British priest: Shoplifting by poor sometimes OK

[Totenkopf]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_shoplifting_ok

 

Stealing excused by clergy member. Hmm.... What's next, adultery w/hookers is ok in a sterile marriage. So, anyone believe that stealing is ok just b/c of your circumstances or that the target is justifiable as long as it's "big" and not small?

[Trench]

This guy is off.

[jrrtoken]

Although the notion is fairly hypocritical to an extent, I do feel that it is "OK" for one that is in extreme poverty to steal from another (Usually the "another" relating to a corporate entity), with restrictions, however. If one is in dire poverty - and I do mean dire - the bare necessities would be the most valuable possessions; food and shelter are imperative to survival, so those goods would be highly sought after. If we put it in that context, then I do believe that shoplifting and other thievery is justified. Exemptions would be anything that isn't pertinent to one's survival, i.e. stealing an Xbox. >_>

 

Well, that's settled...

[mimartin]

Thou Shall Not Steal sure I can see how that can be interrupted a number of different ways.

 

Another example of why I drift further and further away from organized religion.

[jonathan7]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091222/ap_on_re_eu/eu_britain_shoplifting_ok

 

Stealing excused by clergy member.

 

If we're gonna get Biblical, Jesus always took the spirit of the law, and I'm pretty sure he would ask this;

 

"What's the greater crime; a family starving to death or stealing (food to let them live)?"

 

I know that's somewhat dramatic, but the Priest was only talking about taking food to survive, and if it comes to that, I have to say I think stealing is what should happen - is human life really so cheap that stealing a packet of rice warrants a death sentence?

 

Hmm.... What's next, adultery w/hookers is ok in a sterile marriage. So, anyone believe that stealing is ok just b/c of your circumstances or that the target is justifiable as long as it's "big" and not small?

 

Considering that Asda, Tesco's (or Tot in your case, say Walmart) as companies have about as much in the way of ethics as Palpatine - they basically rape the third world for cheap produce to sell to us; and maintain the cycle of poverty in the third world; I think this a far greater crime (which is currently legal) than a family say stealing rice to live.

 

Regardless, I think there a massive leap between stealing rice to live, and say murder, or adultery or whatever.

 

This guy is off.

 

Seriously? You actually think it would be better for a family to starve than steal from an evil corporation who continues a cycle of human misery (don't delude yourselves, that is exactly what Tesco et al are).

[Trench]

Its off that he said it was perfectly alright. The better solution would be to go to a food bank, or some other charity.

If you lack those, it could be considered a necessary evil. Not the right thing to do, just necessary in light of the situation. And only when you've used up ever other option.

What happens when you no longer need to shop lift to survive? What if you still have the mindset that it is alright now because it was then?

That's one of the problems with many an American teenager.

[jonathan7]

Its off that he said it was perfectly alright. The better solution would be to go to a food bank' date=' or some other charity.[/quote']

 

This makes a cultural assumption The UK doesn't have food banks - though at risk families should (and are) provided for by the state. That however is not a universal truth.

 

If you lack those' date=' it could be considered a necessary evil. Not the right thing to do, just necessary in light of the situation.[/quote']

 

Agreed.

 

What happens when you no longer need to shop lift to survive? What if you still have the mindset that it is alright now because it was then?

That's one of the problems with many an American teenager.

 

Well, I'm not sure if the average American teenager will have started shop lifting to survive (much like the average UK teenager won't have don so to survive). It has to be said that a Church congregation is hardly the most likely set of individuals to go and act out the advice... (You would hope).

[Web Rider]

I would have to agree that stealing is worse depending on your situation. If you're some rich punk, it's worse than if you steal because you're poor. However, at no point is stealing ever OK, even if you are very poor. If you think your poverty will help you get things, you might as well just go into the store and say "hey mister, I'm poor and homeless, can I have a *item*." You never know, someone might give it to you.

[Darth Avlectus]

I wouldn't preach something like this but I say if you're too unreasonably greedy, fate served you by having someone steal from you--especially if they're only surviving. As far as, preaching I'd state under no uncertain terms that stealing is wrong but if it must be done in order to survive then that is what must be. Throwing a life away so cheap is a greater tragedy.

