No wonder, then, that stealing is considered a very small thing, by most people in today’s Socialist/Communist-dominated world. From politicians to the poor, stealing is now widespread in western society. Everyone is stealing from everyone. Jesuit “moral theology” has had a huge impact.
For centuries, the Jesuits have been teaching their followers that stealing is permissible for the poor. Communism teaches the very same thing about “common property”; about the poor rising up and taking from the rich so as to remove the injustices in society; and about the need for all men to be economically equal – and the Jesuits were up to their dog-collared necks, behind the scenes, in the creation of Communism and in its growth throughout the world. They have zealously supported Marxist revolutions throughout Latin America, Africa and Asia! The Jesuit pope, Francis I, preached about “the common good”, and how the rich must share their wealth with the poor. No wonder, then, that throughout the western world today, after centuries of this sort of iniquitous Jesuit teaching permeating society like leaven, when Communist-inspired mobs go on the rampage and loot everything in their path, we are told that this is simply “the anger of the poor spilling over, because of the huge divide between the haves and the have-nots.” This is not just Communism, it is first and foremost Jesuitism!
When, therefore, the poor and downtrodden rise up in revolutions, and plunder and steal from the rich, the Jesuits piously declare, “It is their just due. It is their right.” The western world is being torn apart by such revolutions. If you want to know the source of such mob chaos, look no further than the leaven of Jesuitism, which has worked its way into all corners of western society.
“Father Benedict Stattler takes quite the same view, as he expresses himself as follows in his celebrated work Allgemeine Katholisch-christliche Sittenlehre, oder wahre Glüctselig-keitslehre, aus hinreichenden Gründen der Gottlichen Offenbarung und der Philosophie für die obersten Schulen der pfalz-bayrischen Lyceen auf höchsten, Kurfürstlichen Befehl verfasst München, 1790, in the first volume, p.427: ‘When a needy person, on account of sickness or lack of employment, is not in a position to supply his wants by his own work, he has the right to abstract from the rich, by secret or open force, the superfluity of the latter.’ Anton de Escobar, also… is of the same opinion, only he adds (Theologica Moral, Tract v. Exempl. v., No. 120), that the person robbed must necessarily be a rich man. ‘Therefore,’ it is further stated, ‘when thou findest a thief who has the intention to rob a needy person, thou must restrain him from doing so, and point out to him another rich person whom he may plunder instead of the needy one.’”
And all this time we thought that if we found a man about to steal from another man, we should prevent the theft from happening, or, if unable to do so, we should report the matter to the authorities! How naive we were! We thought that “pointing a man in the right direction” meant turning him from a wrong course to a right one, when all the time it really meant (according to Jesuit “moral teaching”) just pointing him to a different victim, a richer one and therefore more “worthy” of his plunder!
Has the Protestant reader ever come across such “morality” as this?
“Antoine Paul Gabriel goes still more into detail, and he fixes the sum which one may steal at one time at three francs, and in his Theologie Morale Universelle, p.226, he gives the following opinion: ‘A man may repeat the theft as often and as long as he finds himself in want; also, a person is not at all bound to replace what, from time to time, he has taken, even when the total may amount to a very large sum.’”
The Jesuit Liguori appears to contradict the Jesuit Gabriel, when he writes: “‘If any one on an occasion should steal only a moderate sum either from one or more, not intending to acquire any notable sum, neither to injure his neighbour to a great extent by several thefts, he does not sin grievously, nor do these, taken together, constitute a mortal sin; however, after it may have amounted to a notable sum, by detaining it, he can commit mortal sin’ [Moral Theology, tom. iii. p. 257, n. 533. Mech. 1845].” Gabriel says that essentially no sin is committed; Liguori says that it is. Presumably, then, it would depend upon which Jesuit confessor the thief spills the beans to – one who is more up on his Gabriel than his Liguori, or vice versa. What God’s Word says is of absolutely no consequence to such men. And anyway, see what Liguori says immediately after his words just quoted: “But even this mortal sin may be avoided, if either then he be unable to restore, or have the intention of making restitution immediately, of those things which he then received.”
As long as he can say, then, “I wanted to restore it, I really did; I had the best intention in the world of doing so; but I was simply unable to do it” – then he has not committed a mortal sin! What is the old proverb? “The road to hell is paved with good intentions.”
Such is the labyrinthine doctrine of Jesuit “moral theology”. It would be impossible for a learned Roman Catholic theologian to unravel this confused jumble, let alone an uneducated thief!
As for how much may be stolen before a sin is committed, the Jesuit Gabriel, quoted above, fixed the figure (in his day) at three francs at one time. What does the “great” Liguori say? “Liguori, in Dubium II., considers what may be the quantity of stolen property necessary to constitute mortal sin. He says:– ‘There are various opinions concerning this matter. Navar too scrupulously has fixed the half of regalem, others with too great laxity have fixed ten aureos. Tol., etc., moderately have fixed two regales, although less might suffice, if it would be a serious loss’ [Moral Theology, tom. iii. p. 248, n. 526. Mech. 1845].”
Presumably the amount one may steal without sinning “mortally” has kept up with inflation since this was written, and is expressed in the currencies of various countries. We wonder: do the Jesuits revise the figure every few years? What utter arrogance and blasphemy, to think that they can settle what constitutes a “mortal sin” in the eyes of God!
“‘This opinion of Bus. is most probable, viz., if many persons steal small quantities, that none of them commit grievous sin, although they may be mutually aware of their conduct, unless they do it by concert: also Habert, etc., hold this view; and this, although each should steal at the same time. The reason is, because then no one person is the cause of injury, which, per accidens, happens by the others to the master’ [Liguori, Moral Theology, tom. iii. p. 259, n. 536. Mech. 1845].”
Only hell could spawn such “morality” as this – that if a number of thieves steal small amounts from the same person, even if they know that others are stealing from the same person (and even if it is at the same time), this is just a “small” sin, because each one is only stealing a small amount. The fact that the man who loses his property loses a lot of it, because he is being robbed by a number of men, is entirely beside the point as far as the sons of Loyola are concerned!
“Father Longuet… says (Question IV., p.2): ‘Is a man so poor and another so well-to-do that the latter is bound to assist the former? In this case the destitute person may take the goods of the other without sinning and without being bound to restore them again, only he must do it secretly and not in an open way.’”
Liguori wrote: “‘But the Salmanticenses say that a servant can, according to his own judgment, compensate himself for his labour, if he without doubt judge that he was deserving of a larger stipend. Which indeed appears sufficiently probable to me, and to other more modern learned men, if the servant, or any other hired person, be prudent, and capable of forming a correct judgment, and be certain concerning the justice of the compensation, all danger of mistake being removed’ [ Moral Theology, tom. iii. p. 246, n. 524. Mech. 1845].”
“‘When masters,’ says J. De Cardenas (Crisis Theologica, p. 214), ‘deduct something from the pay of their servants, the latter can either appeal to justice, or take the law into their own hands and make use of secret compensation.’ Father Zaver Fegeli (De Confessore, p. 137), teaches the same thing; he adds, however, ‘It is, indeed, allowable to steal, by compensation, from one’s master, but under the condition that one does not allow one’s self to be caught in the act.’ Also, according to the information of Jean de Lugo (De Incarnatione, p. 408), a man may steal from his debtor, when he has reason to believe that he will not be paid by the same; ‘Only,’ adds Valerius Reginald, ‘one must take the exact compensation, and not steal anything more than that for which one has a claim.’”