<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Number 28

 

The Object of Rights and of Dominion

 

THE OBJECT OF RIGHTS AND OF DOMINION…

 

When we speak of the “object” of rights we mean those entities upon which rights “fasten” so to speak.  They comprise all those “things” which are useful to, or which in any way benefit, human beings, and which can be appropriated.  Generally, we refer to them as GOODS, and my textbook divides them into three categories, based upon the different ways they are of use to the individual person:

 

1.       Internal Goods of body (such as life, health and members) and of soul.  Those of the soul include both the natural (our faculties and their exercise, science and arts) and the supernatural (graces and virtues infused by God but exercised in a “human” manner).

 

2.       External Goods of fortune (resources and benefits of any kind), and

 

 

3.       Intermediate (mixed) Goods of fame and honor.  These latter are rooted in internal goods, such as excellent qualities and faculties, but which are manifested externally by others in speech and conduct.

 

With regard to all of these Goods, we will treat of the extent to which a human person may acquire rights in and/or dominion over them, that is, whether there exists, or can exist, a bond or a connection between them and an individual human person.  We look for a bond or connection that is required by the very nature of personhood or by our common humanity.

 

Internal Goods

 

1.       With regard to those internal goods that pertain to the INTEGRITY of our human nature, and ARE NOT DISTINCT from our humanity, such as life, bodily members, faculties of soul, we do have Rights in them in so far as we are human.  The bond consists in the fact that these are “necessary components” of our human nature.

 

We do not however, have full and direct dominion (ownership) of these internal goods, which absolute dominion resides in God.  We do have rights (and obligations) as to their use and enjoyment, but only as administrators (stewards) or after the manner of lessees (lease-holders).

 

The reason for this is that dominion or ownership is something essentially relative.  The owner and the thing owned are always distinct from one another.  Common human experience tells us that.  Since I am not distinct from myself, I cannot therefore “own” myself.  Consistent with what we said in the previous conference, though, we do have “semi-dominion” over all those internal goods which are “not distinct” from our humanity.

 

Because God is our Supreme Lord, the Lord of life and of earth, whoever would “injure” those internal goods in oneself as well as in another, would be guilty of doing an injustice to God.  We all, as human beings, have both the duty to conserve and develop those internal goods, as well as the right to do so, insofar as they are the means God has given us to attain the end for which we were created.

 

2.       With regard to those internal goods which do not pertain to the integrity of our humanity and ARE DISTINCT from it, namely, the “exercise” and the “operations” of our human faculties, as well as those “entities” which, as a result of their exercise and operations, are either acquired or given by God, we do have full and direct “dominion” over them.  In other words, our “deeds” and the “results or fruits” of our deeds belong to us:  We are obliged to “own up to” them and assume responsibility for them.  Responsibility of course, includes both credit and blame.

 

The operations and the exercise of our faculties that are “distinct” from us include:

 

1.       Natural and supernatural Virtues.

2.       Activities of mind and body (considered in themselves alone).

3.       Intellectual and bodily “work” and their “fruits”.

 

In a previous conference we noted that one has the right to do whatever he wishes with what he owns (provided it is not immoral) and so, in regard to (2) above, others are capable of acquiring rights to them in virtue of consensual agreements or other legitimate facts and circumstances.  (E.g., to our performance as athlete, musician, counselor, etc.).

 

The same is true of internal goods (3).  Here it is easy to see what a legitimate fact or circumstance might be.  If by means of mental and bodily work I “create” a useful thing or a thing of value to people in general, but I use materials or tools that “belong to another,” then that fact or circumstance gives the owner of the raw materials and tools a Right of semi-dominion or partial ownership over my work product.

 

Because of the fact that others can acquire rights over the use of our faculties, it is possible for us to do an injustice to others in the exercise thereof with regard to internal goods (2) and (3) above.  It is very difficult (if not impossible) to see how one could do an injustice to others in the exercise of internal goods (1) above, to wit, the natural and supernatural virtues, since by definition, virtues are those activities of mind and/or body which perfect us as human beings, i.e., cause us to “be good”, morally speaking.

 

External Goods

 

My textbook distinguishes three kinds of external goods:  1. things on the earth, 2. things in the sky, and 3. other human beings.  The Rights we have or can acquire over the things in each category differ.

