Reparations For Stealing

[Paddington]

Are reparations for stealing necessary or not? Can a priest decide that it is not necessary for a penitent on a case-by-case basis?

I'm expecting most people to say that it will be up to the priest.
But, how do you square that with assertive statements from the Church that say reparations are necessary?

[Ziggamafu]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1182033' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:59 AM']
Are reparations for stealing necessary or not? Can a priest decide that it is not necessary for a penitent on a case-by-case basis?

I'm expecting most people to say that it will be up to the priest.
But, how do you square that with assertive statements from the Church that say reparations are necessary?
[/quote]

There is no clear statement that full restitution to the absolute most of one's ability is NOT a grave obligation. On the contrary, although the words "grave obligation" are not used (that I've seen) all of the teachings throughout authoritative documentation deem it necessary. I've never been shown in Church teaching that such restitution falls into the category of "temporal punishment". If so, that would mean a single plenary indulgence would suffice. As it stands, it seems to me that if full restitution is not made, you must go through life with uncertainty as to whether or not you are in a state of grace.

This thread, like the other one dealing with similar topics, is one I can personally relate to. I have spent a considerable amount of time and thought on researching the topics.

[cmotherofpirl]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1182033' date='Feb 1 2007, 03:59 AM']
Are reparations for stealing necessary or not? Can a priest decide that it is not necessary for a penitent on a case-by-case basis?

I'm expecting most people to say that it will be up to the priest.
But, how do you square that with assertive statements from the Church that say reparations are necessary?
[/quote]
I think it would also depend on what you have stolen, some things would be harder to replace than others.

[Resurrexi]

Yes, reparations are necessary.

[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent'] What shall we say of the necessity imposed by God on all of satisfying for the injury done? Without restitution, says St. Augustine, the sin is not forgiven.7 The difficulty of making such restitution, on the part of those who have been in the habit of enriching themselves with their neighbor's property, we may learn not only from personal observation and reflection, but also from the testimony of the Prophet Habacuc: Woe to him that heapeth together what is not his own. How long also doth he load himself with thick clay?8 The possession of other men's property he calls thick clay, because it is difficult to emerge and extricate one's self from (ill-gotten goods).[/quote]
[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent']RESTITUTION ENJOINED

We now come to the positive part of this Commandment, in which the first thing to be considered is satisfaction or restitution; for without restitution the sin is not forgiven.26

WHO ARE HELD TO RESTITUTION

But as the law of making restitution to the injured party is binding not only on the person who commits theft, but also on all who cooperate in the sin, it is necessary to explain who are indispensably bound to this satisfaction or restitution. There are several classes (who are thus bound).

The first consists of those who order others to steal, and who are not only the authors and accomplices of theft, but also the most criminal among thieves.

Another class embraces those, who, when they cannot command others to commit theft, persuade and encourage it. These, since they are like the first class in intention, though unlike them in power, are equally guilty of theft.

A third class is composed of those who consent to the theft committed by others.

The fourth class is that of those who are accomplices in, and derive gain from theft; if that can be called gain, which, unless they repent, consigns them to everlasting torments. Of them David says: If thou didst see a thief, thou didst run with him.27

The fifth class of thieves are those who, having it in their power to prohibit theft, so far from opposing or preventing it, fully and freely suffer and sanction its commission.

The sixth class is constituted of those who are well aware that --the theft was committed, and when it was committed; and yet, far from mentioning it, pretend they know nothing about it.

The last class comprises all who assist in the accomplishment of theft, who guard, defend, receive or harbor thieves.

All these are bound to make restitution to those from whom anything has been stolen, and are to be earnestly exhorted to the discharge of so necessary a duty.

Neither are those who approve and commend thefts entirely innocent of this crime. Children also who steal from their parents, and wives who steal from their husbands are not guiltless of theft.*[/quote]

Your confessor may not mention having to return what you stole (though they should) but it is still obligatory.

[quote name='The Catechism of the Council of Trent']RESTITUTION MUST BE INSISTED ON

Above all, priests should be very careful not to give absolution to any penitent, whose confession they have heard, without obliging him to make full satisfaction for any injury to his neighbor's goods or character for which he seems responsible. No person is to be absolved until he has first faithfully promised to restore all that belongs to others.

