The traditional wording of the Seventh Commandment is typically rather simple: “You shall not steal.” Like the other commandments, in addition to the prohibition against “stealing” or “theft,” this one has far-reaching implications for our moral lives. Some of these implications are rather intuitive, others may not be as readily apparent. Therefore, the next several columns will look at some of these implications.

 

To begin with the most obvious focus of this commandment, “theft” or “stealing” involves taking something that either belongs to someone else, or that one does not have a right to. This presupposes the fact that people have a legitimate right to own things. 

 

The Catholic Church believes that people have a right to private property — in whatever form (land, material goods, etc.), so long as it is acquired appropriately (see the Catechism of the Catholic Church 2401-2403 for more on the Church’s understanding of the right to personal property). 

 

Therefore, to take something that rightly belongs to someone else, or to deprive someone of what they have a right to, are both injustices. Doing so may or may not be motivated by greed, envy or malice. Regardless, it is always a failure in justice, respect and charity. 

 

As with any wrongdoing, repenting and seeking forgiveness are necessary. But with theft, something else is likely necessary too. If one has taken something unjustly from another person, then the Church recognizes that justice demands restitution (CCC 2412). 

 

The motivation for this teaching is ultimately from Scripture. For example, in Luke’s Gospel there’s the story of the tax collector Zaccheus who is praised by Jesus for pledging to restore what he’s stolen fourfold (Luke 19:1-10). 

 

As a general rule, restitution should be commensurate with the wrongdoing. If I have deprived someone of $100, I should offer that much in restitution. Despite what seems to be a simple mathematical approach to restitution, it can prove to be a very difficult thing for many reasons. Besides, sometimes a simple mathematical approach isn’t possible or even the best way to go about it. 

 

One challenge to offering restitution comes with the possibility of exposing the wrong of the one who has stolen. The fear of being discovered may prevent someone from offering restitution. Nevertheless, justice demands that it is offered in some fashion. 

 

The Church teaches that restitution should be made for theft, but she does not demand that one always publicly expose one’s own wrongdoing. There may be situations where people are able to restore what they’ve stolen without bringing undesirable attention to themselves in the process. 

 

Restitution might also prove difficult or complicated for other reasons, for example, if the theft occurred many years prior, or the stolen item no longer exists, or the victim was unknown, or no longer reachable, etc. What is someone to do in situations like these? 

 

If the victim cannot have stolen property restored in a more direct fashion, then restitution might take the form of offering a similar amount to a charity with the intent of benefitting others to the degree that the person who stole had previously wronged someone. 

 

But what if a person, by the time they have come to repentance and seek to make restitution, no longer have the financial or material means to do so? In such a case one might seek to offer restitution in the form of time spent volunteering or even in prayer. 

 

Other scenarios can also be confusing, for instance, if something rather insignificant was taken. In such cases just the acknowledgement of the wrong and an offer to make up for it may be sufficient. 

 

At the heart of restitution is ultimately the desire for justice — an effort to return balance to a situation where an individual recognizes the wrongdoing caused a lack of balance. In this way, restitution becomes an acknowledgement that the other person is worthy of respect, which itself is a prerequisite for Christian charity.