 

1.       My textbook avers that, by a consideration of the very nature of the creatures (including Man) that exist upon the earth and the relationships we observe among them, we must conclude that human beings can have and can acquire full and permanent dominion (ownership) over the various orders of lower creation.

 

By the very fact that we need so many of the lower order of creatures on earth (animal, vegetable and mineral) in order to survive, in order to fulfill our obligations to God and our fellow humans, and, generally, in order to develop our faculties, talents and abilities as we “journey” toward the end of which God has destined us, we know unmistakably that we humans can have at least “semi-dominion” over them.  But we would be hard pressed convincingly to prove that we humans have the right of “total and complete ownership” over the things of earth, because that would mean that whoever it is who “owns” them would have the Right to do whatever he wishes with them or to them, including the right “to abuse” them.  Thus we are obliged to “appeal” to the Author and Supreme Lord of all creation in order to know for sure whether we human beings really can assert “outright ownership” over any or all other creatures that exist with us upon the earth.  My textbook directs us to:

     

a.       Genesis I, 16, 28:  God said, “Let us make mankind in our image and likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, the cattle, over all the wild animals and every creature that crawls on the earth.”…Then God blessed them and said to them (mankind), “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.  Have Dominion over the fish of the

sea, the birds of the air, the cattle and all the animals that crawl on the earth.”

 

b.       Ps. 113B (115) 16:  “Heaven is the heaven of the Lord, but the earth He has given to the children of men.” And

 

c.       Ps. 8, 7-9:  “You have given him (mankind) rule over the works of your hands, putting all things under his feet:  all sheep and oxen, yes and the beasts of the field, the birds of the air, the fishes of the sea, and whatever swims the paths of the seas.

 

Well, we have to admit that the above is conclusive only if we agree to interpret the “unqualified” dominion mentioned to mean “full and complete dominion” which we call total ownership, and that we interpret the verb “to give” to include more than the kind of ownership we recognize in “trusteeship: (legal ownership only), and to include as well more than just “useful dominion” such as we recognize in a lessee (or lease-holder).

 

Internal evidence (in the texts themselves) that the word “dominion” as used in Genesis does not include the idea of total ownership, is found in the command:  “Be fruitful and multiply; fill the earth and subdue it.”  This seems to include that the “dominion” granted is subject to a condition:  it must subserve human life.  Whatever is a “conditional ownership”, therefore, cannot possibly be utter and complete, or full, dominion.

 

In addition, the statement found in Psalm 8, “You have given him rule over the works of your hands…” is more logically interpreted to mean a “faculty to govern the works of God’s hands,” a faculty commonly found in those in authority, thus excluding the notion of full dominion (full ownership).

 

Efforts are also made, by appeal to human reason, to justify the interpretation that human individuals can possess full dominion over lower orders of creatures here upon earth.  For example:

 

(a)    The individual person, in virtue of being a rational entity, is required by nature (and its Creator) to place his own needs and that of human progress above the welfare of the beasts (and all non-rational orders of being).  It is ownership (full dominion) of the things of earth that best (perhaps alone) fulfills those human needs.  Possession of the things of this earth, including land itself, provides the certainty we humans require (for peace of mind), that in the future, recurring needs will be adequately met, especially in the event of illness, old age and other causes of want which prevent a person from “working” to support himself and his family.

 

(b)    Possession of the things of earth not only are necessary for the preservation of an individual’s life and that of his immediate family, it is also necessary for the conservation and betterment of the specified (the human race).  This is brought about only if a person (especially the head of a household) is able to acquire permanent, stable possession (outright ownership) of goods of this earth in the course of his lifetime, in order to pass them along to benefit his/her offspring in future generations.

 

(c)    One thing we know “by instinct” to be true is that one has at least partial ownership of the fruits of his labor.  But in the case of land and other “immovable goods” that are improved or rendered fruitful by dint of personal effort, the “fruits” and “improvements” are so inseparably connected with the land or other immovable goods that possession of the one would be meaningless without possession of the other.  Thus, the human person can have outright ownership of the things of the earth.