 

Frivolous greedy theft on the other hand is not to be tolerated. In fact on a side note my younger sister may have to learn this the hard way, but thankfully it will probably only be community service and a ticket--possibly juvenile hall. I believe this to be a result of peer pressure and hope that this will be corrected.

 

Back on subject:

Before resorting to theft I'd resort to trade and barter (About as REAL as free market will ever get--more than capitalism with currency involved ever will be!). Often times a restaurant owner will have at least seconds that will just be thrown away if nobody eats it. That is if they're not at least willing to trade work for food with you. I have a hard time imagining you'd get absolutely turned away for it. I don't imagine U.K. is much different in that regard, to be honest. Hell, it's practically how Mexico operates. I have done this several times throughout my life and only once I was outright rejected.

 

If hard on times for you, resort to trade; if all else should fail take only that which you need in order to survive.

[Totenkopf]

If we're gonna get Biblical, Jesus always took the spirit of the law, and I'm pretty sure he would ask this;

"What's the greater crime; a family starving to death or stealing (food to let them live)?"

I know that's somewhat dramatic, but the Priest was only talking about taking food to survive, and if it comes to that, I have to say I think stealing is what should happen - is human life really so cheap that stealing a packet of rice warrants a death sentence?

Considering that Asda, Tesco's (or Tot in your case, say Walmart) as companies have about as much in the way of ethics as Palpatine - they basically rape the third world for cheap produce to sell to us; and maintain the cycle of poverty in the third world; I think this a far greater crime (which is currently legal) than a family say stealing rice to live.

Regardless, I think there a massive leap between stealing rice to live, and say murder, or adultery or whatever.

Seriously? You actually think it would be better for a family to starve than steal from an evil corporation who continues a cycle of human misery (don't delude yourselves, that is exactly what Tesco et al are).

 

Well, Jon, if you're going to get biblical, remember that stealing is against God's commandments. Jesus would NOT excuse the stealing, but would chastise others for allowing such situations to go on uncorrected. Jones also stated "...shoplifting could help people who are legally entitled to government welfare benefits but have the benefits delayed for bureaucratic reasons." So he isn't indicting big business (by stating it's excusable to steal from them b/c they "rape others resources for profit") but rather bureaucrats for failing to redress a situation in a timely fashion. You know that 2 wrongs don't make a right and a clegryman has no business implying otherwise. I think if he advocated more charitable sentencing in hardship cases that that would be understandable.

[Lord of Hunger]

@ Original Post:

 

Yes, while were at it let's just rewrite all the laws against theft so they have the subtext, "unless you're poor, in which case go ahead because corporations are EVIL!!!!1!".

 

*facepalms*

 

We have laws, both secular and religious, against stealing for a reason: because it's immoral. Just because certain corporations "rape the third world for its resources" does not create the justification for another immoral act. I sympathize with those who have been forced into terrible circumstances. In fact, I think that this priest should be telling his congregation to provide for the poor rather than feeding them this ridiculous idea that because one group does wrong we should wrong them in turn. I'm very sure Jesus would not support such a thing.

 

Hell, he forgave and had dinner with tax collectors, the Biblical equivalent of large corporations.

[mur'phon]

As a coping strategy, theft is usually (one of the, as some alternatives like prostitution aren't always pursued) last ones desperate people use. It's also something they are likely to do anyway as who would rather let them or their family go hungry. Because of this, I support the priest if only because those likely to feel "supported" by his sermon are amongst society's most desperate, and could help them deal with the guilt they feel for what they have done/will do.

Also, as he said, the main focus of his sermon was the underlying problems forcing people to adopt coping strategies, not the specific coping strategy of stealing.

 

@J7: if we are going to talk about corporations in the third world, I think we need a new thread, I will however say that the unfortunate truth is that it's often better for a country to be raped by corporations than not to be raped at all.

[vanir]

And not every other culture/subculture follows industrialist-capitalist maxims as representative of any human morality. Generally quite the opposite in fact.

Many would say it was mediaeval to have prosecuted to the extent of exile impoverished thieves in the 19th century.

 

Please scribe the ten commandments in their original Hebrew, then offer the extremely loose variety of possible transliterations. And go ahead and tell me the opinions of Jesus or any other God again whilst you're at it.

