<<<home page index to Virtues>>>

 

Conferences on the Virtues

By Fr. Bruno Cocuzzi, ocd

 

Number 46

 

Injuries (Injustice) in Regard to External Goods of Fortune

 

 

We are still on the Third Part of the Five-Part Treatise on the Cardinal Virtue of Justice and have completed Chapter I of Section B, entitled “Justice and Injustice in Involuntary Exchanges” which dealt with “Injuries (injustices) inflicted upon the Internal Goods of Life and of the Body”.  We go on now to Injuries (injustice) in Regard to External Goods of Fortune.

 

It is the sin of Theft that injures a person in his external goods of fortune.  This presupposes, of course, that the goods stolen are entirely and exclusively owned by the injured party.  What follows, then, does not treat of theft of goods that belong to a “community” for the sake of its members, or which belong to many persons in common.  Therefore, the text will speak of 1) the rights to have private ownership of material goods, 2) the nature and the gravity of the sin of theft, and 3) factors which excuse (legitimize) the taking of the temporal goods of another.

 

Question I – The Right Privately to Possess External Goods

 

Here in the U.S. the conviction that every human being has a right to enjoy outright and complete ownership of material goods is so pervasive that it may seem strange that this subject would have to be treated in a textbook on Moral Theology.  But over the course of the centuries, especially since the Industrial revolution, the fact that certain individuals have acquired vast fortunes and have tended to abuse their wealth, and because it appeared to so many that such wealth allowed its owners to control the means of production to the detriment of the workmen and labor; various forms of socialism arose which opposed the concept of private ownership.  My author mentions Communism, Collectivism and State Socialism as the three chief forms of socialism.  In general, he defines (describes) it as a complex of systems that strive to subvert the traditional order and structure of society and to substitute a new and different one in which the ownership of temporal goods is to be exercised in common and chiefly by those in authority in society.  In Communism, as my author understands it, all material goods, even consumable goods, belong to everyone and are to be distributed equally among the citizens.  He speaks of two kinds of Collectivism:  that of Production or Industry, and which all the properties and buildings and equipment and other means of producing usable goods belong to society and to the State, such that business and trade are to be administered in common; and that of Consumption, which remains subject to private ownership.  Unfortunately he does not explain what he means by “consumption”.

 

State Socialism recognizes private ownership of the means of production, he says, but the State enjoys the constant and universal right and authority to intervene in the exercise of that ownership, thus placing formidable restraints upon the private exercise of ownership in private individuals.  My author also attributes the rise of socialism to be due to a loss of Faith in the supernatural order wherein we are to seek first the Kingdom of Heaven, and then all that we need in the temporal order will be added besides.  Without Faith in God and His Supreme Rights over human society, it is no wonder that the proponents of the various forms of Socialism want to take over entire nations and attempt to “engineer” peace and prosperity in temporal matters.  It is against that background that my author states our traditional Catholic Doctrine.

 

Thesis:  THE RIGHT OF PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF EXTERNAL GOODS IS PERMANENT AND EXCLUSIVE.  IT EXTENDS TO OWNERSHIP OF LAND ITSELF, ALTHOUGH SUBJECT TO CERTAIN LIMITS AND CONSTRAINTS, BECAUSE IT FLOWS FROM NATURAL LAW, PRIVATE OWNERSHIP IS LAWFUL, AND IN THE PRESENT STATE (of fallen nature) IS MORALLY NECESSARY.

 

1.       This is complete ownership, not just the “rights to use”.  It is independent of the State, although the State does have certain rights to “regulate” private ownership for the sake of the common good.

 

2.       Permanent and exclusive:  Once vested it remains until deliberately sold or given to another and when death intervenes, it passes to one’s natural heirs or by last will and testament.

 

3.       Of external goods:  whether movable or immovable, and whether they pertain to the production of other new goods or to permanent use or consumption.

 

4.       Subject to certain just limits:  The limits derive from the purpose for which God created them, namely, that all might live decently well.  Examples of those limits would be:

 

(a)    Cases of extreme necessity, wherein the one in grave and dire need may take just enough to sustain him and his dependents.

 

(b)    The common Good, as suggested in (1) above:  Lawful civil authority may make laws to insure that the exercise of individual private ownership does not go contrary to the purpose of created things by doing violence to other’s rights to live decently well.  At times, when grave reasons require, the State may even take away private ownership (of land usually) for the good of the entire society.

 

(c)    Charity, which requires of the wealthy that they share some of their superfluous goods with the poor.

 

At the end of the last century Pope Leo XIII had this to say about our “relationship to external things”:  “Concerning external things, his relationship is twofold.  One has to do with acquiring and disposing of them, and in this regard it is lawful and proper for him to call them “his own”.  It is somewhat different in regard to how he “uses” them, and here he is not to use them with a view to himself alone, but in view of the common good, such that he should easily share them with needy others.”

