a natural cause (e.g., a storm), or by a human cause acting justly (e.g., an injured man threatening a lawsuit);
(d) violence or coercion, which is like to fear, the latter being moral force and the former physical force (see 52). According to natural law, violence invalidates a contract, unless we suppose that it is only concomitant, as when Sempronius uses coercion to make Balbus sign a contract which Balbus is really willing to sign. Positive law does not recognize, or will set aside, agreements made under overpowering constraint (see Canon 103, n. 1).
1885. Form of Contract.—The form of a contract is the external manner in which, according to the positive law, the internal consent of the parties must be expressed and manifested.
(a) Thus, Canon Law in certain contracts (e.g., engagement of marriage, marriage, alienation of church property) requires specified solemnities under pain of nullity of act.
(b) Civil law in the United States designates various formalities to be used in transfers of property (e.g., that a deed for real estate be written, signed, sealed and attested; that a gift be made by delivery or equivalent act; that certain contracts be in writing; that no contract be of worth unless it be for a consideration, or else be on paper with seal attached). The law has the right to annul informal contracts _ipso facto_, but whether this is the intention in modern codes is a matter of dispute. The practical rule to be followed, then, is that the possessor is to be favored, unless there has been a court decision against his claim. It should be noted, too, that some legal conditions, such as valuable consideration in simple contracts, are required for enforceability, not for validity, and hence a good contract wanting some such condition, though indefensible before the courts, is obligatory in conscience.
1886. The Accidentals of a Contract.—(a) Bond is the agreement by the obligor of a contract to pay a certain forfeit to the obligee, if the former does not perform his contract or does not perform it before a certain date. This agreement obliges in conscience, if the promise was seriously made, if the penalty is not excessive, and if the breach of agreement is culpable.
(b) Oaths added to contracts have moral effects on the contracts themselves and also on acts contrary to them. As regards the contract, an oath adds the obligation of religion to that of justice, if the contract is valid and irrescindable; and the common opinion is that it strengthens a contract extrinsically, that is, it induces an obligation of religion to keep the promise, if the oath is invalid or rescindable by positive law only and in favor of a private privilege; but an oath in no way strengthens a contract that is naturally invalid or rescindable positively on account of the public good. As regards acts that are contrary to an invalid or rescindable contract that was confirmed by a valid oath, they are sinful, as being irreligious, but not invalid nor unjust (see 2260).
(c) Conditions are accidents or circumstances so added to a contract that the consent or dissent is made dependent upon their existence or fulfillment. An immoral condition, if unfulfilled, takes from the contract all obligation, exception being made for separable parts that are not affected by the immoral clause; but if it has been fulfilled, it seems that there is a moral obligation to pay the consideration promised (see 1878 d).
(d) Modes are accidents or circumstances so added to a contract as to qualify the rights or duties of the contractants, or the purpose, matter or time of the contract, but not so as to make the consent dependent on the fulfillment of the thing designated. Thus, if Titus leaves money to Balbus, chiefly because Balbus is his nephew, and secondarily because he imposes on Balbus the obligation of using the money for his education, Balbus in accepting the money accepts also the obligation, but the gift does not lapse if the obligation is not complied with. If a donor adds an immoral mode to his gift (e.g., that the donee use in immoral ways the money left him), this purpose is regarded as non-existent and the gift stands in spite of it. If an agent violates a mode (e.g., he pays $1001 when he was directed to pay $1000) but not a condition (e.g., that he purchase land and not a house), the contract stands.
1887. The Moral Obligation of Entering into a Contract.—(a) There is a duty of justice when one is under public or private engagement to make a contract. Examples are a merchant who opens a store for public patronage, or an auctioneer who holds a sale before invited patrons, or an owner who makes with another person a contract to sell, or a man and woman who make solemn espousals.
(b) There is a duty of charity when a neighbor is in such need that he deserves to be helped, for example, by a loan or by assistance to make a loan: “From him that would borrow of thee turn not away” (Matt., v. 42); “A good man is surety for his neighbor” (Ecclus., xxix. 18).
1888. Every valid contract obliges to faithful performance as a duty of conscience, even though it be unenforceable and without civil obligation. We shall discuss the properties of this obligation.
(a) Quality of the Obligation.—Onerous contracts oblige in virtue of commutative justice and under pain of restitution; gratuitous contracts oblige according to some from justice, according to others from fidelity, according to others from fidelity or justice as the obligor intends (see 1692, 1753). In practice one may follow the rule that a liberal promise or wager or other gratuitous contract obliges only from fidelity with no duty of restitution, unless it be certain that the promisor intended to bind himself in justice. One is responsible, however, for damages resultant on breach of promise. The obligation seems to be one of legal justice only when the thing promised is something on which a pecuniary value cannot be set and consists in compliance with law (e.g., in suretyship or bail for keeping the peace or appearing in court).
