Author Topic: Theft: A Mortal Sin  (Read 1043 times)

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Theft: A Mortal Sin
« on: December 29, 2021, 08:17:54 PM »
I hope this is helpful to those who inquired about this topic and wanted more information about it. If one held errors, they were likely innocent mistakes and no big deal, and if one were unsure, now you know.

It was expressed in another board on another topic that the value stolen in theft dictates the severity of the sin. The following were proposed:

  • Stealing a small amount of money is a venial sin
  • Committing that sin repeatedly and it is a mortal sin (number not specified)
  • Stealing more than a day's wage is a mortal sin
  • Stealing more than a day's wage piecemeal from the same person is a mortal sin

I do not know the source of these propositions but it must be made clear they are severely oversimplified and not accurate beyond the fact that stealing is a sin and can be a mortal sin. Besides the act, theft, which is a grave matter, it would require more to be a mortal sin:

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X
10 Q. Besides grave matter, what is required to constitute a mortal sin?
A. To constitute a mortal sin, besides grave matter there is also required full consciousness of the gravity of the matter, along with the deliberate will to commit the sin.

Theft is the taking of another's property against their will secretly. Doing the same non-secretly is robbery and is a more serious sin (but be sure to remember a mortal sin is a mortal sin, and the relative comparisons of sin don't change that):

Quote from: Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 65, Article 3
Article 3. Whether the essence of theft consists in taking another's thing secretly?

I answer that, Three things combine together to constitute theft. The first belongs to theft as being contrary to justice, which gives to each one that which is his, so that it belongs to theft to take possession of what is another's. The second thing belongs to theft as distinct from those sins which are committed against the person, such as murder and adultery, and in this respect it belongs to theft to be about a thing possessed: for if a man takes what is another's not as a possession but as a part (for instance, if he amputates a limb), or as a person connected with him (for instance, if he carry off his daughter or his wife), it is not strictly speaking a case of theft. The third difference is that which completes the nature of theft, and consists in a thing being taken secretly: and in this respect it belongs properly to theft that it consists in "taking another's thing secretly."

This is in contrast to all manner of thefts by other means, which do have a moral theological examinations, but this is for simple theft, not theft coupled with other factors.

Theft, by itself, is a mortal sin because:

Quote from: Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 66, Article 5
Article 5. Whether theft is always a sin?

On the contrary, It is written (Exodus 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.

Theft does not, by itself, distinguish the value of what is stolen. It can be a mortal sin at any amount by the nature of the act. However, what appears to be theft is not always theft, for example, when it can be reasonably assumed that the owner did not will the person not to use or take the thing.

Sin comes from violating justice, the deliberate and knowing, theft of another's property against their will and knowledge (or, if with knowledge, it can be worse).

The malice of the act can be great even at very small amounts:

Quote from: Summa Theologica, Second Part of the Second Part, Question 65, Article 6
Article 6. Whether theft is a mortal sin?


Objection 3. Further, theft can be committed in small even as in great things. But it seems unreasonable for a man to be punished with eternal death for the theft of a small thing such as a needle or a quill. Therefore theft is not a mortal sin.

On the contrary, No man is condemned by the Divine judgment save for a mortal sin. Yet a man is condemned for theft, according to Zechariah 5:3, "This is the curse that goeth forth over the face of the earth; for every thief shall be judged as is there written." Therefore theft is a mortal sin.

I answer that, As stated above, (II-II:59:4 and Prima Secundae Partis, Question 72, Article 5), a mortal sin is one that is contrary to charity as the spiritual life of the soul. Now charity consists principally in the love of God, and secondarily in the love of our neighbor, which is shown in our wishing and doing him well. But theft is a means of doing harm to our neighbor in his belongings; and if men were to rob one another habitually, human society would be undone. Therefore theft, as being opposed to charity, is a mortal sin.

Reply to Objection 3. Reason accounts as nothing that which is little: so that a man does not consider himself injured in very little matters: and the person who takes such things can presume that this is not against the will of the owner. And if a person take such like very little things, he may be proportionately excused from mortal sin. Yet if his intention is to rob and injure his neighbor, there may be a mortal sin even in these very little things, even as there may be through consent in a mere thought.

