Chapter III: Right and Duty of Acquiring and Possessing Property

1. From the duty of labor flows the right of property or ownership, i. e., the right to acquire, hold, and dispose freely of the material fruits of labor, that is to say, the goods which are the result of man's individual and personal endeavor.

The right to acquire and possess property is by no means, as the Communists and Socialists maintain, a fictitious claim based on robbery and injustice,¹ but corresponds to the natural duty of labor from which it arises, and therefore is a natural right.

¹ Cfr. V. Cathrein, S.J., Socialism: Its Theoretical Basis and Practical Application, tr. and adapted to conditions in the United States by V. Gettelmann, S.J., New York 1904.

Under certain conditions the acquisition of a limited amount of earthly goods even becomes a duty.² The supreme, though not the sole, title of ownership is labor.

² Gen. III, 19; Eccles. V, 17; 2 Thess. III, 10. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 66, art. 2: “With respect to an external thing, two powers belong to man, one of which is the power of procuring and administering it; and with respect to this it is lawful for man to possess things as his own. It is also necessary for human life for three reasons: first, because each person is more solicitous in procuring something that belongs to him alone than something common to all or to many, since each person, fleeing labor, leaves to another what pertains to the common good, as happens in a multitude of servants; secondly, because human affairs are handled in a more orderly way if the proper care of procuring some particular thing falls upon individuals, whereas there would be confusion if everyone indiscriminately procured everything; thirdly, because by this means a more peaceful condition of men is preserved, while each is content with his own thing. Hence we see that quarrels arise more frequently among those who possess something in common and undivided.” —Father J. Kelleher, in what is probably the best modern treatise on the subject (Private Ownership, Dublin 1911) points out (p. 149) that the classical theologians almost unanimously taught that the division of private property does not depend directly upon the natural law, but is derived from the ius gentium. (Cfr. Ross, Christian Ethics, pp. 278 sqq.)

Private ownership is a wonderful institution, to which humanity owes the development of trade, commerce, and industry, nay whatever determines the differences between civilized man and the savage. Without it labor would languish because the laborer would no longer be sure of the product of his industry. The surer he feels that he is toiling for himself and his own, rather than for strangers, the greater the persistency and diligence which he will bestow upon his work. Private ownership safeguards the future, as far as this is humanly possible, and without it diligence and thrift would never increase the movable capital that lends so powerful an impetus to production, nor would the constantly renewed and always laborious work of cultivating the soil insure to the earth that increase of fertility without which society would be condemned to endless misery.³

³ Chas. Perm, Les Lois de la Societe Chretienne, 2 vols., Paris 1876, especially Vol. I; F. Walter, Naturrecht und Politik, Bonn 1863, pp. 145 sqq.

Barely touching the traditional arguments as developed, e. g., by St. Thomas, Pope Leo XIII, in his famous Encyclical "Rerum Novarum," bases private ownership on the rational nature of man.

"Every man," he says, "has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self-direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep its powers on the alert, impel it to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine it to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self-preservation, the other, the propagation of the species. Both can attain their purpose by means of things which lie within range; beyond their verge the brute creation cannot go, for beasts are moved to action by their senses only, and in the special direction which these suggest. But with man it is wholly different. He possesses, on the one hand, the full perfection of the animal being, and hence enjoys, at least as much as the rest of the animal kind, the fruition of things material. But animal nature, however perfect, is far from representing the human being in its completeness, and is in truth but humanity's humble handmaid, made to serve and to obey. It is the mind or reason which is the predominant element in us who are human creatures; it is this which renders a man human, and distinguishes him essentially and generically from the brute. And on this very account —that man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason —it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living beings do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced to use, continue for further use in after time. This becomes still more clearly evident if man's nature be considered a little more deeply. For man, fathoming by his faculty of reason matters without number, and linking the future with the present, becoming, furthermore, by enlightened forethought, master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore it is in his power to exercise his choice not only as to matters that regard his present welfare, but also about those which he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence man not only can possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, inasmuch as from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future. Man's needs do not die out, but recur; although satisfied to-day, they demand fresh supplies for to-morrow."⁴

⁴ English tr. from The Pope and the People, London 1912, pp. 181 sq. A better tr. in Bolshevism — The Remedy, New Haven, Conn., 1919, pp. 5 sq.