Hebrew scipture cannot be interpreted without the application of specific context, it is the very reason there are synagogues. It is because the language has a much smaller vocabulary than modern ones, and every statement made is inherently ambiguous.

 

Sort of like the way extremist nutjobs redefine the 2nd Ammendment from meaning state militias to individual vigilanteism, thus a pro gun lobby. In fact it clearly states its context and it had nothing whatsoever to do with people running around shooting it out with what amounts to other street criminals with firearms. All these people have done is legalise a crime. So why not impoverished individuals and families with no other choices but to steal?

 

And yes, that is what charity is all about. But as Jonathon said, doesn't mean it's always available everywhere and to everyone, and as for institutional welfare people simply slip through the cracks as with any inherently generalising organisation.

 

Thankfully the judiciary at least in Australia are not as mediaeval as some of the posters here. They will essentially record a conviction and suspend any penalties in light of the difficult circumstances and this is only because true thieves, whom steal for wont and hardly need will otherwise justify themselves as they do, and enlist more numbers.

 

Any penalties for crimes of reasonable circumstance and need are wholly political. But politics is so real most of you never notice it in your own words and thoughts, driving you, leading your assumptions, reasoning your why.

 

God is not about politics according to Jesus. According to the clergy, the Church is not about the laws of man.

[Pavlos]

Well, I'm not sure if the average American teenager will have started shop lifting to survive (much like the average UK teenager won't have don so to survive). It has to be said that a Church congregation is hardly the most likely set of individuals to go and act out the advice... (You would hope).

Now, I'm not a Christian and most of my knowledge of the faith applies only to very teeny tiny aspects of 14th century high theology (an almost universally useless subject area, I'm sure you'll agree), but I'm certain that should his teaching be incorrect in the eyes of the Almighty, the culpability is the priest's and not that of the individual, as he has been misdirected. It's the same with false beggars, Augustine (and Gregory, I think) says to give alms to all that ask and appear needy, because if the beggar is false then the sin of theft lies on his head, whilst the virtue of charity is left with the donor, regardless of where it goes.

 

On theft itself: as ever with Christianity, there are multiple schools but it seems a rather poor show for the CofE that their reaction displays a painful lack of even basic knowledge about one of the saints they venerate: Thomas of Aquinas.

 

Summa Theologica, Article 7: Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?

 

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.

 

Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.

 

Objection 3. Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs.

 

On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.

 

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

 

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

 

Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

 

Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.

 

Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

Now, I'm not saying that St. Thomas is the answer to everything in Catholic Christianity, but it does come across from the CofE's quarter that they've completely dismissed this rather important section of his writing. The CofE, in Jungian terms, is a creed, not a religion. It has formed a contract with the state to achieve security and self-perpetuation. But as a result, its primary objective becomes not upholding the "word of God" but rather upholding and agreeing with the word of the state: that is, stealing is wrong, intention does not matter outside of cases involving murder. It operates intra-, instead of extra-mundanely.

[jonathan7]

Well, Jon, if you're going to get biblical, remember that stealing is against God's commandments. Jesus would NOT excuse the stealing, but would chastise others for allowing such situations to go on uncorrected.

 

Jesus would answer the question with a question or parable to provoke thought in those asking the question, rarely does he give "simple" answers. But he always take things in the spirit of the law...

 

I didn't say he excused, and while I agree he would chastise others; there are far greater crimes in the world than stealing rice to live. Hell, I'll quote Bruce Wayne from Batman Begins;

 

Henri Ducard: When you lived among the criminals, did you start to pity them?

Bruce Wayne: The first time I stole so that I wouldn't starve, yes. I lost many assumptions about the simple nature of right and wrong. And when I traveled, I learned the fear before a crime and the thrill of success. But I never became one of them.

 

Jones also stated "...shoplifting could help people who are legally entitled to government welfare benefits but have the benefits delayed for bureaucratic reasons." So he isn't indicting big business (by stating it's excusable to steal from them b/c they "rape others resources for profit") but rather bureaucrats for failing to redress a situation in a timely fashion. You know that 2 wrongs don't make a right and a clegryman has no business implying otherwise. I think if he advocated more charitable sentencing in hardship cases that that would be understandable.