So, while we may think taking little is a little sin, if it is theft, the sin comes from the evil done, not the material value, but it can often be seen that small thefts might be different acts, depending on the actual circumstances.

So we do not need to worry about a mortal sin in picking up abandoned change, or accepting a few coins from a cashier when one is short. There is no theft, even though one might not have explicit permission to use that money which is not one's own strictly speaking, it can be understood that the owner consents to it, both because of the situation and the trivial amount involved. But it is not a sin not because it is a small amount, but because one does not will evil and it is not depriving anyone of their property against their will.

We do not need to be worried about mortal sin in little things usually if we have no intention of stealing from another against their will and knowledge, and for small amounts that may arise where it seems property is being converted, it should be understood that there is a matter of implied consent if a property is abandoned or the situation indicates that the consent of the owner is present. It does not need to be explicit and usually isn't for the little things we may worry about if we have a rigorous moral tendency.

And for those who are lax, don't steal, even small amounts, because that can be a mortal sin, and using the amount as an excuse is a grave matter as well.
« Last Edit: December 29, 2021, 08:36:20 PM by Pæniteo »
 
The following users thanked this post: Michael Wilson

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #1 on: December 29, 2021, 08:24:06 PM »
To add, the misconception might have come from explanations given to a child, that stealing a penny is a venial sin and stealing a hundred dollars is a mortal sin.

This is not true, but for a child, the relative comparisons and the fact children may convert property without thinking, it is good for them to be aware that taking things that belong to another is bad, and that taking things that are "big" and require more thought and intention are likely to be more serious.

I heard that example when I was very young I think myself which I realized after posting.

Offline Philip G.

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1573
  • Thanked: 651 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #2 on: December 29, 2021, 09:59:42 PM »
I hope this is helpful to those who inquired about this topic and wanted more information about it. If one held errors, they were likely innocent mistakes and no big deal, and if one were unsure, now you know.

It was expressed in another board on another topic that the value stolen in theft dictates the severity of the sin. The following were proposed:

  • Stealing a small amount of money is a venial sin
  • Committing that sin repeatedly and it is a mortal sin (number not specified)
  • Stealing more than a day's wage is a mortal sin
  • Stealing more than a day's wage piecemeal from the same person is a mortal sin

I do not know the source of these propositions but it must be made clear they are severely oversimplified and not accurate beyond the fact that stealing is a sin and can be a mortal sin. Besides the act, theft, which is a grave matter, it would require more to be a mortal sin:


Well, for those around here who think that everything I post is just a creation of my wild imagination, let's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.  This was the version they use for catechism class, and it reads from the section "a list of some mortal sins", number 25: "stealing something expensive, or a large sum of money(more than the daily wage of the person you steal from).

Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #3 on: December 29, 2021, 10:23:44 PM »
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.

I prefixed the post with a disclaimer stating it was likely a matter of innocent mistakes and not a big deal.

I am not presenting my own doctrines or interpretations. Yes, you reference a book aimed at teaching adults the basics. I reference books aimed at teaching teachers. For more, consider the Roman Catechism:

Quote from: Catechism of the Council of Trent
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT : "Thou shalt not steal"

Desire Of Stealing Forbidden

But, besides actual theft, that is, the outward commission, the will and desire are also forbidden by the law of God. The law is spiritual and concerns the soul, the source of our thoughts and designs. From the heart, says our Lord in St. Matthew, come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies.

The value of the thing stolen does not matter. One can be guilty of a mortal win through the will alone.

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X
1 Q. What does the Seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, forbid?
A. The Seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, forbids all unjust taking and all unjust keeping of what belongs to another, and also every other way of wronging our neighbour in his property.

2 Q. What is meant by stealing?
A. It means taking another’s goods unjustly and against the owner’s will, that is to say, when he has every reason and right to be unwilling to be deprived of them.