(b) Quantity of Obligation.—In onerous contracts the degree of obligation depends on the importance of the subject matter, and hence it is a mortal sin to violate a contract in which a grave right is concerned; in gratuitous contracts the degree of obligation depends entirely, according to some, on the will of the person who liberally binds himself, but others hold that it depends on the importance of the subject-matter.
(c) Subjects of Obligation.—The parties to the contracts and those who take their place (e.g., heirs, executors) or who are responsible for the contract (e.g., those who commanded the agreement) are morally bound to fulfill the agreement, while others are bound not to interfere with the fulfillment.
(d) Objects of Obligation.—Directly, there is the duty of observing what is contained explicitly or implicitly in the agreement, and indirectly of making good any losses caused by breach of contract. A rescindable contract obliges until it is lawfully disaffirmed by the party who has the right to break it; a quasi-contract imposes on the party who has benefited by the services or expenses of another a moral obligation of making compensation. If a contract transfers ownership (e.g., contract of sale passing title to buyer, _mutuum_), the transferee must bear the risks and expenses of the thing transferred; but if it does not transfer ownership (e.g., contract to sell, _commodatum_) or has not yet done so (e.g., contract of sale in which title will pass later, on delivery or payment), the transferer has the risk and expense (see 1796).
1889. Cessation of Obligation.—The obligation of a contract ceases in various ways: (a) by action of the contractants, as when a promisee renounces his right, or each of the parties to a promise has made a gratuitous promise in favor of the other and one refuses to keep his word; (b) by action of law, for example, by prescription, by annulment; (c) by impossibility, as when a thing freely promised has become unlawful or useless, or when the donee of a gift _mortis causae_ dies before the donor.
1890. Theft.—Theft is the secret taking of what belongs to another, with the intention of appropriating it to oneself, against the reasonable wishes of the owner.
(a) It is a taking, that is, a carrying away of goods. But theft also includes the receiving or keeping of property, since the harm done is the same as when the goods are carried away. Hence, he who does not restore borrowed or deposited or found objects, or who does not pay back a loan, when he could and should, is a thief.
(b) It is a secret taking, that is, the property is taken away without the knowledge of the owner or lawful possessor, even though he be present. In this respect theft differs from robbery.
(c) It is the taking of property. This includes not only corporeal things (e.g., books, money, jewelry, clothing), but also incorporeal things (e.g., patents, trademarks, copyrights), and even persons if they are looked on as possessions. Hence, plagiarism or infringement of copyright or man-stealing or kidnapping (i.e., the carrying off of another’s slave or child) are forms of theft.
(d) It is the taking of property that belongs to another, that is, of goods of which another person is the owner, or lawful possessor as usufructuary, guardian, depositary, etc. Hence, one can steal from oneself by taking one’s goods by stealth from the bailee with the design of charging him for their value or of depriving him of their use to which he has a right.
(e) It is the taking away of goods with the intention of appropriating them to one’s own possession, use or enjoyment to the exclusion of the rightful owner. Hence, strictly speaking, it is not theft to carry away property with the intention of borrowing it for a time or of destroying it; but these are acts of unlawful possession or of unlawful damage. It is obligatory to take an object from another, if this is necessary to prevent the commission of a crime (e.g., to take away and hide the gun with which another intends to kill).
(f) It is against the wishes of the owner. This refers to the substance (that is, the conversion of the property to one’s use), not to the mode (that is, secrecy with which it is done). Hence, if the owner is unwilling that the property be taken, he who takes it is guilty of theft; if the owner is not unwilling that it be taken, but is unwilling that it be taken without his knowledge, he who takes it in this way sins at least venially, but is not guilty of theft in the strict sense.
(g) It is against the reasonable wishes of the owner or possessor; for no injury is done if he does or should consent to the loss. The owner does consent if the person who takes the goods is acting according to a general and recognized custom (e.g., when a servant takes things left over from her employer’s table, which it is certain the latter does not wish to keep); the owner should consent, if justice forbids that he prevent the taking (e.g., when a starving man is taking food from one who has plenty), or if domestic duty commands that he should give the thing taken (e.g., when a wife takes from her husband’s pockets the needed money he denies his family, for a wife and family have the right to receive from the head of the house support according to their station and means). But the owner is not bound to consent to the loss of his goods from the mere fact that he misuses them to his own spiritual disadvantage, or owes them in charity to the taker. Hence, it is theft to take a flask from the pocket of one who drinks too much, or to steal a book from one who is harmed by reading it, or to filch money from a rich man because one is poor and he will not give an alms.