 

I find this curious, as this made the UK news and the Priest was on clarifying his position, which was the poor should only steal from big corporations and not family businesses. Frankly though given the amount of news the news agency's fail to report, it amuses me that such a small thing should get so much air time; great to see Freedom of Speech is still alive.

 

@ Original Post:

 

Yes, while were at it let's just rewrite all the laws against theft so they have the subtext, "unless you're poor, in which case go ahead because corporations are EVIL!!!!1!".

 

I'm pretty sure the Priest knows considerably more about ecclesiastical law than you; and I dare say he is aware of all the arguments being trotted out in this thread...

 

However given that you seem to think I'm being dramatic, and then you selectively pointing to the Bible. Large corporations driven for profit will always be evil because of the nature of their construction and human nature (that is something the whole Bible would back up, with regards mans nature).

 

"Administrative evil is systemic, in the sense that it exists beyond any one person once its policies are in place and its procedures take control. Nevertheless, I would argue, organizations must have leaders, and those leaders must be held accountable for creating or maintaining such evil. I believe that a system consists of those agents and agencies whose power and values create or modify the rules of and expectations for 'approved behaviors' within its sphere of influence. In one sense, the system is more than the sum of its parts and of its leaders, who also fall under its powerful influences. In another sense, however, the individuals who play key roles in creating a system that engages in illegal, immoral, and unethical conduct should be held accountable despite the situational pressures on them." (From Chapter 15, page 438) Philip Zimbardo – The Lucifer Effect

 

Zimbardo's specialisation is on the Holocaust and why the Prison guards et al acted as they did, on one part there was buck passing "there is nothing I can do about it" - and so many individuals did nothing. It is similar in large corporations, whose only responsibility is to make a profit for their share holders.

 

The articulation of my point was that places such as Tesco (or Walmart are). Indeed I say it is counter intuitive to argue otherwise - much the way that the big Drugs companies are hives of scum and villainy.

 

This is the report on Tesco's main Tea producing farm/plant in India; Click Me - Tesco break Indian law, by having child workers, not providing adequate housing for their workers, not providing clean water, and not providing adequate toilet facilities.

 

Tesco and other supermarkets basically steal the produce of farmers; Click Me.

 

Small brief article on the drugs agency; Click Me

 

Trust me when I say I could produce a book of sources on the evils of Supermarkets - think about it, the food is dead cheap... Does that not tell you something?

 

 

We have laws, both secular and religious, against stealing for a reason: because it's immoral.

 

You fail to answer the main point of my post; which is more immoral - a family starving to death, or stealing to live?

 

Just because certain corporations "rape the third world for its resources" does not create the justification for another immoral act.

 

Does this mean we should of gone to war with Hitler then? Seeing as War is the ultimate immoral act and two wrongs don't make a right?

 

I sympathize with those who have been forced into terrible circumstances. In fact, I think that this priest should be telling his congregation to provide for the poor rather than feeding them this ridiculous idea that because one group does wrong we should wrong them in turn. I'm very sure Jesus would not support such a thing.

 

Again, I'm pretty sure the Priest is far more qualified to comment on ecclesiastical matters than you. Jesus by his nature would have posed a question or told a parable to answer someone's question on this matter

 

Hell, he forgave and had dinner with tax collectors, the Biblical equivalent of large corporations.

 

No, no, no! The Romans were the only equivalent of a large corporation. This is such a counter intuitive statement, which ignores what the definition of the words used are, rending it meaningless.

 

1. A body that is granted a charter recognizing it as a separate legal entity having its own rights, privileges, and liabilities distinct from those of its members.

2. Such a body created for purposes of government. Also called body corporate.

3. A group of people combined into or acting as one body.

 

A tax collector is an individual as such he in no way resembles a Corporation; on the other hand ancient Rome, does much more resemble a Corporation.

 

@J7: if we are going to talk about corporations in the third world' date=' I think we need a new thread, I will however say that the unfortunate truth is that it's often better for a country to be raped by corporations than not to be raped at all.[/quote']

 

We can do if you want, given however the Priest was only advocating stealing from large corporations and not family businesses I did think pointing out the evils Tesco get away with pertinent to the discussion.