 

Commenting upon this last statement, my author states the need of the poor does not create in them a “right” to the excess goods of the wealthy, because if that were the case, the wealthy would be obliged “in justice” to share their excess or superfluous goods with them.  Nevertheless, he states that their want creates in them enough of an “entitlement” that the wealthy are “obliged in Charity” to assist them.

 

He goes on to say, further, that situations may arise when the wealthy may have a “legal obligation” to share their excess goods with the needy, and that is when want is widespread and the society itself suffers, such that the civil authority may compel them to share.  Since, as stated above, superfluous goods are to be used for the good of all, whenever someone is not so doing, society may appropriate to itself the right of disposing of them.

 

With regard to the latter, Pope Pius XI states in his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno:  “With the true good of all the society in mind, the public authority may, being guided by natural and divine law, inquire in detail into how the wealthy are making using of their excess wealth.”

 

5.       It flows from the natural law and is thus lawful:  It, the right of private ownership, does not proceed as a “primary” right, which derives from human nature considered in itself, that is, apart from “relational” considerations, but only secondarily, that is, as a “social being”.  Which, however, makes it a “natural” right.

 

6.       In the present state of mankind, private ownership is necessary:  If mankind had remained in the state of innocence, that is, original justice, and also, if nowadays “everyone” were a saint, private ownership of external goods would not be a necessity.  But given fallen human nature, we commonly tend to look out for ourselves alone, and expect others to look out for themselves alone; nor do we really always have the common good at heart in all we do.  Thus it is that the right of private ownership, by means of which the human person acquires and disposes of the external goods of earth, is morally necessary in order to contribute to the happiness and perfection of private citizens, and thus to peace in society.

 

Even though none of you who read this have the slightest doubt about the existence of the right to own private property, I think it is interesting to report what my textbook gleans from Holy Scripture in support of that truth:

 

From the Old Testament: 

 

(a)               It appears that the division of goods into private ownership was already a fact in the time of the children of Adam, since Abel is presented as a shepherd of sheep, offering to God the first-born of his sheep; and Cain is presented as a farmer, offering from the fruits of the earth and later building a city which he called his city and to which he gave the name of his own son Henoch.  (Gen. 4:2, 4, 17)

 

(b)               In the time of Abraham the fact of private ownership was widespread:  Abraham was wealthy in his possession of gold and silver.  Lot had flocks of sheep, other livestock and tents.  (Gen. 13: 1-2,5)

 

Fields and caves were subject to private ownership, since Abraham purchased the field of Ephron and the cave therein for the burial of Sarah, his deceased wife.  (Gen. 23:1-20)  His right of ownership was permanent and stable, since he, Isaac, Leah and Jacob were buried there, too.

 

In Abraham’s time, still, pasturelands were commonly held, but then, because of the magnitude of their flocks, quarrels arose between the shepherds of Abraham and those of Lot, such that they had to apportion the land between them.  (Gen. 13, 7-11).

 

(c)               Divine positive law confirmed the lawful possession of private property by not only forbidding theft, but even forbid “desiring” what belongs to one’s neighbor.  (Exodus 20: 17).  It even forbid (or is it forbade?) the changing of boundaries that circumscribed fields.  (Deut. 19, 14).  Lands owned by individual families that had been sold could be redeemed, and at the recurrence of the year of the great jubilee, reverted back to the original (family) owners.  (Lev. 25:23-28).

 

 

In the New Testament:

 

(a)    Jesus confirmed the old Law by condemning theft; and what he said about selling one’s possessions and giving to the poor was only a COUNSEL.  (Matt. 5:3).  Those who did own property He commanded to use them well by making gifts to the poor as alms.  (Matt. 25, 41-43)

 

(b)    The apostles, in applying the COUNSEL OF THE LORD, did establish the common ownership of earthly goods in the first (Christian) communities.  But that this was only a COUNSEL and not PRECEPT was clearly proclaimed by St. Peter when he stated to Ananias:  “While you had it (a field), was it not really your own?  And having sold it, wasn’t it yours alone (to decide how to apply), the proceeds?”  (Acts 4:34-35, and 5:4).

 

Thereafter, when the number of disciples increased, common ownership of goods did not perdure, and provision was made for the needs of the poor by the collection of alms.  (Acts 11:28-30).

 

Thus it was that Paul only “advised”, he did not “command” that the wealthy relinquish their property, but rather “not to be proud, nor to place their hopes in uncertain riches, but to hope in the living God…Let them become rich in good works and readily give and share, so as to treasure up a foundation of good for the future life.  (I Tim. 6, 17-19).

 

It follows then, from Scripture, that it is lawful to own private property, but that this right is “somewhat” restricted by the command to “give alms”.  My author alleges that this even “pertains” to our Catholic Faith.

 

 

<<<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.