Disputations on "Ownership and Free Use"

Leave it to Tom over atDisputations to quote Aquainas and rupture a few more of my neurons!

He considers the wisdom of that pre-eminent Doctor of the Church's counsel on property. In doing so, he reaches conclusions that may shock capitalists' ears: owners don't have an absolute right to the use of their own property. Well, Tom's interpretation of the saint's testimony fits nicely with CST's principle of the Universal Destination of Goods. Hard for those goods to reach everyone if every owner can do exactly what he pleases with them at all times. Thus, Tom observes:

In his article on whether almsgiving is a matter of precept (a precept is a law that binds under penalty of mortal sin, so following it is necessary for salvation, while a counsel is a means to a perfection greater than what is necessary for salvation), St. Thomas begins his response to the objection that, since "it is lawful for everyone to use and to keep what is his own... it is lawful not to give alms," with this:

The temporal goods which God grants us are ours as to the ownership, but as to the use of them, they belong not to us alone but also to such others as we are able to succor out of what we have over and above our needs.

So we have ownership of our goods, but not free use of them.

Isn't this just the sort of distinction that drives some people up the wall? What's the point of my saying you own something if you can't stop me from using it? It sort of sounds like one of those stories of a burglar who sues his victim because he stubbed his toe on the victim's coffee table.

Well, maybe, but he's hardly finished:

So what does ownership always imply, if not free use? "Stewardship" may be a better way of thinking about possessing temporal goods than the contemporary notion of "ownership," which would be expressed in terms of individual rights. What I own is for me, not anyone else, to dispose of, but that doesn't mean it's for me to dispose of however I want. I am, you might say, the rightful authority for determining what's to be done with what I own, but mine is not an absolute nor sovereign authority. In the case of my surplus or your need, I am bound by precept to let you use my goods (which may involve transferring ownership to you); if I fail, then under certain circumstances my ownership is forfeit and the goods are yours to take.

Why does this fit? Well, it's simpler than one might think.

Everything we have is a gift. Sure, my own hard work and ingenuity may allow me to earn a comfortable living. In that sense, what I've earned is mine. But did I earn it entirely on my own? Did every attribute of mine come strictly from me? Did what I made use of to earn that living come entirely from my hands or effort? Of course not! My gifts were just that--gifts! My talents and natural abilities were those that God bestowed upon me through the circumstances of my genetic, physiological and developmental formation. Sure, I made choices that engaged those gifts, but I had nothing to do with the potential. Likewise, the resources that I used did not all come from me. I surely didn't create all the paper of every book that developed my mind. I haven't called out of nothing all of the material that I've made some use of to achieve my success. No, I made good use of the gifts I've been given. But good use of the gifts I'm given implies stewardship, now doesn't it?

Ever heard of a steward that had absolute right of use? They're usually in the paper facing charges.

Likewise, what I own is mine, but since the means through which I came to own I owe to the Master, I'm beholden to use what I own to his end. For some strange reason, his end tends to be the Love of those who he has created. Thus, my use of my property had better contribute to his children. Otherwise, I've reneged on the deal. Then, as Tom wisely points out, they're free to take the goods that should have served them in some way in the first place.

A good example of this use is the Katrina relief blogging many of us did. We used our blogs, our computers (hopefully!;) and our internet connections in order to help raise contributions for charities that assisted survivors. We made use of our property to love our neighbor; hence, we were good steward's of our own property. We could have gone the other way. We could have said, "No." Well, then we'd be using our propertied resources simply for our own good. That misuse has a way of catching up to us sooner or later.

Absolute free marketism is as materialist as communism. Both ideologies depend only on a conception of reality as right-here-and-now. Both deny God and his presence in the world. Thus, both allow for absolutism in the distribution of property. Neither take stewardship and good use of property seriously. That's why they both fail to honor the full dignity of humanity and establish lasting justice.

That's a good reminder for those of us blessed with the material comforts that we've earned. Fools always owe the Greatest Fool for the providence they've received. Stewardship of goods lives that awareness in gratitude.

That can't be a bad thing!