 

Edit: Response to Pavvy

 

Now, I'm not a Christian and most of my knowledge of the faith applies only to very teeny tiny aspects of 14th century high theology (an almost universally useless subject area, I'm sure you'll agree), but I'm certain that should his teaching be incorrect in the eyes of the Almighty, the culpability is the priest's and not that of the individual, as he has been misdirected. It's the same with false beggars, Augustine (and Gregory, I think) says to give alms to all that ask and appear needy, because if the beggar is false then the sin of theft lies on his head, whilst the virtue of charity is left with the donor, regardless of where it goes.

 

Well, the Bible says that teachers are held to higher account than the rest of the congregation; which is where the above teaching comes from.

 

On theft itself: as ever with Christianity, there are multiple schools but it seems a rather poor show for the CofE that their reaction displays a painful lack of even basic knowledge about one of the saints they venerate: Thomas of Aquinas.

 

Agreed but it's hardly as if the CofE is a wonderful state of health at the moment

 

Summa Theologica, Article 7: Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?

 

Now, I'm not saying that St. Thomas is the answer to everything in Catholic Christianity, but it does come across from the CofE's quarter that they've completely dismissed this rather important section of his writing. The CofE, in Jungian terms, is a creed, not a religion. It has formed a contract with the state to achieve security and self-perpetuation. But as a result, its primary objective becomes not upholding the "word of God" but rather upholding and agreeing with the word of the state: that is, stealing is wrong, intention does not matter outside of cases involving murder. It operates intra-, instead of extra-mundanely.

 

Yes I am aware of the above, hence me arguing the position I was

[Pavlos]

Yes I am aware of the above, hence me arguing the position I was

Oh it wasn't directed to you in particular. Sorry for the confusion.

[mimartin]

You fail to answer the main point of my post; which is more immoral - a family starving to death, or stealing to live?

Is starvation a large cause of death across the pond? Perhaps it is time for another LiveAid concert.

 

We can do if you want, given however the Priest was only advocating stealing from large corporations and not family businesses...[/Quote]No, he is advocating stealing from stockholders, which could be anyone. If it alright to steal from my neighbor in this matter, why not go direct to the source? I fail to see the difference. Also why should I steal rice, why not steal the big screen TV so that I can sell it for a lot of rice?

 

If the Priest is advocating stealing from my neighbor to feed my family, since he condones this behavior, then would it be considered evil to steal from the very church advocating this? Again, the church is supported by my neighbors, as the corporation is invested in by my neighbors, what is the difference on how I steal my neighbors’ money?

 

Is the Priest saying that I should only steal from privately held corporations and/or foreign corporation, but not from domestic publically held corporations? Also how do I know which corporations are evil? Is there some type of manual? I mean if enough people steal from the “evil” corporation, no matter how large, then the corporation will close that operation in that area and move elsewhere. Wouldn’t that remove jobs from my neighborhood forcing more people to steal and increasing my competition for thievery?

[Totenkopf]

Jesus would answer the question with a question or parable to provoke thought in those asking the question, rarely does he give "simple" answers. But he always take things in the spirit of the law...

I didn't say he excused, and while I agree he would chastise others; there are far greater crimes in the world than stealing rice to live. Hell, I'll quote Bruce Wayne from Batman Begins;

I find this curious, as this made the UK news and the Priest was on clarifying his position, which was the poor should only steal from big corporations and not family businesses. Frankly though given the amount of news the news agency's fail to report, it amuses me that such a small thing should get so much air time; great to see Freedom of Speech is still alive.

 

Jesus, as he did w/the prostitute and those about to stone her may have answered the charge cryptically, but his admonition to the hooker was to go and sin no more. So, Jesus might be more lenient than many people but He would not excuse the sin. Merely attempt to mitigate the severity of one man's judegement and subsequent sentencing of another. Petty theft is petty theft. Doesn't merit severe punishment, but some form of restitution nonetheless. My point is that it would be hard to argue that Jesus would dismiss the thievery as ok/justifiable b/c of the circumstances. Hence, a Christian clergyman has no business peddling those views. The tax collector, last I checked, was not some independent agent, but an arm of a govt. Thus conflating tax collectors w/corporate types is not so slipshod, at least in light of your Roman Empire=corporation argument. But I've got to side w/mimartin that you set a bad precendent in trying to excuse outright or minimize a crime simply based on anti-capitalist views. Afterall, how is a "mom and pop" any more virtuous than an "evil corp"? My guess is merely he was saying that stealing from those with much was less onerous than from those with less.

