Concerning Robin Hood's "Thievery"

The ends never justifies the means. People can't take something that doesn't belong to them and give it to another person. Or can they?

The classic tale of Robin Hood is often rather demonized. Robin Hood and his merry men would hang out in Sherwood Forest until a rich clergyman or nobleman would come by, relieve him of his wealth, and send him on his way. They would then distribute the money they stole among the peasants who lived in and around Nottingham. On the surface, this looks like stealing. However, there might be more to this issue than its surface.

As is explained in Roger Lancelyn Green's The Adventures of Robin Hood, the men whose money was taken by Robin or his merry men were evil noblemen or clergymen. These men's money would be aptly termed their "ill-gotten gains," as it largely came from unjustly high taxes on (or, occasionally, outright theft of) their tenants. Unreasonably high taxes could be considered a form of thievery, so the men that Robin relieved of their money didn't really own that money in the first place. Robin merely retrieved stolen money and returned it to its rightful owners - the peasants.

No one has the right to take something from someone without that person's permission. However, one can steal a stolen object or money from a thief to return it to its rightful owner. This, in essence, was Robin Hood's intention.

I wrote about the Catholic Church's teaching on theft in a later blog post. It can be found here: Concerning Robin Hood's "Thievery" - Part II: The Catholic Viewpoint