Point II. On the Ownership of Spouses

The goods of spouses are distinguished into common and proper, according as they belong to both or to either one. It depends on the law what kind the goods of spouses are: whether common, or proper, or partly common and partly proper. In many kingdoms legal community is in force; in other words, the goods of spouses are common unless before marriage something else is agreed. Now:

I. As regards common goods, ownership of them belongs to both; the right of administration is in the husband's hands; the right of the fruits falls to both. It is said:

1. Ownership of them belongs to both; this is the same as asserting co-ownership, as it is called.

A twofold co-ownership of spouses can be distinguished: one by which spouses are not distinct subjects of right but one owner; according to many, though undeservedly as it seems, co-ownership of this kind is constituted by Dutch law. The other co-ownership is that by which the spouses are two distinct subjects of rights. And this co-ownership is again twofold, Roman and Germanic. Moreover, the chief difference between them consists in this, that the Romans divided common goods mentally, and then considered the undivided part of the thing as a separated whole, which any co-owner could alienate or burden. But the Germans did not divide common goods mentally, but continued to consider them as one whole, and therefore left to all co-owners the right of disposing of the common goods.

2. The right of administration is in the husband's hands; the right of the fruits falls to both.

Corollary I. Spouses who seize common goods for themselves alone or squander them sin against commutative justice if, with the law considered, the co-ownership is Roman or Germanic. The reason is that they violate the strict right of the other spouse. The contrary is to be said with sufficient probability if the co-ownership is of the former kind explained above, because deservedly it is doubted whether the alterity required for commutative justice is present if one person, although one is not the same as two, with another becomes one subject of rights or one owner. In a word: the matter depends on whether the two are to be regarded as a moral person or not; if the former, the required alterity is certainly had. For the rest, not only the husband, but also the wife, can subtract those things which otherwise will be squandered by the husband. This is clear if Roman or Germanic co-ownership is had, because squandering is opposed to strict justice, as we have said; and the wife can certainly forestall that injustice. If co-ownership is of the former kind explained above, the squandering to be feared is a sufficient reason for withdrawing common goods from the husband's disposition and acquiring for herself the administration of those goods (St. Alphonsus, III, 541).

Corollary II. If the husband refuses necessities or grants them with great difficulty, the wife can, even if Roman or Germanic co-ownership is had, from the common goods:

1. Give out what is necessary for suitable support of herself and the offspring, for decent adornment and suitable recreation, for alms to be given according to condition; likewise for guarding herself in the future and procuring a suitable state for the offspring, or for averting grave spiritual or temporal damage from the family. The reason is that the intimate conjunction between wife and husband, between children and parents, brings it about that common goods, if the proper good or the good of the offspring demands it, can be treated as proper goods (St. Alphonsus, III, 540, 541).

2. Spend those things by which she may consult the necessary support of her parents or of offspring received from another marriage; for what is lawful for her in order to her own advantage also seems lawful in order to the good of those who are in some way one with her; all the more because in the case the husband is also bound from piety to consult the parents and offspring of his wife (St. Alphonsus, III, 542).

II. As regards proper goods, each spouse has direct and useful ownership of them, that is, of proper goods; but to whom administration belongs is to be drawn from the law.

Corollary I. Those about to marry sin against justice, and in themselves are bound to restitution, by deceiving the other party, for example by exaggerating goods, lessening debts, and thus bringing it about that a nuptial agreement is omitted by which community of goods would be excluded wholly or in part.

Corollary II. A wife can freely dispose of those things which she has gathered by extraordinary labor or parsimony, or has saved from what was granted for food or pleasure (St. Alphonsus, III, 541).

Corollary III. If the husband refuses, or grants with great difficulty, the things which are necessary for suitable support of the wife or offspring, for decent adornment and suitable recreation, for alms to be given according to condition, for guarding the wife in the future and procuring a suitable state for the offspring, or for averting grave damage from the family, if, I say, the husband refuses these things or grants them with great difficulty, the wife, in defect of proper and common goods, can also use the husband's proper goods, because the intimate conjunction between wife and husband, between children and parents, brings it about that the proper goods of one are in some way also those of the other, so that things owed to the other spouse or to the children, if they are denied, can be seized (St. Alphonsus, III, 540-541).

In general, however, the confessor should not easily indulge the complaints of wives, lest the reins be loosened too much.