[jonathan7]

This whole thread amuses me, because the basic point the Priest made was that people should steal to avoid having to drug deal or go into prostitution; then a whole load of people put words in his mouth...

 

I'm also re-quoting this for awesome and the fact none of you seem to have bothered to argue with it;

 

Now, I'm not a Christian and most of my knowledge of the faith applies only to very teeny tiny aspects of 14th century high theology (an almost universally useless subject area, I'm sure you'll agree), but I'm certain that should his teaching be incorrect in the eyes of the Almighty, the culpability is the priest's and not that of the individual, as he has been misdirected. It's the same with false beggars, Augustine (and Gregory, I think) says to give alms to all that ask and appear needy, because if the beggar is false then the sin of theft lies on his head, whilst the virtue of charity is left with the donor, regardless of where it goes.

 

On theft itself: as ever with Christianity, there are multiple schools but it seems a rather poor show for the CofE that their reaction displays a painful lack of even basic knowledge about one of the saints they venerate: Thomas of Aquinas.

 

Summa Theologica, Article 7: Whether it is lawful to steal through stress of need?

 

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): "If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks." Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.

 

Objection 2. Further, the Philosopher says (Ethic. ii, 6) that "there are some actions whose very name implies wickedness," and among these he reckons theft. Now that which is wicked in itself may not be done for a good end. Therefore a man cannot lawfully steal in order to remedy a need.

 

Objection 3. Further, a man should love his neighbor as himself. Now, according to Augustine (Contra Mendac. vii), it is unlawful to steal in order to succor one's neighbor by giving him an alms. Therefore neither is it lawful to steal in order to remedy one's own needs.

 

On the contrary, In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common.

 

I answer that, Things which are of human right cannot derogate from natural right or Divine right. Now according to the natural order established by Divine Providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succoring man's needs by their means. Wherefore the division and appropriation of things which are based on human law, do not preclude the fact that man's needs have to be remedied by means of these very things. Hence whatever certain people have in superabundance is due, by natural law, to the purpose of succoring the poor. For this reason Ambrose [Loc. cit., 2, Objection 3] says, and his words are embodied in the Decretals (Dist. xlvii, can. Sicut ii): "It is the hungry man's bread that you withhold, the naked man's cloak that you store away, the money that you bury in the earth is the price of the poor man's ransom and freedom."

 

Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things, so that out of them he may come to the aid of those who are in need. Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand (for instance when a person is in some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy), then it is lawful for a man to succor his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

 

Reply to Objection 1. This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

 

Reply to Objection 2. It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need.

 

Reply to Objection 3. In a case of a like need a man may also take secretly another's property in order to succor his neighbor in need.

 

Now, I'm not saying that St. Thomas is the answer to everything in Catholic

Christianity, but it does come across from the CofE's quarter that they've completely dismissed this rather important section of his writing. The CofE, in Jungian terms, is a creed, not a religion. It has formed a contract with the state to achieve security and self-perpetuation. But as a result, its primary objective becomes not upholding the "word of God" but rather upholding and agreeing with the word of the state: that is, stealing is wrong, intention does not matter outside of cases involving murder. It operates intra-, instead of extra-mundanely.

 

So there is Ecclesiastical law, which is also included with in the CofE basically backing up with what the Priest was saying. I dare say he had done his sermon because of actual experience of the problem within his parish.

 

Is starvation a large cause of death across the pond? Perhaps it is time for another LiveAid concert.

 

No, but there are also homeless people here, who are totally off the social help scale. The Priests direct point was that people should steal to avoid starvation, or more serious crimes like resorting to drug dealing and prostitution to get money.

 

Jesus, as he did w/the prostitute and those about to stone her may have answered the charge cryptically, but his admonition to the hooker was to go and sin no more. So, Jesus might be more lenient than many people but He would not excuse the sin. Merely attempt to mitigate the severity of one man's judegement and subsequent sentencing of another. Petty theft is petty theft. Doesn't merit severe punishment, but some form of restitution nonetheless. My point is that it would be hard to argue that Jesus would dismiss the thievery as ok/justifiable b/c of the circumstances.

 

Fair enough.

 

Hence, a Christian clergyman has no business peddling those views.

