justice of the compensation, all danger of mistake being removed." He teaches also that Christian captives, for the purpose of compensating themselves for the injuries they may have sustained, may steal the property of those by whom they are enthralled. I maintain that such principles are fearful in their character, and calculated to lead to the most evil consequences. SERVANTS, IF THEY THINK THAT THEY ARE NOT ADEQUATELY PAID, MAY STEAL THE PROPERTY OF THEIR MASTERS TO REMUNARATE THEMSELVES !!! Liguori, in dubium II., considers what may be the quantity of stolen property necessary to constitute mortal sin; he says: "Variæ ea de re sunt sententiæ. Nav. nimis scrupulose statuit medium regalem, alii nimis laxe 10. aureos; moderatius Tol. Med. Less. etc. duos regales, etsi minus sufficiat, si notabiliter noceat. "Resp. Ea non mathematice, sed moraliter metienda est, non tantum ex valore rei ablatæ, sed etiam ex circumstantiis personæ, cui aufertur: si nimirum ei grave damnum inferatur, aut saltem caritas christiana graviter lædatur, quomodo respectu valde divitis imo etiam regis, unus, vel alter aureus notabile quid videtur: respectu vero mediocriter divitum, quatuor circiter regales, sivé medius imperialis: respectu mechanicorum duo; respectu pauperis unus. Ita nunc plerique cum Bonac." "There are various opinions concerning this matter; Nav. too scrupulously has fixed the half of regalem, others with too great laxity have fixed ten aureos, Tol. Med. Less. &c., moderately have fixed two regales, although less might suffice, if it would be a serious loss. "These things are not to be measured mathematically, but morally, not only according to the value of the thing stolen, but also according to the circumstances of the person from whom it is stolen: to wit, if he would suffer great loss or Christian charity be grievously violated, wherefore, in respect of a very rich man, or even of a king, one or two aurei appears something notable; but in the case of a man of moderate wealth, about four regales, or the half of an imperial;-in the case of a mechanic, two; in the case of a poor man, one." According to this theology, it is not a great crime or a mortal sin to steal a comparatively large sum from a wealthy man. He proceeds in No. 527. Quoad hoc punctum, tam ad praxim scitu necessarium, nempe, quænam sit materia gravis in furto, operæ pretium est plura hic elucidare. Quidquid aliqui dicant, commune est apud DD. et non videtnr posse negari, quod, ad determinandam hujus materiæ gravitatem, non possit absolute pro omnibus eadem quantitas assignari, sed ipsa dimetienda sit respective ad circumstantias personæ, rei, loci, et temporis; cum enim furti gravitas consistat in quantitate damni, quod proximo infertur, facile nocumentum, quod respectu unius leve erit, respectu alterius erit grave." " "As to this point, so necessary for a practical knowledge, viz: what may be the grievous matter in a theft? it will be worth while here to elucidate many things. Whatsoever some may say, it is the common opinion amongst divines, and it does not appear possible to be denied, that in determining the quantity of the matter the same quantity can not be absolutely assigned for all, but it is to be measured according to the circumstances of person, property, place, and time, since the seriousness of the theft consists in the quantity of the loss which is sustained by the neighbour; certainly a loss which will be light in respect of one man, will be grievous in respect of another." He gives at great length the names of authors who support this view, and enumerates with great nicety, the various sums which, stolen from men of certain states and conditions in life, constitute mortal sin; sums of money or property under that value when stolen, only constitute venial sin and are not so grievous. The amount of guilt in theft is made to depend also on the place in which the sin is committed, for our Author says: "Quæritur hic, an sit mortalę furari parum reliquiæ sa "Here it is asked, whether it be mortal sin to steal a small cræ. Nulli dubium, quin in districtu Romano sit mortale, cum Clemens VIII. et Paulus V. excommunicationem indixerint contra eos, qui, invitis rectoríbus ecclesiarum, furantur reliquias etiam minimas: secus probabiliter ait Croix 1. 3. p. 1. n. 1603. cum Sanch. Castrop. Dian. et Badell. si quis furetur extra districtum aliquid minimum, ipsam reliquiam non deformans, neque minuens illius æstimationem; nisi sit aliqua reliqua insígnis, aut rara, ut puta sanctæ Crucis, capillorum B. Mariæ Virg. etc." piece of a relic? There is no doubt but that in the district of Rome it is mortal sin, since Clemens VIII. and Paul V. have issued an excommunication against those who, the rectors of the Churches being unwilling, steal some small relic: otherwise, Croix probably says-1. 3. p. 1. n. 1603, with Sanch. Castrop. Dian et Badell; if any one should steal any small thing out of the district of Rome, not deforming the relic itself nor diminishing its estimation; unless it may be some rare or remarkable relic, as for example, the holy cross, the hair of the Blessed Virgin, &c." Thus it is a mortal sin to steal a relic in the district of Rome, but not a mortal sin to do so out of that district, provided that no indignity be offered to it. In dubium III. he asks the question, "When he sins grievously who commits many small thefts ?" he answers: "Resp. Hic quoque quantitas læsionis, vel damnificationis, quæ fit proximo, et quam fur intendit, est mensura quantitatis peccati. Vide Less. loc. cit. Sanch. 