The Pontiff goes on to show that private ownership was established through individual efforts before the existence of the State, and that it is recognized by history, by civil law, and by divine law.⁵

⁵ Cfr. A. C. Breig, Papal Program of Social Reform, Milwaukee 1913, pp. 14 sqq.

It is frequently asserted that the first Christians, especially those at Jerusalem, practiced Communism.⁶ Learned scholars who have investigated the question with great care deny that there was Communism in the primitive Church. The early Christians were allowed to keep their property, and if some of them sold it, they did so voluntarily, for the purpose of assisting the poor.⁷ The most that can be said is that in some sections of the great congregation of Jerusalem there existed a sort of religious community of goods.⁸

⁶ Cfr. Acts II, 44 sq.; IV, 32-37; V, 1-4.

⁷ Cfr. E. Baumgartner, "Der Kommunismus im Urchristentum," in the Innsbruck Zeitschrift für kath. Theologie, 1909, pp. 625 sqq.

⁸ O. Schilling, Reichtum und Eigentum in der altkirchlichen Literatur, Freiburg 1908, pp. 16 sq.

Those Church Fathers who are represented as having preached Communism, did not oppose private ownership, but merely its abuse. The passages quoted from their writings by Socialist authors are largely spurious, and those which are genuine prove nothing more than that God did not distribute temporal goods directly among individual men, but gave the earth with its resources to the race at large for the common use of all, so that no one may claim anything as his own as if he had the right to exclude all others absolutely and for ever from its use.⁹ The Fathers simply wished to express the same truth which St. Thomas in the thirteenth century set forth as follows: "Man may not have exterior things for his own, but as the common property of all, namely in such a way that one readily shares them with others in case of need."¹⁰ There are many Patristic texts which unmistakably assert the right of private ownership.¹¹ Lactantius defends it with great scientific acumen. St. Ambrose, who frequently censures the wealthy, teaches that the condemnation pronounced by Christ does not affect all who have wealth, but only those who abuse it, and adds that every man is allowed perfect freedom in giving alms.¹²

⁹ Cfr. J. Biederlack, S. J., Die soziale Frage, 7th ed., p. 134, n. 1.

¹⁰ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 66, art. 2: “A man ought not to hold external things as his own, but as common, so that, namely, he may readily share them in the necessity of others.”

¹¹ See G. Ratzinger, Die Volkswirtschaft, 2nd ed., pp. 82 sqq.; A. Vermeersch, S. J., Quaestiones de Iustitia, 2nd ed., pp. 266 sqq.: V. Cathrein, S. J., Moralphiloso- phie, 4th ed., Vol. II, pp. 313 sqq.; J. Seipel, Die wirtschafts-ethischen Lehren der Kirchenvater, Vienna 1907, pp. 49 sqq., 120 sqq., 190 sqq.; J. A. Ryan Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, St. Louis 1913.