 

Did you read Pavlos post?

 

The tax collector, last I checked, was not some independent agent, but an arm of a govt. Thus conflating tax collectors w/corporate types is not so slipshod, at least in light of your Roman Empire=corporation argument.

 

Well, the tax collectors evil, was more their own personal doing - i.e. they collected more than they should and kept that for themselves. Where as, the Zimbardo quote is to illustrate the the evil of corporations spreads well beyond individuals - the tax collector is both aware and fully responsible of any evil he does. Anyone in a corporation is not the latter.

 

But I've got to side w/mimartin that you set a bad precendent in trying to excuse outright or minimize a crime simply based on anti-capitalist views.

 

Eh? Where on earth did "anti-capitalist" come from? Further more my point was which is a greater crime, for a family to starve or for them to steal to survive? I have never shop-lifted and never will; but I don't have children to support and I dare say a parent watching a child starve would be a terrible thing.

 

Afterall, how is a "mom and pop" any more virtuous than an "evil corp"? My guess is merely he was saying that stealing from those with much was less onerous than from those with less.

 

So you keep putting words in his mouth? Much like the news pieces in which I have yet to see a direct quote from the said Priest.

[Q]

This whole thread amuses me,

You're not the only one, but I have a feeling that we're amused for very different reasons.

because the basic point the Priest made was that people should steal to avoid having to drug deal or go into prostitution;

And he is wrong; very wrong, because stealing is wrong. "Thou shalt not steal" leaves no maneuvering room whatsoever.

[Web Rider]

This whole thread amuses me, because the basic point the Priest made was that people should steal to avoid having to drug deal or go into prostitution; then a whole load of people put words in his mouth...

So they should break the law so that they don't have to break the law? We have a lot of drug dealing in my home town, it's a very profitable business, and most of the money comes from that harmless plant people won't shut up about. But the fact is, we're still a poor town, we're made up of mostly factory workers, retail, and this+that. Yet, we have a massive homeless problem, partially because everyone is almost dirt poor to begin with, and also because other cities ship their poor our direction.

 

What does this cause? It causes social unrest because of the disturbance many homeless make, it causes stress on social services because we don't have the tax money or manpower to help them all. And now we've got an argument that these people should steal to survive? I'm sorry, but the fat preacher living in his nice parish on his 10% tithe can shove it. Is there no great irony in the fact that this person would essentially BE homeless if we weren't paying the church money?

 

Yes it's sad, but stealing from big companies or foreign companies is hard. There's no poor person who's going to be able to steal from Exxon or figure out who's a stock-holder of BP and then rip them off. When a poor person hears this they're not going to hear "fight the power" which is essentially what he's saying, they're going to hear "it's ok to steal." And poor people in poor neighborhoods will steal from other poor people who can't afford locks, who can't protect their merchandise with security guards, people who are only one step up from the people stealing.

 

Saying stealing is OK "because you're poor" is stupid and wrong. It doesn't matter if the people you're stealing from are jerks or wouldn't miss 10 bucks. If he's aware of the poverty situation, then he should be advocating people be more charitable to the poor. He should advocate that his church will do more to help the poor, anything other than "it's okay to steal because you're poor." Why don't you just tell everyone that they don't have to work for anything anymore because they can just steal from rich people?

 

No, but there are also homeless people here, who are totally off the social help scale. The Priests direct point was that people should steal to avoid starvation, or more serious crimes like resorting to drug dealing and prostitution to get money.

So they should go to jail for nothing instead of something. At least dealing drugs you can be smart about and actually make some solid income. NOONE and I mean that, is off the social help scale. Yes, you might lift them up from homelessness into poverty, but with a little help, people can succeed, no false ideas like they'll become rich, but they can certainly become better than poor and homeless.

[Q]

I'd venture to say that selling drugs would be the lesser of the two evils because while both actions are illegal there is no commandment against selling drugs.

[Lord of Hunger]

I'm pretty sure the Priest knows considerably more about ecclesiastical law than you; and I dare say he is aware of all the arguments being trotted out in this thread...

I've actually been taught a great deal about ecclesiastical law, mate. Also, if you read the article, the Priest's colleagues denounced his words. I sincerely doubt that his views here are influenced by God, but rather by his political views.