1891. Unauthorized Use of Another’s Funds.—What is the guilt of one who uses for his own purposes the money of another entrusted to him for other purposes?
(a) There is no theft, for it is supposed that the purpose of the user is to make only a temporary loan of the money.
(b) There is an act of injustice, if the permission of the owner cannot be presumed; for the rights of an owner are violated when one converts his property to uses displeasing to him. Thus, if the prospect is that the owner may never get his money back or that he will lose profits by the use made of it, the guilt of unjust damage is incurred, at least in intention (e.g., a depositary uses a deposit to buy stocks on margin, or a company official makes an unauthorized loan instead of investing the amount for the company’s benefit).
(c) There is no sin, if the permission of the owner can be reasonably presumed; for to him who willingly consents no injury is done. Thus, if one who is managing the funds of another has the chance to make a large amount of money today by using those funds for himself but cannot get in touch with the owner, the latter’s consent can be presumed, if he will suffer no present loss and it is absolutely certain that his funds will be returned tomorrow. But on account of the risk that is ordinarily present, this case would be rare.
1892. Comparison of Theft and Robbery.—(a) They differ in species, for theft contains injustice to an owner in his property, but robbery, which is an unjust and violent taking of what belongs to another, contains injustice both to property and to person. The unwillingness of the owner in the case of theft is due to his ignorance of his loss; in the case of robbery it is due to intimidation or force. (b) They differ in gravity, robbery being according to its nature the more serious kind of stealing; for the robber does a twofold injury, and the owner’s unwillingness to be robbed is greater.
1893. Kinds of Theft and Robbery.—(a) There are many varieties of theft, the differences arising from the circumstances in which the stealing is done. Thus, he who steals from the Church is guilty of sacrilegious theft; he who uses the public goods for his private ends commits peculation; he who takes from his parents practises domestic thievery.
(b) There are also many ways in which robbery or rapine is committed. The following persons are guilty of robbery: pirates, bandits, highwaymen, burglars, usurers, profiteers, venal judges, unmerciful creditors who deprive debtors of necessaries, debtors who escape payment by fraudulent bankruptcy, profiteers, laborers who extort unjust wages, those who force subordinates to contribute graft, and blackmailers. Two forms of robbery are described in Scripture as sins that cry to heaven for justice, namely, defrauding laborers of their wages (James, v. 4) and oppression of the poor, which happens especially when one denies their rights to those who are unable to defend them. The following persons are also classed as thieves: pickpockets, spongers, smugglers, forgers, counterfeiters, embezzlers, and those who misappropriate funds entrusted to them.
In the civil law theft is also known as larceny, and is defined as the unlawful severance of personal property from the possession of its owner. The following kinds of larceny are distinguished:
(a) in respect to the manner of perpetration, a theft is larceny when the property is taken from the possession of the owner by one who had no possession, whether the latter be a stranger or a custodian; it is embezzlement when committed by one upon whom the owner had conferred temporary possession on account of a fiduciary relationship between them; it is false pretence when committed by one who procures permanent possession or ownership through fraudulent representations;
(b) In respect to the matter or quantity stolen, theft is called petit larceny when it falls below a certain sum fixed by the law, grand larceny when it exceeds that sum.
1894. The Sinfulness of Theft.—(a) From its nature theft—and, much more, robbery—is a grave sin; for it is opposed to the virtues of charity and justice, it is expressly forbidden in the Seventh Commandment (“Thou shalt not steal,” Exod., xx. 15), and it excludes from eternal life (“Neither thieves nor extortioners shall possess the kingdom of God,” I Cor., vi. 10). The thief attacks the sacred right of the individual to his property, and imperils the peace and stability of society itself. Theft is a grave sin, even when it is committed by little and little, as happens when a merchant gives underweight habitually: “A deceitful balance is an abomination to the Lord” (Prov., xi. 1). The proposition that restitution for a large sum taken in parts at different times is not a grave duty was condemned by Innocent XI (Denzinger, 1188). Canonical penalties for theft include exclusion from acts and offices, censures, and deposition (Canon 2354).
(b) From the imperfection of the act theft may be only a venial sin, for example, when the thief is a kleptomaniac and steals without advertence, or when he is invincibly ignorant that the thing taken is not his own or is of great value, or from the smallness of the matter involved (e.g., when the thing taken has little value, or the owner is opposed rather to the stealthy manner of taking than to the taking, or is only slightly unwilling to lose the goods).
