July 2005 Print

I have thought it would be helpful to bring to light the writings of authoritative moral theologians on the subject of "private property." This will be of great usefulness to any coherent discussion of the Church's teaching on Economics. The actual magisterial teaching on this point is well known, and readers are encouraged to peruse for themselves the two great social encyclicals, Rerum Novarum and Quadragesimo Anno. What follow are English translations, with some commentary, of the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas and the great 20th-century moral theologian, Fr. Dominic Prümmer, O.P., both of whom were taught to me at St. Thomas Aquinas Seminary, Winona, Minnesota.

Those who are unfamiliar with the Summa Theologica of St. Thomas should understand that he uses imaginary or real objections to clarify the state of the question which he then answers from a recognized authority and explains according to reason.–The Editor

The Angelic Doctor treats of private property almost as an afterthought, addressing it in light of the malice of theft and robbery. Everyone knows that theft and robbery are wrong, but why are they wrong? St. Thomas answers in terms of the very nature of ownership in the Summa Theologica (II-IIIae, Question 66, Articles 1 and 2).

ARTICLE 1: Whether it is natural for man to possess external things?

In this article, St. Thomas does not distinguish between common and private ownership but begins at the beginning: Can man rightfully possess external things at all, given God's superior rights?

Objection 1  [Remember, the "Objections" are imaginary arguments that St. Thomas surmised were circulating in the minds of his readers. By using this device, St. Thomas forced himself to answer directly, objectively, and on principles alone–Ed.] It would seem that it is not natural for man to possess external things. For no man should ascribe to himself that which is God's. Now the dominion over all creatures is proper to God, according to Ps. 23:1, "The earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof: the world, and all they that dwell therein." Therefore it is not natural for man to possess external things. [In other words, only God really owns anything.–Ed.]

Objection 2 Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man (Lk. 12:18), "I will gather all things that are grown to me, and my goods," says [Hom. in Luc. xii, 18]: "Tell me: which are thine? Where did you take them from and bring them into being?" Now whatever man possesses naturally, he can fittingly call his own. Therefore man does not naturally possess external things. [This is to object that a man, not being the Creator, cannot properly call anything his own.–Ed.]

Objection 3 Further, according to Ambrose (De Trin. i) [De Fide, ad Gratianum, i. 1] "dominion denotes power." But man has no power over external things, since he can work no change in their nature. Therefore, the possession of external things is not natural to man. [That is to say, since man is not powerful enough to change nature from the inside, he cannot naturally possess things. –Ed.]

On the Contrary, it is written (Ps. 8:8): "Thou hast subjected all things under his feet, all sheep and oxen: moreover the beasts also of the fields." [This Scripture refers to the subjection of all things under the feet of man, whom God has set over all the works of "His hands" (Ps. 8:7).–Ed.]

I answer that, external things can be considered in two ways. Firstly, as regards their nature, and this is not subject to the power of man, but only to the power of God Whose mere will all things obey. Secondly, as regards their use, and in this way, man has a natural dominion over external things, because, by his reason and will, he is able to use them for his own profit, as they were made on his account: for the imperfect is always for the sake of the perfect, as stated above (64, 1). It is by this argument that the Philosopher [Aristotle] proves (Polit. i, 3) that the possession of external things is natural to man. Moreover, this natural dominion of man over other creatures, which is competent to man in respect of his reason wherein God's image resides, is shown forth in man's creation (Gen. 1:26) by the words: "Let us make man to our image and likeness: and let him have dominion over the fishes of the sea," etc. [In other words, we must make a distinction between the things themselves, whose dominion belongs entirely to God their Creator, and their use, which belongs to man by the will of God Who created him to share His dominion. ...Having made the necessary distinction and stated his case in answer to the question, "Whether it is natural for man to possess external things," St. Thomas now moves on to answer the specific imaginary objections he posed earlier in the article. –Ed.]

Reply to Objection 1.

God has sovereign dominion over all things: and He, according to His providence, directed certain things to the sustenance of man's body. For this reason man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them. [God created things for man, and so man has the right to make use of them.–Ed.]

Reply to Objection 2.

The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God. [Man has a lower degree of ownership of things, held in trust as it were from God. The problem came from–as is usual since the Fall in Eden–the rich man's desire to put himself in the place of God.–Ed.]

Reply to Objection 3.

This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above. [In light of the ownership of things in themselves, the objection is correct, but it ignores the rightful use of things by man as willed by God.–Ed.]

ARTICLE 2: Whether it is lawful for a man to possess a thing as his own?