However given that you seem to think I'm being dramatic, and then you selectively pointing to the Bible. Large corporations driven for profit will always be evil because of the nature of their construction and human nature (that is something the whole Bible would back up, with regards mans nature).

First, I was not addressing your post. I was addressing the original post. And no I don't think your being dramatic.

 

Second, can you prove to me that all large corporations are evil or that the Bible claims as such? I'm more than happy to debate both points.

You fail to answer the main point of my post; which is more immoral - a family starving to death, or stealing to live?

Again, I was addressing the original post, not yours. Second, I do not agree with this notion of morality being something that you can put on a scale and weigh.

Does this mean we should of gone to war with Hitler then? Seeing as War is the ultimate immoral act and two wrongs don't make a right?

War is the ultimate immoral act? You are making a lot of large assertions there.

Again, I'm pretty sure the Priest is far more qualified to comment on ecclesiastical matters than you. Jesus by his nature would have posed a question or told a parable to answer someone's question on this matter

See above statements.

No, no, no! The Romans were the only equivalent of a large corporation. This is such a counter intuitive statement, which ignores what the definition of the words used are, rending it meaningless.

 

A tax collector is an individual as such he in no way resembles a Corporation; on the other hand ancient Rome, does much more resemble a Corporation.

Alright, since the tax collectors were part of the Roman regime there and Jesus forgave a lot of them, then we can safely say that he would have forgiven Rome. Hell, there is a section of the Gospels where he helps out a Roman soldier, if I am right.

[jonathan7]

I've actually been taught a great deal about ecclesiastical law, mate. Also, if you read the article, the Priest's colleagues denounced his words. I sincerely doubt that his views here are influenced by God, but rather by his political views.

 

How can you know his motivations? There are all sorts of people decrying him at the moment; the Church of England has all sorts, I dare say to quote Braveheart (but PG-13 appropriate) "They couldn't agree on the colour of poo" (this also is why I think at this point the separation of the CofE is an inevitability now). I personally don't know the priests political affiliations so I can't comment as to if there is any political motivation there.

 

With regards Ecclesiastical law - why has no-one answered Pavlos and his quoted Thomas Aquinas points?

 

First, I was not addressing your post. I was addressing the original post. And no I don't think your being dramatic.

 

Fair enough

 

Second, can you prove to me that all large corporations are evil or that the Bible claims as such? I'm more than happy to debate both points.

 

I don't think all large corporations are evil - however I think the large majority are a bad influence. From the Bible, I would say it is inferred, if you look at what the Bible has to say about human nature and also the actions majority of empires/countries reported in the Bible are hardly positive?

 

Again, I was addressing the original post, not yours. Second, I do not agree with this notion of morality being something that you can put on a scale and weigh.

 

Ok, why? Our judicial systems are based on morality being on a scale (the differences in prison sentences for example). In the eyes of God is a different matter, but I haven't got his eyes

 

War is the ultimate immoral act? You are making a lot of large assertions there.

 

Why? War is a horrible evil thing, on occasion it has been a necessity (say World War 2) for instances, but all war brings is murder, mutilation etc, so I don't really see how War can be seen as anything but a bad thing?

 

Alright, since the tax collectors were part of the Roman regime there and Jesus forgave a lot of them, then we can safely say that he would have forgiven Rome. Hell, there is a section of the Gospels where he helps out a Roman soldier, if I am right.

 

I wasn't saying that individuals or Rome aren't forgiven by God, but institutional evil, is a somewhat different thing to an individual evil. Yes Jesus does heal a Roman soldiers servant in the NT (- Matthew 8:5-13, if your interested).

 

Nor am I saying that individuals with in a corrupt corporation are judged for that, I apologise if it came across thus.

[vanir]

snip

 

This is about helpless people starving and the fact none of you are going to go out and help any. Thankfully none of you get any say in judiciary protocols.

 

When you, I mean you man those soup kitchens and put blankets on vagrants, talk about it then.

See this is where many religious fundamentalists earned the right to comment about it individually, it doesn't matter how right or wrong they are in what they say. They're out there doing things physically to help so can talk away much as they like.

 

Some arrogant schoolkid comes up to me on the street and tells me what he thinks policy ought to be about the helpless and homeless and he's two seconds from a punch in the face, that simple.