But as there are many who readily promise to comply with their duty in this respect, yet are deliberately determined never to fulfill their promises, these persons should be obliged to make restitution, and the words of the Apostle are to be frequently pressed upon their minds: He that stole, let him now steal no more; but rather let him labor, working with his hands the thing which is good, that he may have something to give to him that suffers need.113[/quote]

You should return the object or amount of money that you stole to the original owner. If you cannot reasonably find the original owner of the object or amount of money you should donate the amount that the object is worth or the money to a worthy charity (i. e. one that does not donate in any way to things with go against Church teaching. Many 'charities' such as the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the United Way support abortion and/or homosexuality). I assume it is also acceptable to donate the object to the Church.

[quote name='The Catechism of St. Pius X']18 Q. To whom must stolen property be restored?
A. To him from whom it has been stolen; to his heirs, if he is dead; or if this is really impossible the value of it should be devoted to the poor or to some charity.[/quote]

[Paddington]

[quote name='cmotherofpirl' post='1182141' date='Feb 1 2007, 01:05 PM']
I think it would also depend on what you have stolen, some things would be harder to replace than others.
[/quote]

Why would it depend on what one has stolen?

I guess that it is easier to get forgiven of murder.

[Paddington]

Bump.

AND.

Should you factor in interest?
Go to stores and ask people how much a certain kind of window costed 15 years ago?
Interview a bunch of neighbors and make phone calls to strangers until you finally get your victim?
Divide the cost by 2 if you had an accomplice?

I guess it is necessary to tell everybody who disagrees (including priests) that these things are necessary. You would be guilty of their sin if you left them without a rebuke. Right?

[Resurrexi]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1183569' date='Feb 2 2007, 10:42 PM']
Bump.

AND.

Should you factor in interest?
Go to stores and ask people how much a certain kind of window costed 15 years ago?
Interview a bunch of neighbors and make phone calls to strangers until you finally get your victim?
Divide the cost by 2 if you had an accomplice.
I guess it is necessary to tell everybody who disagrees (including priests) that these things are necessary. You would be guilty of their sin if you left them without a rebuke. Right?
[/quote]

Intrest is immoral. See Pope Benedict XIV's [i]Vix Pervenit[/i]

If you were an accomplice it seems that you are still obliged to make full reparation.

If you can't easily find the original owner, find the approxamate sum of the cost of the items which you stole and give it to a good charity.

It is not always good to correct a priest unless they are [i]deep[/i] in error. After all, priests are the Church Teaching and the laymen are the Church Taught.

[quote name='The Catehechism of St. Pius X']
18 Q. To whom must stolen property be restored?
A. To him from whom it has been stolen; to his heirs, if he is dead; or if this is really impossible the value of it should be devoted to the poor or to some charity.
[/quote]

Edited February 3, 2007 by StThomasMore

[Paddington]

[quote name='StThomasMore' post='1183625' date='Feb 3 2007, 05:42 AM']
Intrest is immoral. See Pope Benedict XIV's [i]Vix Pervenit[/i]

If you were an accomplice it seems that you are still obliged to make full reparation.

If you can't easily find the original owner, find the approxamate sum of the cost of the items which you stole and give it to a good charity.

It is not always good to correct a priest unless they are [i]deep[/i] in error. After all, priests are the Church Teaching and the laymen are the Church Taught.
[/quote]

StThomasMore,

Thanks for responding.
I'm always fascinated by your posts.

It would be weird to offer a victim half of a reparation. "Here is half of what you lost. The other half is on them." But it is also weird to pay full in that case. Here, the word "weird" is also weird in the way that it is true but not at all helpful.

Your quote.."if you can't EASILY find the original owner."
That is the difficult word to me. Are you for sure that you want to stand by saying "...easily..?" I don't mean that rudely. (I've been abrupt in general on here recently. To pretty much everybody. ) But, are you sure?
I appreciate what you are saying about correcting a priest. But this issue has an obvious relationship to salvation. That would be a very good criteria for when it is okay to correct a priest. The correction would have to be very respectful and tactful and with the willingness to be corrected back.

"Interest is always evil." Isn't that in the context of not having inflation? Inflation is real. $100 in 1993 is more than $100 now. This issue is covered in the usury section of the book "A Church That Can and Can Not Change" by John Noonan
I can't say that the hypothetical victim would not have invested the money either. Investing is not a sin, is it? What if they had to use a credit card in the short term because of a car window busted? Then they got charged interest on top of their loss.

