II. On the Objects of Ownership

Goods in relation to man are distinguished into:

1. Internal goods, to which belong goods of the body, such as life and members; likewise goods of the soul, both natural, such as faculties, sciences, and so forth, and supernatural, such as grace, virtues, and so forth.

2. External goods, such as houses, fields, money, in a word, goods of fortune. External goods are divided:

a) Into movable and immovable goods. Movable goods are those which can easily be transferred from place to place, such as money, furniture, and so forth. Immovable goods are those which are in no way, or only with difficulty, transferred.

b) Into consumable and non-consumable goods, according as the use of them consists, or does not consist, in their very consumption. Thus, for example, grain is consumable, but a book is non-consumable.

c) Into fungible and non-fungible goods. Fungible goods are those of which one can stand in the place of another of the same species, because it makes no difference whether the same thing individually, or another of the same species, is had; thus one who has borrowed money is not bound to return the same money individually. Non-fungible goods are those of which one cannot be substituted for another of the same species; thus one who has stolen a horse is bound to return the same individual horse.

3. Intermediate goods, namely reputation and honor, which, although they are founded in good qualities, nevertheless formally exist in others, who think well of someone or honor him. For the rest, compare also the division of goods or things with attention to the law of one's country. Moreover:

I. A man does not have direct ownership, but he does have useful ownership, of those goods which pertain to his substance and integrity, such as life, members, and the faculties of the soul. The first is proved from Sacred Scripture: "See that I alone am, and there is no other God besides me: I shall kill, and I shall make live."¹ The reason is that direct ownership exists only over a thing distinct from him who has ownership. Besides, ownership imports a certain superiority with respect to the thing of which direct ownership is had. But no one is superior to himself. The latter is clear; for to what end would those goods have been granted by God, if man lacked the right of using them?

II. A man has full ownership of those internal goods which do not pertain to his substance and integrity, such as operations and habits produced by natural activity. The reason is that a man is the owner of those things which he has acquired by his own industry. The same seems to be said in some way of grace, of habits, and of supernatural acts. For it is rightly admitted that these have truly been given by God as a gift to man. There is added, as regards an adult, that "through the use of free will with the help of God, man disposes himself to such goods, and therefore they are effects of cooperating grace, because man obtains them from God by cooperating with His help for receiving them."²

III. A man has full ownership of reputation and honor. The reason is that a man has acquired these by his own labor. Besides, "if a man were not owner of his own reputation, he could not condone or remit restitution of it; for no one can remit what is not his own. But nevertheless this is often done, and is done laudably."³

One who without proportionate cause neglects his reputation is guilty of the sin of prodigality, just as one who without cause dissipates riches.⁴ Hence Sacred Scripture says: "Have care for a good name; for this will remain to you more than a thousand precious and great treasures. The number of days of a good life is limited; but a good name will remain forever."⁵ This warning must especially be attended to if our reputation is necessary to our neighbors.

"Our reputation," says Lessius,⁶ "can be necessary to our neighbors in three ways. First, when the reputation of a neighbor so depends on our reputation that from our disgrace his disgrace follows; as from the disgrace of a monk there follows a certain disgrace of the monastery. Second, when our reputation is necessary so that we may render to a neighbor an office due to him by strict right; as the reputation of a public person, a Bishop, a Pastor, an Abbot, is necessary so that he may govern subjects well; and in these two events, in the judgment of many, one who disgraces himself sins against justice: not because precisely he deprives himself of reputation, but because as a consequence he harms his neighbor, either by bringing disgrace upon him, or by rendering himself unfit to perform the due office for him. Third, when we are bound to benefit a neighbor not from office but only from charity, and through disgrace we are rendered unfit for this, then one who disgraces himself sins only against charity; just as he sins against charity who throws away money by which he could have benefited the poor."

IV. A man can have full ownership of external goods or goods of fortune, provided they are such that they can be the object of ownership. The truth of the proposition is clear both from Sacred Scripture⁷ and from those things which we said concerning the legitimacy and necessity of private ownership.

I said, however: provided they are such that they can be the object of ownership. In order that this can have place, it is required: 1. that the thing can be subjected to man or occupied by him; hence, for example, the stars are excluded; 2. that the thing can be useful; nevertheless, observe that sometimes a thing which seems useless can be for some use; 3. that the thing is not of inexhaustible use, that is, such that all can use it without harm to anyone, of which sort are, for example, air and daylight.

To the question to what extent the sea can be the object of ownership, Waffelaert responds thus: "If there is question of the vast ocean, then it can scarcely be guarded; then certainly the use, which is major fishing and navigation, is inexhaustible. But if there is question of the parts of the sea washing the land, of gulfs and straits, the use, which is fishing, the finding of pearls and other precious things, the collecting of shells, and so forth, is not inexhaustible, especially since things of this sort and certain kinds of fish are frequently found in determinate and not very spacious places. Besides, provision would not be sufficiently made for the security of a maritime nation if, without any precaution, it were lawful for anyone to bring armed ships to the shore."⁸

V. A man cannot have direct ownership of those goods which pertain to the substance and integrity of the members of another; nevertheless he can acquire useful ownership of them. It is said:

1. A man cannot have direct ownership of those goods which pertain to the substance and integrity of the members of another. This is clear from the fact that ownership imports that the thing of which someone is owner is referred to him as to an end. But it is repugnant that one man be referred to another as to an end.

