|
Objection 1: It would seem that theft and robbery are not sins of
different species. For theft and robbery differ as "secret" and
"manifest": because theft is taking something secretly, while
robbery is to take something violently and openly. Now in the other
kinds of sins, the secret and the manifest do not differ specifically.
Therefore theft and robbery are not different species of sin.
Objection 2: Further, moral actions take their species from the
end, as stated above (FS, Question 1, Article 3; Question
18, Article 6). Now theft and robbery are directed to the same
end, viz. the possession of another's property. Therefore they do
not differ specifically.
Objection 3: Further, just as a thing is taken by force for the
sake of possession, so is a woman taken by force for pleasure:
wherefore Isidore says (Etym. x) that "he who commits a rape is
called a corrupter, and the victim of the rape is said to be
corrupted." Now it is a case of rape whether the woman be carried off
publicly or secretly. Therefore the thing appropriated is said to be
taken by force, whether it be done secretly or publicly. Therefore
theft and robbery do not differ.
On the contrary, The Philosopher (Ethic. v, 2) distinguishes
theft from robbery, and states that theft is done in secret, but that
robbery is done openly.
I answer that, Theft and robbery are vices contrary to justice, in
as much as one man does another an injustice. Now "no man suffers an
injustice willingly," as stated in Ethic. v, 9. Wherefore theft
and robbery derive their sinful nature, through the taking being
involuntary on the part of the person from whom something is taken.
Now the involuntary is twofold, namely, through violence and through
ignorance, as stated in Ethic. iii, 1. Therefore the sinful
aspect of robbery differs from that of theft: and consequently they
differ specifically.
Reply to Objection 1: In the other kinds of sin the sinful nature
is not derived from something involuntary, as in the sins opposed to
justice: and so where there is a different kind of involuntary, there
is a different species of sin.
Reply to Objection 2: The remote end of robbery and theft is the
same. But this is not enough for identity of species, because there
is a difference of proximate ends, since the robber wishes to take a
thing by his own power, but the thief, by cunning.
Reply to Objection 3: The robbery of a woman cannot be secret on
the part of the woman who is taken: wherefore even if it be secret as
regards the others from whom she is taken, the nature of robbery
remains on the part of the woman to whom violence is done.
|
|