3 Q. Why is it forbidden to steal?
A. Because a sin is committed against justice and an injury is done to another by taking or keeping against his right and will that which belongs to him.

13 Q. Is it a grave sin to steal?
A. It is a grave sin against justice when the matter is grave; for it is most important for the good of individuals, of families, and of society that each one’s right to his property should be respected.

14 Q. When is stolen matter grave?
A. When that which is taken is considerable, as also when serious loss is inflicted on another by taking that which in itself is of little value.

Yes, you see that catechisms intended for the public are often including provisions simplifying the theology for the most part, because of who is being instructed.

The theft of trivial things is often not a concern because thieves usually don't do that and there are a lot of little things that can look like theft, but aren't actually theft, in small matters.

But it is in the will and mind of the person that makes the sin, not in the value of the thing stolen.

Quote
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.
It was not controversial. It was just basic moral theology that was being questioned.

You asked me specifically about it:

And one final thing: don't commit grave sins. If this is done, then all sins are venial, and all penances required are relatively light.

If you steal a small amount of money, that is a venial sin.  Do that enough times, and it becomes a mortal sin.  If you spread a sufficient quantity and variety of venial sins out along the spectrum of all possible sins, does it qualify as a mortal sin?  If you think it is a mortal sin, how do you confess that one?  If it is not, is a slight penance still "required"?  Such a sinful characteristic may be absolvable, as a result of memory loss, but is it forgivable?

Why wouldn't you want an answer?

You were also contradicted by another poster, who may not have been aware of the theological background, but recognized that your position was not the full picture or possibly correct.

Presenting a catechism with basic examples for the reader to take into consideration is not theology, at least, not the full theology.

Citing a work that is derived from the theological works and Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Catholic Church, as the modern publication is consistent and includes a lot more examples of theft in our modern day that might not have been an issue in the past the same way) are not the final source.

They are a derived work, and this is where they come from, coupled with the writer's best effort to present the doctrine and theology in a way that is useful for the intended audience.

I hope this clarifies the situation and more fully explains the moral theology.

The danger I see is that one would take your example and use it to justify stealing "small" amounts spread among different victims or justify stealing at all just because the amount was deemed small enough. That can be a mortal sin and making excuses for sin is a sin in itself.

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #4 on: December 29, 2021, 10:30:17 PM »
Well, for those around here who think that everything I post is just a creation of my wild imagination, let's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.

It is a "brief catechism", and that should say it all. It doesn't contain everything. I bet it does not have much about the moral considerations of contracts in it. The current Catechism of the Catholic Church on the Seventh Commandment has passages like this:

Quote from: Catechism of the Catholic Church
2411 Contracts are subject to commutative justice which regulates exchanges between persons in accordance with a strict respect for their rights. Commutative justice obliges strictly; it requires safeguarding property rights, paying debts, and fulfilling obligations freely contracted. Without commutative justice, no other form of justice is possible.

One distinguishes commutative justice from legal justice which concerns what the citizen owes in fairness to the community, and from distributive justice which regulates what the community owes its citizens in proportion to their contributions and needs.

You can see that short catechisms are designed for teaching people more practically. They are good, and they may reflect absolute truths, or contain examples likely to be useful for the target audience, but they are not the source of the full theology presented.

I cite such catechisms a lot, because they are very straightforward, but only when the statements on their own are sufficient. I don't pretend that they are the fullness of the doctrine or can teach everything or even have the best examples for all situations. Nobody should. The Creed contains the core teachings of the Church, but it doesn't explain them. So we have little catechisms to help expound on it. Then we have larger Catechisms to help prepare those who create little catechisms, and we have moral theology and dogmatic theology to be the source of the fullness of our understanding of what is revealed and known.