1895. Theft of a small amount may be a mortal sin (see 187). This may happen: (a) on account of the internal or subjective circumstances, as when the thief intends to steal as much as he can or a large amount here and now, or when he intends to steal a small amount here and new but to keep this up every day until he has stolen a considerable amount, or when a child steals a small sum from its parents and falsely thinks that the theft is gravely sinful in itself; (b) on account of external or objective circumstances, as when the amount taken today is small but constitutes, with amounts previously taken, a large sum, or when the thief foresees serious consequences from his act (e.g., that the person from whom the goods are taken will fall under suspicion and be discharged or arrested). It should be noted, however, that the consequences of the theft do not necessarily make the sin grave precisely as it is a sin of theft (e.g., in the case just given the theft was a venial sin, but the unjust damage was a mortal sin), or even precisely as it is a sin of injustice (e.g., if one steals a picture of small value, foreseeing that the owner will be afflicted beyond measure at the loss, the sin against justice is small, but the sin against charity is mortal).
1896. The determination of the amount that constitutes grave matter in theft or robbery (or in unjust damage) is a very difficult task, because the factors upon which the injury depends are to some extent doubtful and vary in particular cases. Hence, there is a great diversity of opinion among moralists on this subject, and it will frequently be uncertain in an individual case whether a theft is mortally or only venially sinful in itself. But on account of the spiritual and temporal interests that are concerned it is necessary to give at least general rules for direction that will enable one to distinguish between grave and venial theft, and to know when the duty of restitution is serious, when light.
1897. Moralists are in agreement on the following points:
(a) the standard for measuring gravity of matter is not an invariable one, but will differ according to circumstances of times and places. Thus, money has much less purchasing power today than it had before the Civil War, and the same amount will not go so far nor last so long in the United States as in some countries of Europe. Hence, other things being equal, it is less harmful to steal the sum of $10 in 1958 than it was to steal the same sum in 1858, less harmful to steal that amount from an American than to steal its equivalent from a European;
(b) the standard for a particular country and period is to be interpreted morally, not mathematically; for it depends on the opinions or estimates of the prudent, which after all are only approximations and subject to revisions. Hence, it would be absurd to draw such a hard and fast distinction between grave and venial theft—for example, to decide from the amounts alone that he who stole $50 is certainly guilty of mortal sin and fit for hell, while he who stole $49.99 is guilty of venial sin only and not fit for hell. The figures given by moralists for grave matter are averages, and hence they cannot be expected to suit each individual locality or moment or injured person. But, being based on actual conditions, they are serviceable. If a sum stolen is much above or below them, they indicate truly the theological species of the sin; if it is only a little above or below them, they afford a basis for probability, or at least show that there is room for doubt.
1898. Moralists are also at one in measuring the injury of theft by the following considerations:
(a) it should be estimated by the property loss, that is, that theft should be deemed a grave sin which in view of all the circumstances and the common opinion indicts a notable loss on the owner in his property rights. This is a matter of common sense, for every one can see that it is a very different thing to steal a cent and to steal $100.
(b) it should be estimated by the personal injury, that is, by the unwillingness of the proprietor to suffer the loss. This is also clear, since the unwillingness of the proprietor is one of the ingredients of theft, as was explained above in the definition, and everyone will readily grant that an amount which would be notable if stolen from a stranger, would not be notable if stolen from an indulgent parent.
1899. There are two opinions about the estimation of the property loss.
(a) Thus, an older opinion held that the standard should be an absolute one, that is, that the loss should be determined independently of the wealth or poverty of the person injured, since the financial situation of this person is a purely extrinsic circumstance of the theft. The rich man has just as much right to his $10 as the poor man has to his $10, and it is therefore just as injurious to deprive the former of the sum as it is to deprive the latter. What is a mortal theft in one case is a mortal theft in every case.
(b) A later opinion, which seems to be the common one today, distinguishes two standards: an absolute one, which fixes one highest amount that is always grave matter on account of its magnitude, however wealthy the loser may be, and a relative one, which proposes a scale of lower amounts that are grave matter on account of the economic condition of the persons stolen from. It is argued that a relative standard should be set up, since the injury of theft is certainly felt more by those who have less means to fall back on; and that an absolute standard is also necessary, since without it the property of the rich would not be sufficiently safeguarded and the peace and order of society would be endangered.
