Bishop of Parramatta


	Each month Bishop Manning answers questions from the Catholic Community of Parramatta Diocese, which is published in 'Catholic Outlook', the official diocesan newspaper. To review previous questions and answers from the Bishop visit the archive.
	May 2004 Questions Bishops are asked By Bishop Kevin Manning Q: A friend of mine emailed me a newspaper account of an overseas court case in which a man was accused of shoplifting. He was found not guilty because he took the food for his wife and children. The judge even ordered that he be given the contents of the court's poor box. But stealing is still a sin, isn't it? A: This appears to be a fairly clear case of what in Catholic moral theology is called appropriation in necessity (food theft). Leaving this aside for the moment, let us imagine a person who takes $5 from a multimillionaire and a person who takes $5 from someone for whom every dollar counts. Most of us would recognise that there is a difference here as moral theologians distinguish between grave and light matters. The principle is that not all theft is the same and that, therefore, not all theft carries with it the same degree of moral guilt. Now let us return to the thief in the court case. It was acknowledged that he took the food from the supermarket. Clearly, the food did not belong to him but he took it to feed his desperately hungry wife and children. The Second Vatican Council teaches, "if a person is in extreme necessity, he has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs" (GS 69). Vatican II did not invent this teaching out of the blue: it follows from the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII that an obligation exists on those with more goods to assist someone in extreme necessity. Even earlier, in the 6th Century, some Church councils took a very dim view of anyone who interfered with the rights of the poor. In the conciliar legislation, such people were called nectores pauperum, murderers of the poor, even though no actual murder had taken place. In extreme necessity food theft is lawful because the common ownership of goods takes precedence over private ownership. The claim of extreme necessity must be verifiable: the need must be extreme, there must be no other way of getting the necessary food, only what is needed may be taken, the person from whom the food is taken must not be left in a condition which is worse than the condition of the person taking the food. The intention of restitution, giving the food back or, in this case, the value of the food, is required although, if there is no hope of this being done at the time of the appropriation, there is no obligation, even if the person's circumstances later improve. Over the years, I have been touched by the number of people who have made restitution, so-called conscience money, and by the number of people who, years later, sent back money they had borrowed, not taken. I like the touch about the court's poor box!

Q: A friend of mine emailed me a newspaper account of an overseas court case in which a man was accused of shoplifting. He was found not guilty because he took the food for his wife and children. The judge even ordered that he be given the contents of the court's poor box. But stealing is still a sin, isn't it?

A: This appears to be a fairly clear case of what in Catholic moral theology is called appropriation in necessity (food theft). Leaving this aside for the moment, let us imagine a person who takes $5 from a multimillionaire and a person who takes $5 from someone for whom every dollar counts.

Most of us would recognise that there is a difference here as moral theologians distinguish between grave and light matters. The principle is that not all theft is the same and that, therefore, not all theft carries with it the same degree of moral guilt.

Now let us return to the thief in the court case. It was acknowledged that he took the food from the supermarket. Clearly, the food did not belong to him but he took it to feed his desperately hungry wife and children.

The Second Vatican Council teaches, "if a person is in extreme necessity, he has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs" (GS 69). Vatican II did not invent this teaching out of the blue: it follows from the teaching of St Thomas Aquinas and Pope Leo XIII that an obligation exists on those with more goods to assist someone in extreme necessity.

Even earlier, in the 6th Century, some Church councils took a very dim view of anyone who interfered with the rights of the poor. In the conciliar legislation, such people were called nectores pauperum, murderers of the poor, even though no actual murder had taken place.

In extreme necessity food theft is lawful because the common ownership of goods takes precedence over private ownership. The claim of extreme necessity must be verifiable: the need must be extreme, there must be no other way of getting the necessary food, only what is needed may be taken, the person from whom the food is taken must not be left in a condition which is worse than the condition of the person taking the food.

The intention of restitution, giving the food back or, in this case, the value of the food, is required although, if there is no hope of this being done at the time of the appropriation, there is no obligation, even if the person's circumstances later improve.

Over the years, I have been touched by the number of people who have made restitution, so-called conscience money, and by the number of people who, years later, sent back money they had borrowed, not taken.

I like the touch about the court's poor box!