|
Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for a man to possess a thing as
his own. For whatever is contrary to the natural law is unlawful.
Now according to the natural law all things are common property: and
the possession of property is contrary to this community of goods.
Therefore it is unlawful for any man to appropriate any external thing
to himself.
Objection 2: Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich
man quoted above (Article 1, Objection 2), says: "The rich
who deem as their own property the common goods they have seized upon,
are like to those who by going beforehand to the play prevent others
from coming, and appropriate to themselves what is intended for common
use." Now it would be unlawful to prevent others from obtaining
possession of common goods. Therefore it is unlawful to appropriate to
oneself what belongs to the community.
Objection 3: Further, Ambrose says [Serm. lxiv, de temp.],
and his words are quoted in the Decretals [Dist. xlvii., Can.
Sicut hi.]: "Let no man call his own that which is common
property": and by "common" he means external things, as is clear
from the context. Therefore it seems unlawful for a man to appropriate
an external thing to himself.
On the contrary, Augustine says (De Haeres., haer. 40):
"The 'Apostolici' are those who with extreme arrogance have given
themselves that name, because they do not admit into their communion
persons who are married or possess anything of their own, such as both
monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the
Catholic Church." Now the reason why these people are heretics was
because severing themselves from the Church, they think that those who
enjoy the use of the above things, which they themselves lack, have no
hope of salvation. Therefore it is erroneous to maintain that it is
unlawful for a man to possess property.
I answer that, Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior
things. One is the power to procure and dispense them, and in this
regard it is lawful for man to possess property. Moreover this is
necessary to human life for three reasons. First because every man is
more careful to procure what is for himself alone than that which is
common to many or to all: since each one would shirk the labor and
leave to another that which concerns the community, as happens where
there is a great number of servants. Secondly, because human affairs
are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking
care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion
if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately. Thirdly,
because a more peaceful state is ensured to man if each one is contented
with his own. Hence it is to be observed that quarrels arise more
frequently where there is no division of the things possessed.
The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external
things is their use. In this respect man ought to possess external
things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready
to communicate them to others in their need. Hence the Apostle says
(1 Tim. 6:17,18): "Charge the rich of this world . . .
to give easily, to communicate to others," etc.
Reply to Objection 1: Community of goods is ascribed to the natural
law, not that the natural law dictates that all things should be
possessed in common and that nothing should be possessed as one's own:
but because the division of possessions is not according to the natural
law, but rather arose from human agreement which belongs to positive
law, as stated above (Question 57, Articles 2,3). Hence the
ownership of possessions is not contrary to the natural law, but an
addition thereto devised by human reason.
Reply to Objection 2: A man would not act unlawfully if by going
beforehand to the play he prepared the way for others: but he acts
unlawfully if by so doing he hinders others from going. In like manner
a rich man does not act unlawfully if he anticipates someone in taking
possession of something which at first was common property, and gives
others a share: but he sins if he excludes others indiscriminately from
using it. Hence Basil says (Hom. in Luc. xii, 18): "Why
are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the
merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience?"
Reply to Objection 3: When Ambrose says: "Let no man call his
own that which is common," he is speaking of ownership as regards
use, wherefore he adds: "He who spends too much is a robber."
|
|