¹² St. Ambrose, Expos. Evangel, sec. Luc., 1. V, n. 69: “Although in abundant wealth there are many enticements to sins, nevertheless there are also very many incentives to virtues. Although virtue does not require assistance, and the contribution of a poor man is more praiseworthy than the liberality of a rich man, nevertheless the heavenly sentence condemns by its authority not those who possess riches, but those who do not know how to use them.” (Migne, P. L., XV, 1654).—IDEM, De Nabuthe Iezrael, c. 13, n. 55: “He who has been able to be proved faithful amid riches is truly perfect and worthy of glory.” (P. L., XIV, 748).—IDEM, De Officiis, l. I, c. 30, n. 14: “It is in your power to bestow what you wish.” (P. L., XVI, 66). —On the teaching of St. Ambrose consult O. Schilling, Reichtum und Armut, (see note 8, supra) pp. 134 sqq., and J. A. Ryan, Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, St. Louis 1913, pp. 52-66. "What St. Ambrose teaches is not communism in any correct sense of the word," says Dr. Ryan (op. cit., p. 57 sq.). "It is rather a first principle of the natural law, namely that the earth belongs to all the children of men, and not to a few only. He tells the rich to restore their excessive wealth to the poor, while a communist would order them to turn it over to the community. It is true that he calls these donations of the rich by the name of restitution, but this is because the rich have accumulated so much that the poor have been deprived of their birth-right. Hence, he commands them to give back their unjust gains. Any one who will read the history of the oppression of the poor in Italy in the fourth century, will know that St. Ambrose was right when he told the rich that they had robbed the poor, and were consequently bound to make reparation. The most zealous defender of individual ownership could speak the same way in the same circumstances. What St. Ambrose demands, therefore, is not a return to common property, but a recognition of common rights."

The phrase, "Omnis dives aut iniquus aut iniqui heres,"¹³ which occurs repeatedly in the writings of St. Jerome, has led to his being classed as a Socialist. But the fact that St. Jerome makes this sentiment his own and quotes it with approval, does not prove that he looked upon every property holder as a thief. "Iniquus—from in + aequus—refers literally to a want of equality or want of proportion. Taken figuratively, it has about the same meaning as iniustus, for which it was often used as a synonym by the best authors. Now St. Jerome's style, as well as his own confession, assures us that he was well acquainted with classical Latin. We may safely infer then that he uses this word in the specific sense of iniustus, and not in the more general sense of peccator. This inference is confirmed by his manner of speaking in a sentence where he distinguishes between an impius on the one hand, and an iniquus and a peccator on the other. Even if he meant merely 'wrong doer' when he wrote iniquus, the specific wrong doing referred to must have been an act of injustice, since it was committed in acquiring riches. When a man gets possession by wrong-doing, the greater part of the wrong will fall under the head of injustice, violation of personal rights. St. Jerome, therefore, subscribed to the opinion that every dives was an unjust man, and by dives he meant, not a man of some property, but a man of much property. All the synonyms of dives and its use by the best authors show that it refers to an abundance of goods, and not to mere ownership, as some would have us believe."¹⁴

¹³ This remarkable saying, which seems to have been of pagan origin, was evidently current in St. Jerome's day, for he quotes it in three distinct passages of his writings. For an analysis of these passages see J. A. Ryan, Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, pp. 67 sqq.

¹⁴ Ryan, op. cit., pp. 70 sq. Further on in his booklet (p. 74) Dr. Ryan shows that Herbert Spencer spoke in much the same way of the present titles to landed property as St. Jerome did of those of his time. "It can never be pretended that the existing titles to such property are legitimate... Violence, fraud, the prerogative of force, the claims of superior cunning, these are the sources to which these titles may be traced." The passage occurs in Spencer's Social Statics and was omitted in later editions, but, as Dr. Ryan correctly says, "the question is one of fact, not of opinion." W. S. Lilly declares: "I say, without shadow of doubt, that to much property the saying of Proudhon [namely, that property is theft] is strictly ap- plicable." Charles S. Devas says: "As a matter of fact, much of the wealth of the rich classes in modern Europe has been gathered together, and is still kept up, by dreadful deeds of cruelty, injustice, and fraud." —"Mr. Lilly," comments Dr. Ryan, "is neither a Socialist nor a radical, but above all a pleader for law, while Mr. Devas was an unimaginative student of economics. If men of this character can write thus of titles to property in modern times, is it any wonder that St. Jerome used similar language in his day?" (Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, pp. 74 sq.)