1900. Opinions on the Amounts that Are Grave Matter.—(a) The older opinion, according to which there is only one invariable standard for all classes and conditions, regards as grave matter the amount necessary to support for a day, according to his state and obligations, a man whose financial condition is midway between wealth and poverty; for the loss of a day’s support is usually looked on as a serious loss, and a standard for all should be taken from the average. This daily support amount may be reckoned from the amount of daily wages or income. In the United States in 1955 the average daily wage was between $14 and $15, but, if only skilled laborers or those who are in moderately prosperous circumstances are considered, the average would be considerable higher. Perhaps it would range between $25 and $30. Or if we strike a medium between the highest and the lowest figures given by the advocates of two standards, we should arrive at approximately $30 or $35.
(b) The common opinion today fixes the absolute amount, which is grave matter even when theft is from the wealthiest person or society as the equivalent of a week’s wages for the head of a family living in fairly good circumstances but dependent upon his work for its support. As to the actual amount, authors differ. Thus, Father Francis Connell, C.SS.R., wrote in 1945 in _American Ecclesiastical Review_ (p. 69): “To lay down a general norm in view of actual conditions and value of money, it would seem that the actual sum for grave theft would be about $40.” In 1946, writing in the _Homiletic and Pastoral Review_ (p. 694), Father Joseph Donovan, C.M., stated: “It is hard to see how less than $100 could be absolutely grave with the chances of a higher amount being probably so.”[*] This sum was criticized as being excessive and did not meet with ready acceptance by all moral theologians. On page 127 of the third printing of his _Outlines of Moral Theology_ (1955), Father Francis J. Connell, C.SS.R., suggested $75 as a reasonable absolute sum considering the value of money at the time, and, as a practical norm, the sum has been acceptable to most confessors and authors. Relatively grave matter corresponds with the amount needed to support a worker and his family for a day or, according to some, the amount required for the support of the worker alone. Relatively grave matter would range from about $5 from a poor person on relief, through $20-$35 from skilled laborers and persons in comfortable circumstances, to $75 from the wealthy. The latter sum constitutes the absolute standard. For a general norm to establish relatively grave matter, then, an acceptable procedure is to take the daily earning power or expenses of those who do not belong to the wealthiest classes, but who just barely make a living by reason of their work or charity.
[*] This is not to suggest that the authors cited hold to the “week’s pay norm” as the standard. Father Connell, for example, defines the absolute as “a sum which is so large that society would suffer much if it could be stolen without grave sin even from the richest or from a wealthy corporation” (op. cit., pp. 127-128). The interest in citing the authors is to show the precise sums suggested by them at various times regardless of the norm used in arriving at the particular amount suggested.
1901. What is grave matter in theft of sacred objects? (a) If these objects have a value that may be measured by money (e.g., the gold or jewels that enter into a reliquary), grave matter is estimated by the material value, just as in profane objects. (b) If these objects have no monetary value (e.g., sacred relics), grave matter is judged from the dignity or rarity of the object. Thus, it would be a serious sin to steal even the smallest splinter from the True Cross.
1902. It was said above (1898) that the gravity of theft is estimated, not only by the property loss, but also by the personal loss, that is, the reluctance, unwillingness or sorrow of the owner at the deprivation of his goods. This does not mean that a greater unwillingness on the part of the owner increases the gravity of the theft, if the owner’s unwillingness is excessive or unreasonable (e.g., it is not a mortal sin of theft to steal a dollar from a miser, if the miser on account of his love of money feels the loss as keenly as another person in his place would feel the loss of $40). But a less unwillingness of the owner diminishes the injury, and hence increases the amount necessary for grave matter. There are three reasons especially that diminish the unwillingess of the owner at the loss of his property.
(a) Thus, by reason of the persons who steal, the owner is less unwilling when these persons have a greater claim on his affection (e.g., his children or wife), or when custom permits them to some extent a greater freedom than is granted to others (e.g., servants, employees).
(b) By reason of the things stolen, the owner is less unwilling when these are things of less value, like crops, that are produced mostly by nature and are left exposed, such as fruits growing by the wayside, branches and pieces of fallen timber lying on uncultivated land.
(c) By reason of the manner of the theft, the owner is usually less unwilling when goods are taken gradually and on several occasions, or piecemeal, than when they are taken all at once.
1903. The Common Opinion on Domestic Thefts and Grave Matter.—(a) In theft from one’s parents about double the usual quantity is required. But in an individual case the parents may be just as unwilling, and with good reason, to be despoiled by members of the family as by outsiders, and in such a case the rule would not apply. Hence, in considering thefts by children one must bear in mind the ability of the family to suffer the loss, the number of the children, the uses to which the stolen goods are put, the liberality or thrift of the parents, the affection or dislike which the parents have for the child who steals, etc. Thus, if poor parents are denying themselves in every way in order to rear and educate a large family, thefts from them are a serious matter.
