Poumai Naga Folksong

Is it ever Justifiable to Steal?

I believe that the God revealed in the Bible is the creator of the world. And he has created the world in such a way that the material goods will be distributed without anyone having to starve. We human, however, distort and corrupt this plan of God through our greed and hate repeatedly. And so when some powerful people gather riches leaving the widows and orphans starving and naked, this is against the will of God. When even the basic needs of some people are not met, it is normally because the material goods have not been shared appropriately as some people refuse to follow God's plan of distributive justice. If the rich follows God's word, the hungry and the naked would no longer remain in that condition.

Listen to what some older Christians said. In his book Justice: Right and Wrong, Nicholas Wolterstorff made this quote of Basil of Caesarea (329-379) "that bread which you keep, belongs to the hungry; that coat which you preserve in your wardrobe, to the naked; those shoes which are rotting in your possession, to the shoeless; that gold which you have hidden in the ground, to the needy. Wherefore, as often as you were able to help others, and refused, so often did you do them wrongs" ¹ In the same page, Wolterstorff quoted Bishop Ambrose of Milan (339-397) “Not from you own do you bestow upon the poor man, but you make return from what is his”. Vinoth Ramachandra, in his book Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, writes quoting John Chrysostom ( 347-407) “ This also is theft, not to share one's possession... For his own goods are not his own, but belong to his own fellow servants...I beg you remember this without fail, that not to share our own wealth with the poor is theft from the poor and deprivation of their means of life; we do not possess our own wealth but theirs.” ² This lines are clear that when some rich people store riches, and left, say, the widows and orphans starving and naked the rich are actually keeping which don't belong to themselves. And this is the way Christians of old understood with respect to the way material goods are to be distributed.

Vinoth Ramachandra continues in the same book “ It is morally permissible for an extremely impoverished person to take what he or she needs for sustenance from a person who has plenty. If I have food in my house which you need for our survival, but which is not indispensable for mine, then it rightfully belongs to you, it would not be an act of charity on it. If I offered it to you, it would not be an act of charity on my part as much as granting you your own rights under God.” Then Vinoth goes on to quote Thomas Aquinas ( 1225-1274), the great medieval theologian, “ 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... Now according to the natural order established by Divine providence, inferior things are ordained for the purpose of succouring 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 succouring the poor."  Vinoth continued “ Reasoning from the principle of stewardship whereby material things are seen as held in trust for the common welfare, Aquinas continued: ' 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 succour his own need by means of another's property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft nor robbery' ”. ³

I need not add further word. But from the explanation given above I believe it is justifiable that there is a certain kind of situation when it is morally permissible to take what belongs to others or rather what actually belongs to me but in others' custody.

The moral of the point is that the rich people owe so much to the poor.

1. Wolterstorff, Nicholas (2008). Justice: Rights and Wrongs, New Jersey: Princeton University Press, p. 62
2. Ramachandra, Vinoth ( 1996). Gods That Fail: Modern Idolatary and Christian Mission, Carlisle, UK: Paternoster Press, p. 45
3. Ibid., p. 46