The proposition, "No Christian should be engaged in commercial pursuits, and those who persist in them, should be expelled from the Church,"¹⁵ which is frequently ascribed to St. Chrysostom, does not occur in his genuine writings, but in the Opus Imperfectum in Matthaeum of an Arian writer falsely attributed to the Saint.¹⁶ Certain communistic ideas that occur in the genuine works of St. Chrysostom must be interpreted as the product of a sort of ideal Communism, resembling that of Plato, which marked a reaction against the dominating power of wealth, the materialism and egotism of certain rich people, and the exaggerated esteem in which worldly possessions were generally held at that time and which manifested itself in an insane pursuit of wealth similar to that which we behold all around us to-day. In attacking these flagrant and serious abuses St. Chrysostom occasionally employed expressions which, when read through modern glasses, seem to stamp him as an opponent of the principle of private ownership.¹⁷

¹⁵ “No Christian ought to be a merchant; or, if he wishes to be one, let him be cast out of the Church of God.”

¹⁶ Cfr. F. X. Funk's paper, "Ueber Reichtum und Handel im christlichen Altertum," in his Kirchengeschichtliche Abhandlungen und Untersuchungen, Paderborn 1917, Vol. III, pp. 150 sqq.

¹⁷ On the teaching of St. Chrysostom, see O. Schilling, Reichtum und Armut, (note 8, supra), p. 123 and J. A. Ryan, Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, pp. 1-7; on the teaching of St. Basil, ibid., pp. 7 sqq., 17 sqq.; of St. Gregory of Nyssa, pp. 10 sq.; of Clement of Alexandria, p. 11; of St. Augustine, pp. 12 sq.; of St. Gregory the Great, pp. 15 sq.

2. In all that regards wealth and earthly possessions (bona fortunae) Catholics must be guided by the following principles.

a) Broadly speaking, every man is in duty bound to acquire the means which are necessary to support himself and his dependents and to fulfil the obligations that rest upon him as a member of society. He may, moreover, acquire a superfluity of earthly possessions, but if he does so, he incurs the additional obligation of making good use of his surplus; in other words, he must not acquire or cherish wealth for its own sake, but in order to share it with the needy.¹⁸

¹⁸ Eph. IV, 28; I Tim. VI, 18. —Cfr. St. Thomas, Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 187, art. 3.

b) The possession of wealth is no sin in itself, but involves great danger because a rich man is constantly tempted to seek his happiness in this world and to neglect his soul.¹⁹ It is in this sense that Christ speaks of "the care of this world and the deceitfulness of riches,”²⁰ and warns His disciples that "a rich man shall hardly enter into the kingdom of heaven."²¹

¹⁹ Cfr. I Tim. VI, 9 sq., 17. — Seneca says (Epist., XVII, 3): “Riches have hindered many from philosophizing; poverty is unencumbered and secure.” And in another place (Ep., XVII, 5): “If you wish to be at leisure for the soul, you must either be poor or like a poor man.” —Cfr. G. Ratzinger, Die Volkswirtschaft, 2nd ed., pp. 43 sqq.

²⁰ Matth. XIII, 22.

²¹ Matth. XIX, 23 sq.; cfr. Mark X, 23 sqq.; Luke XII, 16 sqq.; Jas. V, 1 sqq.

Neither is poverty in itself a virtue, or a source of virtue, though apt to become such. That it is no disgrace to be poor, appears from the example of Christ and His disciples, who were all poor laboring-men. "Jesus saith to him: The foxes have holes, and the birds of the air nests: but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.”²² “Being rich," says St. Paul, "He [Jesus] became poor for your sakes, that through his poverty you might be rich."²³

²² Matth. VIII, 20; X, 9 sq.

²³ 2 Cor. VIII, 9; IX, 1 sqq.

