|
Objection 1: It would seem that theft is not always a sin. For no
sin is commanded by God, since it is written (Ecclus.
15:21): "He hath commanded no man to do wickedly." Yet we
find that God commanded theft, for it is written (Ex.
12:35,36): "And the children of Israel did as the Lord had
commanded Moses. . . and they stripped the Egyptians." Therefore
theft is not always a sin.
Objection 2: Further, if a man finds a thing that is not his and
takes it, he seems to commit a theft, for he takes another's
property. Yet this seems lawful according to natural equity, as the
jurists hold. Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
Objection 3: Further, he that takes what is his own does not seem
to sin, because he does not act against justice, since he does not
destroy its equality. Yet a man commits a theft even if he secretly
take his own property that is detained by or in the safe-keeping of
another. Therefore it seems that theft is not always a sin.
On the contrary, It is written (Ex. 20:15): "Thou shalt
not steal."
I answer that, If anyone consider what is meant by theft, he will
find that it is sinful on two counts. First, because of its
opposition to justice, which gives to each one what is his, so that
for this reason theft is contrary to justice, through being a taking of
what belongs to another. Secondly, because of the guile or fraud
committed by the thief, by laying hands on another's property secretly
and cunningly. Wherefore it is evident that every theft is a sin.
Reply to Objection 1: It is no theft for a man to take another's
property either secretly or openly by order of a judge who has commanded
him to do so, because it becomes his due by the very fact that it is
adjudicated to him by the sentence of the court. Hence still less was
it a theft for the Israelites to take away the spoils of the Egyptians
at the command of the Lord, Who ordered this to be done on account of
the ill-treatment accorded to them by the Egyptians without any
cause: wherefore it is written significantly (Wis. 10:19):
"The just took the spoils of the wicked."
Reply to Objection 2: With regard to treasure-trove a distinction
must be made. For some there are that were never in anyone's
possession, for instance precious stones and jewels, found on the
seashore, and such the finder is allowed to keep [Dig. I, viii,
De divis. rerum: Inst. II, i, De rerum divis.]. The same
applies to treasure hidden underground long since and belonging to no
man, except that according to civil law the finder is bound to give
half to the owner of the land, if the treasure trove be in the land of
another person [Inst. II, i, 39: Cod. X, xv, De
Thesauris]. Hence in the parable of the Gospel (Mt. 13:44)
it is said of the finder of the treasure hidden in a field that he
bought the field, as though he purposed thus to acquire the right of
possessing the whole treasure. On the other Land the treasure-trove
may be nearly in someone's possession: and then if anyone take it with
the intention, not of keeping it but of returning it to the owner who
does not look upon such things as unappropriated, he is not guilty of
theft. In like manner if the thing found appears to be
unappropriated, and if the finder believes it to be so, although he
keep it, he does not commit a theft [Inst. II, i, 47]. In
any other case the sin of theft is committed [Dig. XLI, i, De
acquirend, rerum dominio, 9: Inst. II, i, 48]: wherefore
Augustine says in a homily (Serm. clxxviii; De Verb.
Apost.): "If thou hast found a thing and not returned it, thou
hast stolen it" (Dig. xiv, 5, can. Si quid invenisti).
Reply to Objection 3: He who by stealth takes his own property
which is deposited with another man burdens the depositary, who is
bound either to restitution, or to prove himself innocent. Hence he
is clearly guilty of sin, and is bound to ease the depositary of his
burden. On the other hand he who, by stealth, takes his own
property, if this be unjustly detained by another, he sins indeed;
yet not because he burdens the retainer, and so he is not bound to
restitution or compensation: but he sins against general justice by
disregarding the order of justice and usurping judgment concerning his
own property. Hence he must make satisfaction to God and endeavor to
allay whatever scandal he may have given his neighbor by acting this
way.
|
|