(b) In theft from one’s husband even a greater amount is required. But there are exceptions, as when the husband is especially unwilling to have his property stolen by his wife, for example, when the money she takes is devoted, not to the benefit of the family or other useful purposes, but to vanity or sin, or to the great detriment of the husband or family (see 1799).
1904. Theft from One’s Wife or Minor Child.—(a) According to the law in the United States, a wife cannot steal from her husband nor the husband from the wife, but this principle has reference to the common property of which husband and wife are joint tenants (Robinson, _Elementary Law_, Sec. 563). Both husband and wife may have also their own separate property, and in that case either of them is guilty of injustice if he or she damages or takes without leave the goods of the other.
(b) According to American law, the father has the right to the earnings of his minor children who live with him and receive their maintenance from him; but the law gives the father no right over the separate real or personal estate of these children. Hence, a parent would be guilty of theft if he unlawfully took or used the individual property of his child.
1905. The Common Opinion on Thefts Committed by Employees.—(a) If the things stolen are small articles which the employer customarily supplies for his help (e.g., food and drink for domestic servants, pencils and paper for his clerks), the theft is not serious as a rule. But there are exceptions, as when the employee gives or sells to others these articles, or when he uses or wastes them to such a degree that the employer suffers a considerable loss. And one should also consider such circumstances as the great or small value of the services given by the employee, his good or bad standing with the employer, etc.
(b) If the thing stolen is not meant for consumption (e.g., furnishings of the home or office, merchandise of the store, tools or machinery of the factory) or is of a very precious kind (e.g., rare wines or expensive brands of tobacco), grave matter is of the same amount as when an outside person does the stealing. In fact, the guilt of the employee is more serious on account of his abuse of confidence or violation of contract. The property of employers would be subject to constant risk, if employees were permitted greater liberties than outsiders.
1906. Theft of Things about Whose Loss the Owner Is Less Concerned.—(a) Vegetation that Belongs to the Public and Is Left Unprotected.—If these things are of minor importance (e.g., wild fruits or berries, broken twigs, branches, etc., in public lands), it seems that it is not theft to take them, at least when one is poor and a member of the community; for laws against such acts are generally regarded as penal. But one sins, and may even sin gravely, when extensive damage is done to public property (e.g., by cutting down trees, carrying away flowers and plants, injuring shrubs, etc.).
(b) Vegetation that Belongs to Private Parties and Is Left Unprotected.—If only a small quantity is taken (e.g., an apple or a bunch of grapes hanging over a public highway taken by a passerby), it seems no theft is done, unless the owner or law expressly forbids. But it seems to be a venial sin to take more (e.g., as much as a hungry person can eat), and a mortal sin to take a quantity whose market value is equal to grave matter.
1907. Travelling Without Paying Fare.—Is it theft to ride in public conveyances without paying the fare?
(a) If one rides without payment or ticket, it seems that theft is committed, unless the company is willing to give a free ride. It may be said that the company suffers no loss on account of one passenger who has not paid for his transportation, since the same number of cars and the same expenses would be required even without that passenger. But since the owners are unwilling to furnish their service gratis, he who takes it without pay is guilty of theft.
(b) If one rides without payment, but uses the ticket of another, there is no injustice if the rules of the company permit this (e.g., A buys a round-trip ticket, but gives the return ticket to B), but there is fraud if the rules of the company and the agreement of the purchaser make the ticket non-transferable (e.g., B uses the half-rate ticket which A had received as a personal privilege from the railroad company).
1908. Small Thefts Which Amount to a Large Sum.—Small amounts stolen may accumulate into a large amount. This happens in the following ways: (a) the thief takes small sums on different occasions from the same person or from different persons, and continues at this until he has stolen a considerable amount; (b) the thief conspires with other thieves to steal on the same occasion from one person or several persons, and, though the sum he steals is small, the sum taken by the whole group is considerable. Similarly, petty damages or vexations may accumulate into a mortal injustice. Thus, if Claudius, aiming to break down the health, sanity, success, reputation, business, etc., of Balbus, plans and carries out a systematic campaign of small injuries daily repeated for years, Claudius is guilty at least in purpose of serious damage.