When poverty is the result of sloth and shiftlessness, it easily leads to immorality and is in itself a sin if it makes a man discontented and covetous of the possessions of others. We read in Sacred Scripture: "Give me neither beggary nor riches: give me only the necessaries of life, lest perhaps being filled, I should be tempted to deny and say: Who is the Lord? or being compelled by poverty, I should steal and forswear the name of God."²⁴ Poverty becomes a virtue if borne humbly and with resignation to the will of God. "Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven."²⁵ St. Ambrose explains this text as follows: "Not all the poor are blessed, for poverty is merely a means: both good men and bad may be poor, unless perhaps that poor man is to be considered blessed of whom the prophet says, 'Better is the poor man that walketh in his simplicity than a rich man that is perverse.’²⁶... Blessed the poor man who cried to the Lord and was heard: poor in crime, poor in vice, a poor man in whom the prince of this world finds nothing, who imitates Him who, being rich, was made poor for our sake.²⁷ St. Matthew unfolded the full truth when he said: 'Blessed are the poor in spirit,'²⁸ for he who is poor in spirit does not become puffed up and proud in his conceit."²⁹

²⁴ Prov. XXX, 8-9.—St. Leo the Great says (Serm., 49 [al. 48], c. 1): “There are snares in the abundance of riches and snares in the straits of poverty. The former raise one up to pride; the latter incite one to complaint.” (Migne, P. L., LIV, 302).

²⁵ Matth. V, 3; cfr. Jas. II, 5.

²⁶ Prov. XIX, 1.

²⁷ 2 Cor. VIII, 9.

²⁸ Matth. V, 3.

²⁹ St. Ambrose, Expos. Evangel. in Lucam, l. V, n. 53: “Not all the poor are blessed, for poverty is an intermediate thing: both good and evil men can be poor. Unless perhaps that blessed poor man is to be understood whom the prophet described, saying: ‘A just poor man is better than a lying rich man.’ Blessed is the poor man who cried out and the Lord heard him: poor in crime, poor in vices, a poor man in whom the prince of this world found nothing, an imitator of that Poor Man who, though He was rich, was made poor for us. Hence Matthew disclosed the matter fully, saying: ‘Blessed are the poor in spirit’; for the poor man in spirit is not puffed up and is not exalted in the mind of his flesh.” (Migne, P. L., XV, 1650). —Cfr. A. Winterstein, Die christl. Lehre vom Erdengut, pp. 173 sqq.

"Cheerful poverty is an honorable thing," says Epicurus,³⁰ and Seneca, who quotes this sentiment with approval, adds: "Not he is poor who has little, but he who attempts to gain more by dishonest means."³¹ In another place the great Roman philosopher says: "Great is the man who remains poor [i. e., in spirit] amid riches, but safer is he who does without them."³²

³⁰ “Cheerful poverty is an honorable thing”; quoted by Seneca, Ep., II, 5.

³¹ Ep., II, 6: “Not he who has little, but he who desires more, is poor.”

³² Ep., XX, 10: “Great is he who is poor amid riches, but safer is he who lacks riches.”

c) Those who devote themselves entirely to intellectual or mental labor, have a just claim to such material goods as they require, not merely to satisfy their necessities, but to enable them to live according to their rank or station. St. Paul's dictum that "they who serve at the altar share with the altar,"³³ applies in a wider sense to all who devote themselves to spiritual and intellec- tual labor for the benefit of their fellowmen, and includes pre-eminently the members of contemplative orders. d) As the individual, so also each social group (the family, the Church, the State, etc.) has the right and the duty to acquire property. But the group no less than the individual is exposed to the dangers that arise from wealth. History furnishes abundant examples of the truth of the Apostle's saying: "They that will become rich, fall into temptation and into the snare of the devil, and into many unprofitable and hurtful desires, which drown men into destruction and perdition."³⁴

³³ 1 Cor. IX, 13.

³⁴ 1 Tim. VI, 9; cfr. Ps. XXXIII, 11; Luke XII, 15-21.

Man is not the absolute owner, but rather the steward of his possessions, and as such must give a strict account to God. Material wealth should never be the ultimate aim either of the individual or of society, but should be regarded and employed merely as the basis and foundation of a higher life. "Charge the rich of this world," says St. Paul, "not to be proud, 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, to lay up in store for themselves a good foundation against the time to come, that they may lay hold on the true life."³⁵

³⁵ 1 Tim. VI, 17-19; cfr. Matth. VI, 19-21.