2. Nevertheless he can have useful ownership of these. This is clear from Sacred Scripture,⁹ and from those things which we shall say concerning the different titles on which the aforesaid ownership can rest. Moreover, the said ownership or servitude, by which someone is bound to furnish all his works to another for food and other things necessary for life, can be introduced:

a) By free agreement; for since man has useful ownership of himself, he can freely transfer it, and indeed entirely, to another.

b) By just condemnation, or as a penalty for a delict; as is clear.

c) By right of war, and by birth from slaves; these, however, with every fault set aside, even original fault, cannot be just titles. "There is," says St. Thomas, "a twofold subjection, one servile, according to which the one presiding uses the subject for his own utility; and such subjection was introduced after sin" (I, q. 92, a. 1, ad 2; I, q. 96, a. 4).

Corollary. Servitude which is extended so far that a man, as if an irrational animal with respect to his works, can be bought and sold, is altogether unbecoming to man, and therefore is judged to be abolished by law.¹⁰

VI. An author has a right in the fruit of his mind, that is, in literary, musical, or other works of the liberal arts; an inventor has a right in the art or industry invented, according as follows:

1. When the work has not yet been published by the author, he certainly has the right that another not seize and publish the manuscript, or steal the secret, for example of a known art. One who has violated that right is bound to restitution of the damage thence following; and therefore, if the author would have published the work, he must compensate the damage hoped for from publication. The same must be said of one who uses knowledge to which he has come by fraud or from a communication made by the author under secrecy.

2. When the work has been published in some measure, for example a writing printed for private use, lectures given, sermons delivered, the author seems to have the right that another not publish it. The reason is that from the circumstances themselves and from common estimation, the aforesaid things have not yet been made simply of public right, but he has retained them as his own. This posited, another also seems to lack the right of making them of public right. Nevertheless custom permits some publication, or even an entire publication, of sermons in newspapers.

3. When the work has been plainly published, one must speak thus:

a) With natural law considered, it is disputed whether the author has the right that another not further disseminate the work, for example by reprinting it.¹¹ Moreover, the opinion which is theoretically sufficiently probable and therefore safe in practice denies this, both because a work published by the author by that very fact becomes of public right, or destined for common use, and because the buyer of the work acquires ownership of it, and therefore can use it according to his will.

Finally, for the same reason the doctrine handed down seems also to be applied to a law which grants someone the right or privilege of using a commercial trademark exclusively.

Corollary I. If someone, within the limits determined by civil law, inflicts some detriment on an author or seller, he does not sin against justice; for by the very fact that civil law determines the right of authors, beyond these limits it takes away their right, if perhaps it exists, by force of high ownership. The same holds concerning international agreements.

Corollary II. The custom even of God-fearing persons commonly permits many things against the right of authors and inventors, namely: 1. the right of buying what has been publicly displayed, even though contrary to law; 2. the right of representing scenic and musical works in circles; 3. the right of making for private use some work for the manufacture of which the author's license is required, because the damage which the inventor suffers, if he suffers any, is very slight, since often it would not have been bought. From the said custom, laws which prohibit the things set forth rather seem to be merely penal.

Objection 1. The author has the right of receiving a fitting reward from the work.

Resp. The assertion is very ambiguous and must be distinguished: the author has the right that others buy the work and thus procure a reward for him, I deny; he has the right that others, for example by reprinting the work, not be the cause why less profit comes to the author, this must be proved; indeed, on account of the arguments adduced, it seems it must be denied.

Objection 2. Authors, at least today, by exposing their works for sale, add the tacit condition that others not reproduce the work by their own authority; in other words, authors sell the spiritual use, but not the commercial use of the work.

Resp. Besides the fact that that condition is asserted gratuitously, it seems one must deny that a condition so vague or indeterminate is validly attached.

Concerning the right of religious in manuscripts and so forth, we shall speak in the treatise on the duties of religious.

b) With civil law considered, which, as order and natural equity demand, has commonly determined this matter, an author, that is, a writer or inventor, seems to have a strict right to those things which the law establishes for his advantage; for legislators in this case expressly declare that they grant the author an exclusive right. Unless the nature of the thing or the context of the law suggests something else, this word seems to be understood of a full or strict right. Nor again should it be objected that the legislator does not care about obligation in conscience; for the explicit or implicit intention of granting a right suffices. Hence a transgressor of the law is bound to restitution of damage even before the sentence of a judge; but penalties established against transgressors do not oblige except after the sentence of a judge.

Some,¹² indeed, do not apply the doctrine handed down to inventors to whom patents (brevets) have been granted, because they are accustomed to increase too much the natural price of the invented thing, which is against the common good. But the fact that they act thus does not seem to impede Authority from being able to grant them a right in the thing invented and published; and that in fact it has granted them a right is to be deduced from the fact that, with the terms of the law considered, it equates them with writers and so forth.

¹ Deut. 32:39.

² Salmanticenses, tract XII, chapter 2, point 5, n. 46.

³ Billuart, IV, dissertation 3, article 2.

⁴ Billuart, loc. cit.

⁵ Ecclus. 41:15 ff.

⁶ Book 2, chapter IV, doubt XI, n. 59.

⁷ Gen. 1:28, 29; 9:1, 3; Ps. 8:7-9.

⁸ De Iustitia, I, n. 88.

⁹ Exod. chapter 21; Lev. chapter 25; Deut. chapters 20-21; cf. Eph. 6:5.

¹⁰ Cf. Leo XIII, letter In plurimis, May 5, 1888.

¹¹ Cf. Lehmkuhl, I, 904; Goepfert (II, 68) and Sweens (n. 39), who affirm; Waffelaert (I, 171) and Vermeersch (n. 248), who deny.

¹² Vermeersch, Quaestiones de Iustitia, n. 250.