1909. Small thefts that grow into a large theft are mortally sinful in the following cases:
(a) they are mortally sinful by reason of the previous intention when one steals a little now and a little again, but has it in mind from the outset to steal a total sum that will be grave matter, or when one conspires with others to steal a notable sum although one’s own share will not be a notable amount. In these cases the purpose is to commit a grave injustice, either against an individual (if all is taken from one person) or against society (if portions are taken from various persons), and hence one is internally guilty of grave sin, even though one has not yet performed it externally. Examples are merchants who use false weights and measures, or who adulterate their commodities with small portions of water, etc., and thus make large profits by minute cheating;
(b) they are mortally sinful by reason of the subsequent intention when one had no purpose to steal a large amount, but adverts to the fact that a small theft here and now committed will constitute grave matter if added to previous petty thefts, or that the amount of stolen goods now possessed is large, and nevertheless resolves to go ahead with the theft or to retain the stolen goods. This does not mean that a number of venial sins coalesce into a mortal sin (see 189), but only that the object of a sin which is slight in itself becomes serious on account of the circumstance that it is morally connected with previous sins. The last act in a connected series must not be taken singly, but in connection with the acts that precede, as is seen in the violation of a fast or in omission of parts of an hour. In the cases now considered, therefore, grave injustice is actually and purposely done, and mortal sin is committed, even though there was no thought of this in advance.
1910. The case of young men who are educated free of charge in the expectation that they will go on to the priesthood and who do not persevere.—(a) If they act in bad faith (i.e., if they enter the college or seminary merely to get their education, or to avoid work, or if they remain after they have abandoned thought of the clerical state), they are guilty of theft and bound to restitution.
(b) If they are not in bad faith (i.e., if they wish to try out their vocation, or if they begin with the intention to persevere), they are not guilty of injustice. This is true, even though they are rejected on account of idleness or other faults, provided there was no intention to defraud.
1911. In the following cases small thefts which added to others make a large sum seem not to be the cause of grave loss, and hence not mortally sinful:
(a) the small theft of one person following on the small thefts of others, when there is no bond of example, advice, conspiracy, etc., to unite the various thefts; for none of the thieves can be held responsible for the part of the loss caused by the others. Example: Titus, knowing that Balbus has been cheated by various persons to the amount of $9 and that $10 will be a serious loss to Balbus, proceeds to steal $1 from Balbus:
(b) the small thefts of several persons who steal together, and who influence one another only by example; for example is an occasion, not a true cause of the imitator’s act (see 1447, 1763). Example: Sempronius and Claudius go into a store together and find that there is no one around. Sempronius thereupon steals a number of articles and leaves. Claudius notices this and steals other things, which will make the total loss serious.
1912. Moral Connection between Repeated Acts of Theft.—The moral connection between repeated acts of theft by one person is necessary, as was said, in order that these acts unite into one grave sin. This moral connection does not exist, however, if the series is broken by interruption or revocation.
(a) Thus, the connection is broken by interruption when there is a long interval between small thefts, because thefts that are small and infrequent do not inflict severe loss on individuals or society. This supposes, of course, that there is no intention to practise small thievery habitually in order to become enriched by it, but that one steals now and then as opportunity or necessity occurs, or (according to some) that one intends to steal only small amounts and at long intervals.
(b) The connection is also broken by restitution or revocation. It is clear that, if the thief has given back his former thefts, they should not be computed with later thefts; and it seems also—though some do not admit this—that, if he has sincerely resolved to give back things taken before (e.g., things which are useless for him), there is no moral connection between the past thefts and a theft he is committing now.
1913. Interval of Time between Acts of Theft.—The interval of time that breaks the connection between small thefts cannot be determined with mathematical exactness, but the following rule seems to be accurate enough: thefts combine to form a great theft only when considerable property is taken by degrees, but within such a brief period of time as to be of notable advantage to the thief and of notable disadvantage to the loser. Some moralists think that six months is a long space, sufficient to prevent union between thefts, but that two months is too short a space to prevent the union; others, on the contrary, believe that the amounts stolen should be taken into consideration; and hence that the following intervals between thefts separate them into distinct venial sins without coalescence:
(a) a period of one year between thefts, each of which almost amounts to grave matter, when the property is kept (e.g., when a dressmaker who has kept not a little of her patron’s material of a twelvemonth ago does the same thing again this year);
(b) a period of two months, when the matters are almost grave, but the property is not kept (e.g., when a thief who beat a restaurant out of the price of a very elaborate meal at the beginning of January does the same thing at the beginning of March). But it is hard to see how one could have the habit of stealing in this way and not have the intention of stealing a large amount, for a person who steals what is almost grave matter every two months or so must realize that he will shortly be enriched to a considerable extent by his dishonesty. Moreover, the interval of two months might be needed by the thief for avoiding suspicion;
(c) a period of one month, when the thing stolen falls far short of grave matter (e.g., a meal of simple fare plainly cooked and served);
(d) a period of about two weeks, when the matters are very small (e.g., when a thief takes a few secret sips from a wine bottle on each of his fortnightly visits to a certain house, or carries away some trifling object as a souvenir). These thefts would not surpass five or ten cents a month;
(e) some authors think that one week or perhaps even one day will prevent coalescence between extremely small thefts; and surely there are some paltry objects (e.g., a pin or needle, a match, a small lump of coal, a piece of string) which would not total a large value even after many years have passed.