The concentration of great fortunes in the hands of a few is becoming a serious danger, not only to the individual, since, as St. James says, the rich oppress the poor by might,³⁶ but also to society, because so many rich men now-a-days employ their wealth to establish monopolies, obtain excessive profits, defraud their fellowmen, purchase political power, etc. The fact that it is possible under present conditions, for the exceptionally able, the exceptionally cunning, and the exceptionally lucky, to accumulate enormous riches through the clever and unscrupulous utilization of special advantages, natural and otherwise, has given rise to a just demand for the legal limitation of fortunes. Various methods are suggested. The law might directly limit the amount of property to be held by any individual. One of our leading Catholic authorities on social and political science, Dr. John A. Ryan, thinks that if the limit were placed fairly high, say at one hundred thousand dollars, such a law "could scarcely be regarded as an infringement on the right of property. In the case of a family numbering ten members, this would mean one million dollars. All the essential objects of private ownership could be abundantly met out of a sum of one hundred thousand dollars for each person. Moreover, a restriction of this sort need not prevent a man from bestowing unlimited amounts upon charitable, religious, educational, or other benevolent causes."³⁷

³⁶ Jas. II, 6; cfr. Henry H. Klein, Dynastic America and Those Who Own It, New York, 1921; Andrew Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth, New York 1900.

³⁷ J. A. Ryan, Distributive Justice, New York 1916, pp. 292 sq.; cfr. Hy. H. Klein, Dynastic America, N. Y., 1921, pp. 164 sqq.

On the other hand, "the dangers and obstacles confronting any legal restriction of fortunes are so real as to render the proposal socially inexpedient. It would easily lend itself to grave abuse. Once the community had habituated itself to a direct limitation of any sort, the temptation to lower it in the interest of better distribution and simpler living would become exceedingly powerful. Eventually the right of property might take such an attenuated and uncertain form in the public mind as to discourage labor and initiative, and thus seriously to endanger human welfare. In the second place, the manifold evasions to which the measure would lend itself would make it of very doubtful efficacy."³⁸

³⁸ Ibid., p. 293.

Another suggestion is that the amount of property capable of being received by heirs of any person be limited, say, to one million dollars.³⁹ This would be a restriction of the rights of bequest and succession, which are integral elements of the right of ownership. Is such restriction admissible? The answer to this question, according to the same authority, "depends upon the effects of the measure on human welfare.... A person needs private property not only to provide for his personal wants and those of his family during his life-time, but also to safeguard the welfare of his dependents and to assist other worthy purposes, after he has passed away.... All the necessary and rational ends of bequest and succession could be attained in a society in which no man's heirs could inherit more than one million dollars. Under such an arrangement very few of the children of millionaires would be prevented from getting at least one hundred thousand dollars. That much would be amply sufficient for the essential and reasonable needs of any human being. Indeed, we may go further, and lay down the proposition that the overwhelming majority of persons can lead a more virtuous and reasonable life on the basis of a fortune of one hundred thousand dollars than when burdened with any larger amount. The persons who have the desire and the ability to use a greater sum than this in a rational way are so few that a limitation law need not take them into account. Corporate persons, such as hospitals, churches, schools, and other helpful institutions, should not, as a rule, be restricted as to the amount that they might inherit; for many of them could make a good use of more than the amount that suffices for a natural person."⁴⁰

³⁹ Final Report of the Federal Commission on Industrial Relations, p. 32; H. E. Read, The Abolition of Inheritance, N. Y., 1919; A. Carnegie, The Gospel of Wealth, N. Y., 1901, pp. 11 sqq.

⁴⁰ Ryan, Distributive Justice, p. 294.

The limitation of inheritance would, of course, also be liable to abuse, and while its bad effects would probably not be as great as those following a similar abuse with regard to possessions, they are, in Dr. Ryan's opinion, "sufficiently grave and sufficiently probable to suggest that the legal restriction of bequest and succession should not be considered except as a last resort, and when the transmission of great fortunes had become a great and certain public peril."⁴¹

⁴¹ Ibid., p. 295.