Offline GiftOfGod

  • "The new mass, sacraments, and priests are bastards." - Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, page 116
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2206
  • Thanked: 756 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #5 on: December 29, 2021, 11:07:01 PM »
[...L]et's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.
What year is the imprimatur and who gave it?
If attending Mass, the ordinary form as celebrated everyday around the world be sinful, then the Church no longer exists. Period.
Rather, if the NOM were the lex credendi of the Church, then the Church would no longer exist. However, the true mass and the true sacraments still exist and will hold the candle of faith until Our Lord steps in to restore His Bride to her glory.
We could compare ourselves to the Catholics in England at the time of the Reformation. Was it sinful for them to attend Cranmer's service?
We have to remind ourselves that all the machinery of the "Church" continued in place. They had priests, bishops, churches, cathedrals. But all of them were using the new "Book of Common Prayer" instead of the Catholic Mass. Ordinary lay people could see with their own eyes an enormous entity that called itself the "Church," but did the true Church still exist in that situation? Meanwhile, in small hiding places in certain homes were a handful of true priests offering the true Mass at the risk of imprisonment, torture and death.

 

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #6 on: December 29, 2021, 11:08:38 PM »
[...L]et's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.
What year is the imprimatur and who gave it?

Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago May 25, 1958

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #7 on: December 29, 2021, 11:14:04 PM »
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.

That is what one man teaches potential converts who are non-Catholic. Read it again, it states in its opening:

Quote from: A Brief Catechism
Author's Preface

This book aims at three things:

1st, Clearness in teaching religion so the prospective convert can clearly know what he is supposed to believe in order to save his soul. This book is not meant to be a theological manual, but rather a handbook in which non-Catholics can find the main ideas given in the instructions
2nd, Ordinary language. The book has been written in the language spoken by people of today. The use of theological terms and anglicized Latin words has been avoided as much as possible. Actual experience in giving the final examination to thousands of non-Catholics has helped the author to express theological concepts in the familiar words of every-day conversation.
3rd, Correct emphasis on the things necessary to form a Christian conscience. This book is designed to prepare its users for conversion, not to make theologians of them.....


That should sum it up. Its own author has stated its purpose clearly. I was typing that out myself, so I stopped when the relevant points were covered, but that is the full text from the beginning until the end where it is no longer of interest for the purposes of this post.

The book was not written for Catholics and it is deliberately focused on a single purpose that is simplified and focused on its non-Catholic audience.

Offline Philip G.

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1573
  • Thanked: 651 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #8 on: December 29, 2021, 11:22:43 PM »
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.

That is what one man teaches potential converts who are non-Catholic. Read it again, it states in its opening:

Quote from: A Brief Catechism
Author's Preface

This book aims at three things:

1st, Clearness in teaching religion so the prospective convert can clearly know what he is supposed to believe in order to save his soul. This book is not meant to be a theological manual, but rather a handbook in which non-Catholics can find the main ideas given in the instructions
2nd, Ordinary language. The book has been written in the language spoken by people of today. The use of theological terms and anglicized Latin words has been avoided as much as possible. Actual experience in giving the final examination to thousands of non-Catholics has helped the author to express theological concepts in the familiar words of every-day conversation.
3rd, Correct emphasis on the things necessary to form a Christian conscience. This book is designed to prepare its users for conversion, not to make theologians of them.....


That should sum it up. Its own author has stated its purpose clearly. I was typing that out myself, so I stopped when the relevant points were covered, but that is the full text from the beginning until the end where it is no longer of interest for the purposes of this post.

The book was not written for Catholics and it is deliberately focused on a single purpose that is simplified and focused on its non-Catholic audience.

You have a serious problem.
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline Philip G.

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1573
  • Thanked: 651 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #9 on: December 29, 2021, 11:27:19 PM »
The book was not written for Catholics and it is deliberately focused on a single purpose that is simplified and focused on its non-Catholic audience.

Are infants, children, and those who have not yet been confirmed the "non-catholic audience" you are talking about?
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 

Offline GiftOfGod

  • "The new mass, sacraments, and priests are bastards." - Archbishop Lefebvre, An Open Letter to Confused Catholics, page 116
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 2206
  • Thanked: 756 times
  • Religion: Catholic (traditional)
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #10 on: December 29, 2021, 11:27:35 PM »
[...L]et's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.
What year is the imprimatur and who gave it?

Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago May 25, 1958
He was a slight ecumenist (and a hypocritical one at that) and permitted Modernist architecture to be built in his archdiocese. God saved him from having to recognize John XXIII and become a Council Father, as he died months before Pope Pius XII did.
If attending Mass, the ordinary form as celebrated everyday around the world be sinful, then the Church no longer exists. Period.
Rather, if the NOM were the lex credendi of the Church, then the Church would no longer exist. However, the true mass and the true sacraments still exist and will hold the candle of faith until Our Lord steps in to restore His Bride to her glory.
We could compare ourselves to the Catholics in England at the time of the Reformation. Was it sinful for them to attend Cranmer's service?
We have to remind ourselves that all the machinery of the "Church" continued in place. They had priests, bishops, churches, cathedrals. But all of them were using the new "Book of Common Prayer" instead of the Catholic Mass. Ordinary lay people could see with their own eyes an enormous entity that called itself the "Church," but did the true Church still exist in that situation? Meanwhile, in small hiding places in certain homes were a handful of true priests offering the true Mass at the risk of imprisonment, torture and death.

 

Offline Philip G.

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1573
  • Thanked: 651 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #11 on: December 29, 2021, 11:29:13 PM »
[...L]et's see what "A Brief Catechism For Adults" by Fr. Cogan Tan books that I bought from an sspx chapel has to say.
What year is the imprimatur and who gave it?

Imprimatur: Samuel Cardinal Stritch, Archbishop of Chicago May 25, 1958
He was a slight ecumenist (and a hypocritical one at that) and permitted Modernist architecture to be built in his archdiocese. God saved him from having to recognize John XXIII and become a Council Father, as he died months before Pope Pius XII did.

Well, I have owned more than a few catechisms, including the catechism of the council of trent, and baltimore #3, and this is my favorite. 
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12
 
The following users thanked this post: GiftOfGod

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #12 on: December 29, 2021, 11:36:26 PM »
Are infants, children, and those who have not yet been confirmed the "non-catholic audience" you are talking about?
It is for adults, non-Catholic adults, according to his own preface:

Quote
This book is not meant to be a theological manual, but rather a handbook in which non-Catholics can find the main ideas given in the instructions

The book seems aimed at non-Catholic adults who are prospective converts to get them up to speed on what they need to know. It isn't a theology manual, as he clearly states.

You have a serious problem.

Can you explain?

Offline TerrorDæmonum

  • Declina A Malo & Fac Bonum
  • St. Joseph's Workbench
  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 3598
  • Thanked: 2071 times
  • Breves Dies Hominis Sunt
  • Religion: Roman Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #13 on: December 30, 2021, 02:15:08 PM »
Well, I have owned more than a few catechisms...and this is my favorite.

That is fine, but don't mistake it for what it clearly states it is not: a theology manual.

It is not at all suitable for things for which it was not written.


Offline Philip G.

  • Feldwebel
  • ***
  • Posts: 1573
  • Thanked: 651 times
  • Ordinary Cult
  • Religion: Catholic
Re: Theft: A Mortal Sin
« Reply #14 on: January 01, 2022, 10:28:30 AM »
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.

I prefixed the post with a disclaimer stating it was likely a matter of innocent mistakes and not a big deal.

I am not presenting my own doctrines or interpretations. Yes, you reference a book aimed at teaching adults the basics. I reference books aimed at teaching teachers. For more, consider the Roman Catechism:

Quote from: Catechism of the Council of Trent
THE SEVENTH COMMANDMENT : "Thou shalt not steal"

Desire Of Stealing Forbidden

But, besides actual theft, that is, the outward commission, the will and desire are also forbidden by the law of God. The law is spiritual and concerns the soul, the source of our thoughts and designs. From the heart, says our Lord in St. Matthew, come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false testimonies.

The value of the thing stolen does not matter. One can be guilty of a mortal win through the will alone.

Quote from: Catechism of Pius X
1 Q. What does the Seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, forbid?
A. The Seventh Commandment, Thou shalt not steal, forbids all unjust taking and all unjust keeping of what belongs to another, and also every other way of wronging our neighbour in his property.