 

Perhaps this discussion has been “moot”, since we all know that, as a matter of fact, the rights of personal ownership of the things of earth were never challenged until the rise of socialism, communism and fascism.  Then again, these latter aberrations would never have arisen if there had always been “responsible ownership” of the things and resources of the earth.  Responsible ownership in this context means, as suggested above, in the service of human Life.  “Life” is capitalized to signify human life wherever it is found.  My conclusion, therefore, since immoral use and disposition of the things of this earth (including failure to use and dispose of them in the service of Life when required) is NEVER justified, is that we can come ever so close to having “complete ownership” of external Goods of this earth, but we can never have it entirely.

 

2.       Things of the sky: Clearly, the sun (light), the moon, the stars, the weather, etc., are all indeed created to serve us human beings, that is they were created by God for our benefit, but it is equally clear that we cannot possibly “own” them.  Nevertheless, because they were intended for the good of all, we do have a kind of “indirect” right to all of them.  In the case of natural light, no one can lawfully deprive another of access to it.  (Interestingly, in the case of artificial – really electric power -, the laws of most states “forbid” Power Companies to terminate service to the truly, inculpably indigent).  In the case of rain, no one can lawfully deprive a farmer of this benefit.  Of course, in the latter situation, it is impossible to prevent rain from falling upon an entire farm, but the example is used as an “illustration” of the principle of our “indirect” right to the external goods in the sky.

 

And, of course, sometimes the “things in the sky” DO NOT ALWAYS prove to be a benefit to mankind, which is another reason why they cannot be “owned”.  In themselves, the “objects of ownership” must always be capable of “benefiting” the owner, as we have already seen.

 

3.       With regard to other human beings, it is quite clear that they are not only “useful” but also necessary to each and every one of us.  That is based upon our personhood, which requires that we “stand-in-relationship” to others.  But the very fact of personhood (every INDIVIDUAL RATIONAL NATURE endowed with free will is a PERSON) renders it impossible for one “human being” to be “owned” by another.  Freedom of will makes every human person inviolable and gives him a fundamental right to the exercise thereof.  That would be impossible were one person to be “owned” by another.

 

Personhood is also the “basis” of all ownership.  As we said above, the foundation or basis of ownership cannot itself be owned.  This is true both in reference to those internal goods that are not distinct from our own personal humanity, as well as in reference to the humanity of another person.

 

But as we also said above, human beings can acquire rights to certain conduct or performance on the part of another person, and so “semi-dominion” or “useful dominion” over another person can be acquired, either by consensual agreement or by dint of circumstance.  A dint of circumstance would be the fact of father – or mother-hood.  Until the child is emancipated, the parents can rightfully demand certain modes of conduct from the child.  That the dominion is not perfect, however, is clear from the fact that parents can demand nothing of their child that would violate the child’s dignity, or cause physical, psychological or spiritual damage to him.

 

Slavery, then, as it came to be practiced after the discovery of the New World, was unquestionably a grave moral evil.  As mentioned in a previous conference, slavery, at least in theory, was not practiced in the same way centuries ago.  In speaking of the “slavery” of ancient times (certainly during the lifetime of St. Paul) my textbook speaks of it as “that state of subjection in which the slave, in return for all the basic necessities of life, was bound to do all the things required of him in the service of his master, forever.”  It goes on to say, “Of itself (prescinding from oppression and tyranny [on the part of the master]) personal slavery is not repugnant to Natural law, although it is not befitting human dignity.”

 

But can there be such a thing as “voluntary slavery”?  It appears that there can be.

 

In the case of those who are deeply in love, it is not uncommon for them fervently to “protest” [bring forth testimony] and “avow” that only “slavery” to the beloved can relieve the “painful ardor” of their all-consuming love.  (We ourselves may have been among them once upon a time).  Since this is true among “mere” human lovers, it is true much more frequently, usually invariably, where the lovers are united by a “supernatural” Love, i.e., in the case of the great Saints.

 

The celebrated Prayer of St. Ignatius sounds so much like an “offer” made to our Lord to be “contractually” related to Him as Slave to Master:  “Take, O Lord, all my liberty.  Receive my memory, understanding, and entire will.  Thou has bestowed on me whatever I have or possess:  I give all back to Thee, and deliver it to Thee to be entirely subject to Thy will.  Only grant me Thy love and Thy grace, and I am rich enough and ask for nothing more.”