An indirect way of limiting large fortunes would be through a progressive tax on incomes and inheritances. This is a more feasible method, though the maximum limit that justice would set to the rate of taxation is not easy to determine. Some years ago Andrew Carnegie⁴² recommended an inheritance tax of fifty per cent on estates amounting to more than one million dollars. While no country has yet reached this high level, the proposal cannot be stigmatized as unjust either to the testator or his heirs, nor can it be proved that it is in any other manner injurious to human welfare. In a general way, all that can be said with confidence concerning the just rates of inheritance taxation is that "the increments of the tax should correspond as closely as possible to the diminishing intensity of the wants which the tax deprives of satisfaction; in the case of each heir a certain fairly high minimum of property should be entirely exempt; on all the highest estates the rate should be uniform, and it should fall a long way short of confis- cation; and the tax should at no point be such as to discourage socially useful activity and enterprise."⁴³

⁴² The Gospel of Wealth, pp. 11 sqq.

⁴³ Ryan, Distributive Justice, p. 300.

It would be still better, perhaps, instead of clipping off wealth from the top, by limiting possession and transmission, to prevent these things by going to the root, i. e., by abolishing the wage system and admitting workingmen to a share in the possession of the means of production. This, too, could best be brought about, not by legal enactment, but by molding public opinion.⁴⁴

⁴⁴ See Social Reconstruction, brochure issued by the four bishops constituting the Administrative Committee of the American Catholic War Council, Washington, D. C., 1919; Cardinal Bourne's Lenten Pastoral for 1918, "The Nation's a Crisis," London, Catholic Social Guild, 1918.

e) We will close this chapter with a few remarks on the duty of distributing superfluous wealth. Here, also, we shall follow Professor Ryan.

It is the fundamental teaching of Christianity that ownership is stewardship and that he who possesses superfluous goods must regard himself as a trustee for the needy. St. Thomas clearly and concisely formulates this principle as follows: "As regards the power of acquiring and dispensing material goods, man may lawfully possess them as his own; as regards their use, however, a man ought not to look upon them as his own, but as common, so that he may readily minister to the needs of others."⁴⁵ This teach- ing is in perfect conformity with reason. Since the goods of the earth were intended by the Creator for the common benefit of all mankind, the possessor of a surplus is reasonably required to use it in such a way that this original purpose of all created goods will be fulfilled. To refuse to do so is to treat one's less fortunate neighbor as something different from and less than oneself, as a creature whose claim upon the common bounty of nature is something less than one's own.

⁴⁵ Summa Theol., 2a 2ae, qu. 66, art. 3.

Is this obligation one of charity or of justice? In the case of wealth unjustly acquired it is clearly one of justice. But how about wealth honestly acquired? St. Thomas says: "The goods which a man has in superfluity are due by the natural law to the sustenance of the poor."⁴⁶ This is the official teaching of the Church, for Pope Leo XIII says: "When one has provided sufficiently for one's necessities and the demands of one's state of life, there is a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains. It is a duty not of strict justice, save in case of extreme necessity, but of Christian charity."⁴⁷

⁴⁶ Ibid., art. 7.

⁴⁷ Encyclical "On the Condition of Labor," 15 May, 1891; The Pope and the People, p. 192.

There seems to be a contradiction between this teaching and that of certain Fathers, but the contradiction is apparent rather than real. "The truly important fact of the whole situation," says Dr. Ryan, "is that both the Fathers and the later authorities of the Church regard the task of distributing superfluous goods as one of strict moral obligation, which in serious cases is binding under pain of grievous sin. Whether it falls under the head of justice or under that of charity, is of no great practical importance."⁴⁸

⁴⁸ Distributive Justice, pp. 303 sq., 307 sq.