2 Q. What is meant by stealing?
A. It means taking another’s goods unjustly and against the owner’s will, that is to say, when he has every reason and right to be unwilling to be deprived of them.

3 Q. Why is it forbidden to steal?
A. Because a sin is committed against justice and an injury is done to another by taking or keeping against his right and will that which belongs to him.

13 Q. Is it a grave sin to steal?
A. It is a grave sin against justice when the matter is grave; for it is most important for the good of individuals, of families, and of society that each one’s right to his property should be respected.

14 Q. When is stolen matter grave?
A. When that which is taken is considerable, as also when serious loss is inflicted on another by taking that which in itself is of little value.

Yes, you see that catechisms intended for the public are often including provisions simplifying the theology for the most part, because of who is being instructed.

The theft of trivial things is often not a concern because thieves usually don't do that and there are a lot of little things that can look like theft, but aren't actually theft, in small matters.

But it is in the will and mind of the person that makes the sin, not in the value of the thing stolen.

Quote
Why my posting of this in another thread prompted such controversy as to inspire you to feel the need to "educate" us is beyond me.  Because, this is what the Church teaches adults.
It was not controversial. It was just basic moral theology that was being questioned.

You asked me specifically about it:

And one final thing: don't commit grave sins. If this is done, then all sins are venial, and all penances required are relatively light.

If you steal a small amount of money, that is a venial sin.  Do that enough times, and it becomes a mortal sin.  If you spread a sufficient quantity and variety of venial sins out along the spectrum of all possible sins, does it qualify as a mortal sin?  If you think it is a mortal sin, how do you confess that one?  If it is not, is a slight penance still "required"?  Such a sinful characteristic may be absolvable, as a result of memory loss, but is it forgivable?

Why wouldn't you want an answer?

You were also contradicted by another poster, who may not have been aware of the theological background, but recognized that your position was not the full picture or possibly correct.

Presenting a catechism with basic examples for the reader to take into consideration is not theology, at least, not the full theology.

Citing a work that is derived from the theological works and Roman Catechism (or Catechism of the Catholic Church, as the modern publication is consistent and includes a lot more examples of theft in our modern day that might not have been an issue in the past the same way) are not the final source.

They are a derived work, and this is where they come from, coupled with the writer's best effort to present the doctrine and theology in a way that is useful for the intended audience.

I hope this clarifies the situation and more fully explains the moral theology.

The danger I see is that one would take your example and use it to justify stealing "small" amounts spread among different victims or justify stealing at all just because the amount was deemed small enough. That can be a mortal sin and making excuses for sin is a sin in itself.

Perhaps I should mention, particularly now as you have doubled down on your claim that my posting of what is indeed authentic catholic moral teaching was some how faulty and "not at all suitable" to use your words; in the same catechism by Fr. Cogan with an Imprimatur of 1958, under the heading "a list of some venial sins", it states, "stealing something inexpensive, or a small amount of money".  Whether this is stated contextually or not in a post, with or without caveat, makes no difference.  This is 100% catholic teaching, with no more suitable setting than the one we have here on the forum.  And, this time, you cannot hide behind your "not the intention of this forum discussion" false argument.  I posted this in the history forum, not your precious sacred sciences forum. 

For you to call this an "oversimplification" in another thread, to recommend the new modernist CCC instead, and to liken it to a "danger" is more than enough evidence to discredit everything that you have said about the topic.  Because, in your case, there is a real danger.  This entire attempted display of superiority by you was a result of this cut and dry catholic teaching.    You have no right to posture as you do. 

Just because a few other women on the forum displayed ignorance in this regard, doesn't give you anymore reason to attempt a rebuke of me. 
« Last Edit: January 01, 2022, 10:44:32 AM by Philip G. »
For the stone shall cry out of the wall; and the timber that is between the joints of the building, shall answer.  Woe to him that buildeth a town with blood, and prepareth a city by iniquity. - Habacuc 2,11-12