1. 7. c. 21. Unde resolves. "Si quis ex occasione tantum furetur, sive uni, sive pluribus, modicum, non intendens notabile aliquid acquirere, nec proximo graviter nocere singulis furtis, non peccat graviter, neque ea simul sumta unum mortale constituunt; postquam tamen ad quantitatem notabilem pervenerit, eam detinendo, mortaliter pec "Here also the quantity of the loss or injury which the neighbour endures, and what the thief intends, is the measure of the quantity of sin. Whence you will resolve. "If any one on an occasion should steal only a moderate sum either from one or more, not intending to acquire any notable sum, neither to injure his neighbour to a great extent by several thefts, he does not sin grievously, nor do these, taken together, constitute a mortal sin; however, after it may have amounted to a notable sum, by detaining it, he can care potest. Less. d. 7. Sanch. lib. 7. c. 21. Bon. q. 8. p. 2. (Etsi nunquam advertat ad culpam gravem, ut Tamb. Croix. dicenda. n. 553.) Verum et hoe mortale evitabit, si vel tune restituere non possit, vel animum habeat paulo post restituendi ea saltem quæ tunc accepit. Gran. Dian. p. 3. t. 6. r. 25." "Quær. II. Si furtula, quæ simul ad magnam quantitatem perveniunt, sint facta diversis dominis certis, an fur teneatur sub culpi gravi eis restitutionem facere; vel an satisfaciat, debita illa pauperibus distribuendo. Ex una parte, videtur dicendum sub gravi restitutionem faciendam esse dominis, nisi excuset periculum famæ amittendæ, vel gravissimum damnum aut incommodum." commit mortal sin. But even this mortal sin may be avoided, if either then he be unable to restore, or have the intention of making restitution immediately, of those things which he then received." 66 Query II. If small thefts, which together amount to a large sum, be made from various known masters, whether a thief be bound under great blame to make restitution to them, or whether he may satisfy by distributing them to paupers? On the one hand it appears, that restitution should be made to the original possessors, unless the danger of losing fame or very grievous loss or inconvenience excuse." excused from making res In certain cases the thief is titution to those from whom he steals, if he make restitu tion to the Church. "Unde videtur, quod sufficienter fur satisfacturus sit suæ gravi obligationi ex præsumto consensu reipublicæ, si restituat pauperibus, aut locis piis, qui sunt egentiores reipublicæ partes." In No. 536, he says: "Probabilissima est hæc sententia Bus, scilicet, si plures modica furentur, neminem peccare graviter, etsi mutuo sciant grave damnum domino "Whence it appears, that a thief may have rendered sufficient satisfaction to his own weighty obligation from the presumed consent of the republic, if he make restitution to paupers, or pious places which are the more needy parts of the republic." "This opinion of Bus. is most probable, viz: if many persons steal small quantities, that none of them commit grievous sin, although they may be mu fieri, nisi ex communi consilio faciant; ita etiam tenent Habert t. 4. c. 7. § 5. qu, 6. Lugo d. 16. n. 55, Salm. de Rest. cap. 5. num. 28. cum Less. Sanch. etc. Et hoc, etiamsi singuli eodem tempore furentur; ut cum Bus. censet Less, cap. 12. n. 24. (contra Lugo.) Ratio, quia tunc nemo est causa damni, quod, per accidens, ab aliis domino evenit." tually aware of their conduct; unless they do it by concert; also Habert, t. 4. c. 7. § 5. q. 6. Lugd. 16. n. 55. Salm. de rest. cap. 5. num. 28. cum Less. Sanch. etc., hold this view; and this, although each should steal at the same time. The reason is, because then no one person is the cause of injury, which, per accidens, happens by the others to the master." In dubium IV. Liguori considers "What is to be thought concerning the thefts of domestics or friends."He teaches that a wife sins grievously if she steal a "notable sum from her Husband;-she may dispose of his goods by giving them to the poor, under certain circumstances, though he may have forbidden it. "Uxor potest dare eleemosynam, et munera, secundum consuetudinem aliarum mulierum illius loci, et conditionis ; etiamsi maritus eleemosynas omnes illi prohibeat, quia consuetudo hoc jus ei tribuit, quo maritus eam privare non potest." "A wife can give alms and gifts, in accordance with the custom of other women of that place and condition, although her husband may prohibit her from giving any alms, because custom hath appointed this right to her, of which her husband cannot deprive her." Speaking of stealing on the part of sons, he says: "Dicit Salas apud Croix 1. 3. p. 1. n. 1032, non esse grave furtum filii 20 20. vel 30. aureorum a patre, possidente annuos 1500, aureos, et non improbat Lugo d. 16. a. n. 76. Si pater non sit tenax, et filius adoleverit, et accipiat ad usus honestos, Less. Nav. et Fill. ap. Spor. de 7. præc. c. 5. num. 57. dicunt non peccare graviter filium furantem 2. vel 3. aureos a patre divite. Ban "Salas apud Croix, 1. 3. p. 1. n. 1032, says, that a son does not commit grievous sin, who steals 20 or 30 aurei from a father possessing yearly 1500 aureos, and Lugo does not disapprove of it, d. 16. A. n. 76. If the Father be not tenacious, and the son have grown up and receive it for honest purposes, Less. Nav. et Fill. ap. Spor. de 7. præc. c. 5. num. 57 say, that a son stealing 2 or 3 |