What portion of his superfluous wealth is a man obliged to distribute among the needy? Dr. Ryan, proceeding from the unanimous teaching of moral theologians that the entire mass of superfluous wealth is morally subject to the call of grave need, and from the principle of the moral law that the goods of the earth should be enjoyed by the inhabitants of the earth in proportion to their essential needs, attempts to answer this question from the standpoint of common welfare. He thinks that, in view of available statistics, the conclusion is inevitable "that the greater part of the superfluous income of the well-to-do and rich would be required to abolish all grave and ordinary need." He adds: "The proposition that men are under moral obligation to give away the greater portion of their superfluous goods or income is, indeed, a 'hard saying’.... No Catholic, however, who knows the traditional teaching of the Church on the right use of wealth, and who considers patiently and seriously the magnitude and the meaning of human distress, will be able to refute the proposition by reasoned arguments. Indeed, no man can logically deny it who admits that men are intrinsically sacred, and essentially equal by nature and in their claims to a reasonable livelihood from the common heritage of the earth. The wants that a man supplies out of his superfluous goods are not necessary for rational existence. For the most part they bring him merely irrational enjoyment, greater social prestige, or increased domination over his fellows. Judged by any reasonable standard, these are surely less important than those needs of the neighbor which are connected with humane living. If any considerable part of the community rejects these propositions, the explanation will be found not in a reasoned theory, but in the conventional assumption that a man may do what he likes with his own. This assumption is adopted without examination, without criticism, without any serious advertence to the great moral facts that ownership is stewardship, and that the Creator intended the earth for the reasonable support of all the children of men."⁴⁹

⁴⁹ Ibid., p. 314.

READINGS. —St. Thomas, Summa Theologica, 2a 2ae, qu. 66, art. 1 sq. —Theodore Meyer, S.J., Institutiones Iuris Naturalis, Vol. II, pp. 126 sqq., Freiburg 1900. —V. Cathrein, S.J., Moralphilosophie, 4th ed., Freiburg 1904, Vol. II, pp. 285 sqq. —IDEM, Das Privateigentum und seine Gegner, 4th ed., Freiburg 1909. —A. Vermeersch, S.J., Quaestiones de Iustitia, 2nd ed., pp. 240 sqq.—Ch. Perin, De la Richesse dans les Societes Chretiennes, 3rd ed., 2 vols., Paris 1881. —F. Walter, Das Eigentum nach der Lehre des hl. Thomas von Aquin und des Socialismus, pp. 266 sqq., Freiburg 1895. —H. Pesch, S.J., Lehrbuch der Nationalökonomie, Vol. I, Freiburg 1905, pp. 179 sqq.—Michael Cronin, The Science of Ethics, Vol. II, Dublin 1917, pp. 113 sqq.—R. I. Holaind, S.J., Natural Law and Legal Practice, New York 1899, pp. 203 sqq. —Jos. Rickaby, S.J., Moral Philosophy: Ethics, Deontology and Natural Law, 4th ed., London 1918, pp. 278 sqq. —J. A. Ryan, Distributive Justice: The Right and Wrong of Our Present Distribution of Wealth, New York 1916, pp. 3 sqq., 291 sqq., 303 sqq. —J. Husslein, S.J., The World Problem: Capital, Labor, and the Church, New York 1918, pp. 232 sqq. —H. Noldin, S.J., Summa Theologiae Moralis, Vol. II, 11th ed., Innsbruck 1914, pp. 387 sqq. —Thos. Slater, S.J., A Manual of Moral Theology, Vol. I, pp. 344 sqq., 350 sqq., New York 1919. —A. Lehmkuhl, S.J., Theologia Moralis, Vol. I, 11th ed., Freiburg 1910, pp. 499 sqq. —J. Kelleher, Private Ownership, Dublin 1911. —J. E. Ross, C.S.P., Christian Ethics, pp. 271 sqq., New York 1919.—H. Belloc, The Catholic Church and the Principle of Private Property, London 1920. —J. A. Ryan, The Christian Doctrine of Property, New York 1923.