[Here, St. Thomas brings greater precision to the previous argument: Given that man can possess things in general (as regards their use), can individual men possess and retain individual things as their own?–Ed.]

Reply to 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. [In other words, God created things for the use of the human race in common, and what we mean by "private property" contradicts this common use, so what is called "private property" seems to go against God's design. –Ed.]

Reply to 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. [That is to say, given that all things were created by God for humanity in general, to claim any particular things as private property is to rob the rest of mankind of its common stake in those things. This is the very argument of Karl Marx. –Ed.]

Reply to 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. [The objector invokes the authority of St. Ambrose to claim that all external things must be common property as opposed to individual property. –Ed.]

On the Contrary, Augustine says (De Haeres., haer. 40):

The "Apostolic!" 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. [The authority of the Church, in her condemnation of some early "Christian Communists," is invoked to show that the obligatory common ownership of all goods is against the Catholic Faith.-Ed]

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. Firstly, 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. [In other words, man is better able to take care of the things God created for the end He intended if each man has private property. This is often called the "individual character" of private property.–Ed.]

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 (I Tim. 6:17,18): "Charge the rich of this world not to be high-minded, nor to trust in the uncertainty of riches, but in the living God (who giveth us abundantly all things to enjoy), to do good, to be rich in good works, to give easily, to communicate to others." [This is often called the "social character" of private property, and please note that it is treated in the Tract on Justice, not in the Tract on Charity. Keeping in mind the practical individual and social advantages of private possession noted above, man is also bound–in justice–to respect God's creation of all things for the human race in general. In other words, there are natural and Divinely-willed guidelines for the just use of private property.–Ed.]

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 agreement² 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. [St. Thomas contends that the natural law does not positively require private ownership but permits it as advantageous in seeking the end for which things were created in the first place. The method of that seeking-and the particular guidelines for just use of private property in that seeking-are regulated by positive law (human or Divine). Private property need not go against the design of God but can complement this design when justly controlled.–Ed.]

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?" [In other words, private property harms the end for which all things were created when it is used selfishly, failing to take into account its "social character" described above. On the other hand, if private property is used justly, it is apt to help the plight of those who do not yet own. –Ed]

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." [St. Thomas asserts that those who fail to regard the "social character" of private property use it unjustly.–Ed.]

Fr. Prümmer On Ownership

"Dominion is the legitimate ability of disposing of a thing as one's own." "Legitimate" means that the ability is granted by natural or positive [Divine or human–Ed.] law. Therefore, a man who has dominion over a thing can only dispose of it within the limits of [natural or positive–Ed.] law. Thus, a rich man who wastes his goods does not sin against commutative justice [the justice which regulates exchanges between and among individuals–Ed.], nor against any positive law, but he sins against the natural law. The sin is prodigality [as in the parable of the Prodigal Son–Ed.]. Prodigality violates liberality, which is a potential part of the virtue of justice.

Types of Dominion

[Keep going through all of this. It's dry, but important!–Ed.]

"Dominion" is divided into "Divine" dominion and "Human" dominion.

• In Divine dominion, only God has perfect dominion, as Creator and Preserver of all creatures.
• Human dominion is only by delegation from God. The terms of this delegation are such that man is not able to dispose of things at his own will, but by the Will of God only. Man is the steward of God. [Conclusion?–The rights of a man (even over his own property) are necessarily subject to limits, either from nature, from Divine law, from human law, or from the "private law" of contracts and wills. –Ed.]

Human dominion is divided into "full" dominion and "partial" dominion.

• Full dominion is perfect ownership, extending both to the thing owned and to its fruits. [The man who owns a chicken owns its eggs as well –Ed.]
• Partial dominion is less perfect ownership, extending either to the thing itself or to its fruits, but not to both. [The man who owns only the oil rights to a piece of property owns the oil but not the land. –Ed.]

Human partial dominion is divided into "direct" dominion and "indirect" dominion.

• Direct dominion is the restricted ownership of one who owns a thing but cannot dispose either of it or its fruits. [The simply-professed Religious who still rightfully owns a savings account cannot use, spend, or give away the principal or the interest.–Ed.]
• Indirect dominion is the restricted ownership of one who can use a thing (preserving it intact) and its fruits but cannot sell the thing itself or give it away.

Human partial indirect dominion is divided into "usus" dominion and "usufructus" dominion.