The smartest advice "never break or steal" is showing through mightily here. But that is only good as a cautionary tale. In other words, most of the time.
But the Confessional is for sinners to be healed. Reparations are not as obvious on other sins (except lying), but there is still weirdness on repairing the damage of other sins too. I have seen people from my youth that I used to fight with. We could have sat down and made a list of the wrongs we have done to each other and apologized item by item. But that is not how it happened. And it would be crazy to think that it should have happened. The "hi, how have you been? Nice to see you" and all that stuff basically CONTAINED implicit apologies. All of this and more are why I HOPE that the pastoral/case-by-case thing that happens is allowed. Of course, I want it allowed on theft/vandalism for my own selfish reasons.

Either way, it has been mixed messages. Another similar thing is that of annulment. In theory, a bishop could annul a marriage that he should not have annulled. The process is a crazy process to wade through. But the annulment would still be valid, from what I've been told by a Catholic friend. The Catholic will immediately think that it is VERY UNLIKELY that an annulment would happen that should not have happened. The skeptic immediately thinks that the word 'unlikely' implies exceptions to the rule as well. What of those exceptions?

I will cut this short as I have to get back to my work.

Peace,
Paddington

[Ziggamafu]

I'm almost positive I've read in moral theology books that interest should be considered...it seems like SOOOOOOOOO much in regards to restitution and reparation beyond an assigned penance are left to speculation and debate...which stinks, because we're dealing with peace of mind over the state of one's soul. I've had priests tell me "not to worry about it" or that minimal efforts are "enough" and even suggest that such reparation falls into the temporal punishment category. You would think the Church would have run into this problem and devoted an encyclical to it or something...

Another thing I've wondered is whether or not such reparation may always be anonymous or if you must always repair / restore publically (i.e., with the knowledge of the victim). Does this mean that any crime must be confessed to the police? I would say about a million teens who've downloaded illegal stuff would need to confess to record companies, tv studios, film industries, software manufacturers, AND the FEDS!

[Piccoli Fiori JMJ]

[quote name='Paddington' post='1182820' date='Feb 1 2007, 10:43 PM']
Why would it depend on what one has stolen?
[/quote]
Severity can also be dependent upon whom you have stolen from... the poor, the Church...
I was reading a little about this just the other day... not sure if I can add anything else though...

[Paddington]

Ziggamafu,

It does a lot for me just to hear you say how imprecise this issue is.

Reparations can be anonymous when the crime was anonymous.
You can call me the pope on that one.

When the crime is known, I think it would be a great opportunity for the reparation to be explicit. That could bring inter-personal healing and even societal healing. But I will not say it is necessary. It seems to still have a case-by-case element. I could steal a million bucks from Timmy the Bear and later on return it to him in a paper bag thrown thru his window (with extra included for the window) just out of plain fear that he will kill me on sight. Yes, Timmy the Bear is like that.
People regularly have fears that are much less founded than that hypothetical one. There must be many hypotheticals in which the penitent prefers anonymity and then chooses it. What I'm getting at is that reparations would be the important part and their delivery would be mostly trivia.

In the illegal downloading example...it comes to my mind how much cops and feds dislike arresting people. There could be twice as many arrests if the cops felt like it. Even people with warrants are let go at times. And the prisons are still too crowded. *shrug* Why traumatize your family and burden the tax-payers by choosing prison? The good news is that the feds in charge of illegal downloads would just laugh at you a little before sending you home. Then they would laugh some more.
The Napster craze with illegal downloading was, for the most part, people getting free music that they would never have bought in a million years. There must be a few $5 checks that were sent to people like Britney Spears by penitents. That sounds good. Even though it sounds really bad. It isn't worth it to people like her to cash a check like that. She makes more money doing a sit-up. But others might actually cash it. But that is also jeopardizing oneself. Because the feds actually do choose to make just a few people into examples. Just a few. I don't think it is about the money in those cases. Although, they do ruin those people's lives with an undeserved debt.

A "legalistic" view of penance is far from common sense. But, the Scriptures and Magisterium give people plenty of opportunities to wonder how much common sense and truth overlap.

Peace,
Paddington