 

We also have the well-known “True Devotion” to Our Lady according to St. Louis Grignon de Montfort.  In it he does speak of a “holy slavery” to the Blessed Virgin.  If he had his “druthers” (and in this I heartily concur), all Christians would get into the habit of saying at least once every day:  I am all Thine, and all that I have is Thine, O Most loving Jesus, through Mary, Thy Most Holy Mother.

 

Intermediate Goods of Fame and Honor

 

We can sum up all of these intermediate (mixed) Goods in the phrase:  A Good Name.  Can we have a strict and full dominion (ownership) over our “Good Name”?  It appears that we can, for more than one reason.

 

First, a good name is something we acquire as a result of personal effort and conduct.  Not that we deliberately make the attainment of a “good name” the direct object of our activities, but in the process of striving to do all things well, and to lead good and upright lives, we create a Good Name for ourselves, very much like the way we “produce” or create external good things:  our “work product”.  In the case of work product, others often have partial dominion over it because of contractual agreements and other facts and circumstances.  In the case of the creation of a Good Name for ourselves, everything comes from within ourselves:  the excellence of our faculties and qualities of nature and grace, as well as the very exercise of them.  Thus, our ownership of them would be complete and total (full dominion).

 

Although the notion of being able to “dispose of” our Good Name in whatever way we might desire is not commonplace (except, perhaps, to lend our name to a worthy cause), in matters pertaining to our “spiritual” life, we do speak of being able to dispose of the “exercise” of our faculties and qualities of grace and nature.  Our “ownership” of them is the basis of our being able to “offer up” our good works and their “merits” to benefit others, notably souls in Purgatory and “sinners” in need to conversion.

 

Second, we all have the right to go to court to vindicate our Good Name when we are the victims of libel and slander.  Or, at least, to seek monetary and other compensation when our Good Name has been unjustly injured, if not destroyed.  Such a thing would not be possible if a Good Name were not analogous to an external good over which we would clearly have “rights of ownership”.

 

In the course of these conferences on Justice we have said more than once that we can only have rights in or over those things that are useful or of benefit to the owner.  In what way is a Good Name of use or of benefit to an individual?  My textbook states that a Good Name is more than just useful and beneficial.  The author alleges that we need a Good Name in order to be able to cultivate virtue and to live in peace with others in society.  However we say it, it does seem to be unquestionably true that we all “need” to be “esteemed” by our fellow human beings.  If that is wanting, our “mental health” suffers.

 

A question arises:  Is if lawful to speak “disparagingly” of oneself?  Those of us who have read the major works of St. John of the Cross and rely upon him as a Master of the spiritual life, have to reply, “Of course!”  After all, in paragraph 9 of Chapter 3 of Book I of the Ascent of Mount Carmel, he advises the soul seeking to overcome the concupiscence of the flesh, the concupiscence of the eyes and the pride of life, to act, speak and think contemptuously of itself, and to desire that all others do the same.  But can this be justified on other grounds?

 

My author “distinguishes”.  He says that, per se, that is, in the abstract, yes, one may speak disparagingly of oneself (injure one’s own good name), because the notion of total ownership of anything includes the Right “to abuse it”.  He goes on to say that per accidens, that is, in concrete circumstances, it easily can be an act of injustice because doing so could easily do harm to another.  For example, if the good name of anyone closely associated with me depends upon my good name, I would be obliged in justice to avoid anything that might injure it.  Another example would be that of a person who “needs” a Good Name in order to fulfill his/her obligations properly and adequately, namely, someone who holds an important position in society and is therefore highly visible.  In the realm of spiritual matters, such would be a Bishop or a Pastor.  Very likely this is what prompted St. Augustine to say, in effect:  For me to fulfill my duties well I need good health; others need my good name.

 

 

 

 

 

<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

* * * * * * * * * * *

MISSION STATEMENT: This web site was created for the purpose of completing the work of Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, O.C.D These conferences may be reproduced for private use only. Publication of this material is forbidden without permission of the Father Provincial for the Discalced Carmelites, Holy Hill, 1525 Carmel Rd., Hubertus, WI 53033-9770.