• "Usus" dominion is the restricted ownership of one who, preserving a thing intact and neither selling it nor giving it away, can use its fruits but cannot sell them or give them away. [The under-aged heir to an estate truly owns the estate and can enjoy its profits, but he cannot sell it or spend them beyond his appropriate upkeep, as decided by his guardian.–Ed.]
• "Usufructus" dominion is the restricted ownership of one who, preserving a thing intact and neither selling it nor giving it away, can both use its fruits and dispose of them in any way. [The one who inherits an "entailed" estate cannot get rid of the estate itself or allow it to suffer loss, but he may live on its profits as he sees fit and sell, invest, or donate them without restriction.–Ed.]

Dominion itself can be divided in a second way: "Dominium altum" and "Dominium humilem." ["Dominium altum" is what we would call "eminent domain." "Dominium humilem" is what we would call "private property," as opposed to public property.–Ed.] By means of "dominium altum" the supreme legitimate authority (i.e., the State) has the power, sometimes and for a grave cause, to dispose of private property for the common good. It is not dominion strictly speaking, since the legitimate authority (i.e., the State) is not the master of all the goods of its subjects, nor can it convert [private property] to its own advantage. Eminent domain can only be exercised if two conditions are met:

1) It is invoked in the face of a true necessity of the community.

2) The legitimate authority (e.g., the State) must give just compensation which does not burden one subject more than another. [Example: The State undertakes the annexation of land to build a necessary road or airport.–Ed.]

The Origins of Private Property

The origin of "private property" is to be considered under two angles: in fact and by right

• In fact (de facto), the notion of "private property" arises from three sources:

1) "Occupation" or the first entry into uninhabited property [This is how Cain became the owner of his own city after his flight from Adam and Eve.–Ed.]

2) Civil law. [This is illustrated by the U.S. Homestead Act (1862) which allowed ownership of 160 acres of unoccupied public land after five years of residence and payment of a nominal fee; or after six months of residence and a $1.25/acre fee.–Ed.]

3) Social pacts, such as that between Abram and Lot [On account of the growth of their livestock herds, a quarrel arose between the two brother herdsmen over which lots of their common land was to be pastured by whom. To settle the friction, Abram and Lot made a deal between each other (Gen. 13:1-18).]

• By right (de jure), private ownership is without doubt a conclusion from the principles of the natural law, and it falls under just limits. Common ownership is not directly against the natural law, but in view of all the circumstances, it is not as conformable to the natural law as private ownership. [See St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, II-Ilae, (X66, Art.2 as quoted above on p. 33. –Ed.]

There you have it. Please let me make a few wrap-up comments.

Why all this talk about such things as "usus" and "usufructus"? We must understand that private property is compatible with the natural law, but it is subject to reasonable restrictions since it itself arises from right reason. Reality is extremely complex, and one must learn to make distinctions. It is far too easy to adopt simple slogans (especially when bombarded constantly with sloganeering by media interests of all kinds) rather than to look at complex realities with a view to penetrating their complexities. The aim of this article has been to expose readers to a few of the complexities of a very small chunk of moral theology and to enable them to rise above–even for a moment–the clamor of interested parties of the so-called "left" and "right." Very obviously, the Catholic Faith and all its repercussions including, and especially, in the sphere of Economics, transcends what is popularly labeled "left" and "right" because it pre-dates them.

A Catholic economic order which strove to apply the principles explained above pre-existed both Capitalism and Marxism. This is why Pope St. Pius X said in Our Apostolic Mandate [available from Angelus Press. Price: $4.45],

Civilization is not something yet to be found, nor is the New City to be built on hazy notions; it has been in existence and still is: it is Christian civilization, it is the Catholic City. It has only to be set up and restored continually against the unremitting attacks of insane dreamers, rebels and miscreants.

Catholicism and its economic principles are not in any sense a reconciliation of rapacious Capitalism and atheistic Communism–called by Pope Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno the "twin pillars of shipwreck"–which represent departures in different (though not ultimately exclusive) directions from Catholic morality which is central because it is immovable. Private property itself is central to the Catholic view of Economics and it behooves us all to look to the principles before jumping on bandwagons.

---

1. All passages from Prümmer taken from Dominicus M. Prümmer, O.P., Manuale Theologiae Moralis Secundum Principia Sancti Thomae Aquinatis, 3 vols. (Fribourg, Switzerland: Herder, 1935), vol. 2, 5f.

2. "Human agreement" is a poor translation of a concept St. Thomas Aquinas refers to earlier, that is, "jus gentium" [the law of nations–Ed.]. The notion comes from Roman law and it means universally-accepted rules of behavior, for example, that every human society has forbidden counterfeiting money. St. Thomas says in the article referred to, "Whatever natural reason decrees among all men, is observed by all equally, and is called the law of nations."