1914. Species and Number of Petty Thefts that Coalesce into Grave Matter.—(a) If the thefts proceed from a previously formed purpose of stealing by installments a large sum, each of them is a mortal sin, but they do not form numerically distinct sins, unless there was a revocation of the intent (see 214, 215).
(b) If the thefts did not proceed from a previously formed plan, those that preceded the culminating theft (i.e., the one whose addition makes the quantity grave) are so many separate venial sins of theft. The culminating theft is a mortal sin, if the thief adverts to the fact that he has now stolen a notable sum; otherwise it is a venial sin. The act, after the gravity of the matter has been noticed, is the initial mortal sin, if it means consent to the grave injustice done (e.g., retention of the ill-gotten goods, intention not to make restitution); it is an additional mortal sin, if it means a renewal of consent to the grave injustice previously done (e.g., the theft of a new small amount with the purpose of keeping it as well as the rest).
1915. Sum Required for Grave Matter in Petty Thefts that Coalesce.—(a) According to one opinion, it is always larger than the sum required for grave matter in a theft of the same amount on a single occasion; for the owner does not feel the loss so much when his goods are stolen in small amounts and at different times. Thus, a man is less unwilling to have $100 stolen from him through pilferings of cents and dollars over a period of a year or two than to have it all stolen from him on one day.
(b) According to another opinion, grave matter for petty thefts is not larger than grave matter for large thefts of the same amount, if the petty thief had the intention all along to accumulate a notable sum. But some who are of this opinion make an exception for the case when the petty thief steals not from one but from several owners, for in this way the loss is distributed and less harm done. Grave matter in this case, they say, is the same as absolutely grave matter.
1916. There are various opinions on the amounts required for grave matter in the case of petty thefts that coalesce. (a) If all the thefts are against the same person, the usual opinion fixes grave matter at one and one-half times or twice the amount fixed for large thefts. Some authors limit this to cases wherein the thief had not the purpose from the beginning to steal a great amount (see 1915), and some state that the amount for large thefts which is considered is the relative, not the absolute sum. (b) If the thefts are against different persons, some think that grave matter is the same as the absolute matter of one large theft, while others make it one and one-half times or twice that amount. Here again some moralists limit these increases in the sum for grave matter to cases wherein there was no purpose from the beginning to steal a notable amount.
1917. Theft from Joint Owners.—Is it a grave sin to steal a considerable amount of property that belongs to joint owners? (a) If the amount taken is absolutely grave, the sin is serious for the reasons given in 1898 sqq.; (b) if the amount taken is relatively grave (e.g., because a community is very poor, or because the owners are only two or three and the individual loss is heavy), the sin is serious; (c) if the amount taken is not relatively grave, as happens when an organization is not poor and has many members or when the loss will be so distributed among the joint owners as to be little felt by them individually, the sin is not serious.
1918. Restitution in Cases of Theft.—(a) Restitution is owed for the property stolen. He who stole a serious amount but gave back part, retaining only what is light matter, is bound under venial sin to restore the rest. Confessors should urge restitution even of small amounts, when possible, in order to deter men from theft, and it may sometimes be useful to require children to seek a condonation from their parents for a similar reason. (b) Restitution is owed also for damage caused by the theft (see 1895). Thus, if one steals the tool of a poor farmer, which is of little value in itself but which brings on him a serious loss, one is responsible for the loss as well as for the tool.
1919. Cases of Doubt.—(a) Doubts of Law.—The rules given by moralists on grave matter in thefts are not to be regarded as certain and authentic, since they are only the opinions of theologians, and have no obligatory sanction from the Church. They are reasonable and well founded, indeed, but in spite of them there will occur cases wherein it is doubtful whether a theft is mortal or venial (see 1896). It is no disgrace to be ignorant in such difficult cases, for St. Augustine himself admitted that he did not always know where to draw the line. Hence, confessors should not feel obliged to decide with finality in every instance whether the sin committed was in itself grave or light; on the contrary, it will sometimes be necessary to avoid a definite answer, while calling attention to the sinfulness of all theft and the duty of restitution. But the obligation of restitution should not be imposed as certain, where the doctors disagree.