Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 12.djvu/530

 PROPERTY

464

PROPERTY

works is his property, and then the question arises how he came to be the owner of the material. Sup- pose, for instance, that a number of workmen have been engaged to cultivate a vineyard; after the work is done, they may indeed claim their wages, but the products of their labour, the grapes and the wine, do not belong to them, but to the owner of the vine- yard. Then the further question may be asked: How did the owner of the vineyard acquire his prop- erty? The final answer cannot be the right to the product of his labour. There were some who asserted that the Roman law derived private property solely from the right of first occupation (Jus primi occupan- tis), as for instance Wagner (Grundlegung 1, c. §102). But they confound two things. Though the Roman jurists regarded occupation the original title of acquisition, they supposed as self-evident the right of private property and the right to acquire it.

VI. The Doctrixe of the Catholic Church. — The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor any- thing that is his) Chri.st inculcated them anew (Matt., xix, 18-19; Mark, x, 19; Rom., xiii, 9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary- theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. Thus the encyclical "Rerum novarum" expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. The right of acquiring private property has been granted by na- ture, and consequent 1\- he who would seek a solution of the social question must start, with the principle that private propertj' is to be preser^'ed inviolate (prinatas possessiones innolate servanda^). And Pius X, in his Jvlotu Proprio of IS Dec, 190.3, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catho- lics: (1) "I'nlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of owner- ship; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use"; (2) " Private prop- ert}- is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit."

VII. Economic Theory B.\sed on the N.\TrR-\i. L.4W. — The doctrine of the Church as here explained points out the right way to a philosophical justifica- tion of private property. It is derived from the nat- ural law, since the present order in general demands it for the individual as well as for the family and the community at large; hence it is a postulate of reason and everybody receives by nature the right to acquire private property. This justification of private prop- erty, which is outlined by Aristotle (Polit., 2, c. 2), may be called the "economical theorj' based on the natural law". The necessity of private ownership arises partly from the external conditions of life under which the human race actually exists, partly and especially from human nature as we know it by experience, with all its needs and faculties, inclina- tions both good and bad, which the average man re- veals at all times and in all places. This theon,- does not assert that there should be nothing else than private proijcrty, much less that there should be private property of imlividuals only. Families, pri- vate corporations, communities, and states, as well

as the Church, may own property. Its distribution is not something settled by nature uniformly and immutably for all times and circumstances, but full play is given to human liberty. Generally speaking, what is necessary- is that private property should also exist. The boundaries between private and public property may vary from age to age; but, as a rule, private ownership becomes the more necessary and the more prevalent the farther the civilization of a people progresses.

In order to gain a clear insight into the basis of property, we must carefully distinguish three things: (1) The institution of private property, i. e. the . ctual existence of private property with all its es- sential rights. In general, it is necessary that pri- vate property should exist, at least to a certain ex- tent, or, in other words, the natural law demands the existence of private property. From the necessity of private property follows immediately (2) every man's right to acquire property. The institution of private property supposes this right ; for the former cannot rightly exist unless everybody has the right to acquire private property. Nature, or rather the Author of nature, requires the institution of private property; hence He must also will the means necessary for it, namely, the right of everyone to acquire private property. This right refers to no object in particular; it is merely the general capacity of acquiring property by licit means, just as one may say that owing to the freedom of trade ever\-body has the right to engage in any legitimate business. The right to acquire property belongs to every man from the first moment of his existence; even the child of the poorest beggar has this right. (3) From the right of acquisition arises the right of owning a certain concrete object through the medium of some fact. Nobody, basing his claim on his existence alone, can say: this field or this house is mine. God did not distribute im- mediately the goods of this earth among men. He left this distribution to man's activity and to his- torical development. But since private property and consequently the acquisition of a definite object by a definite person is necessary, there must also be some facts on which such acquisition may be based. Among these facts the first in time and by nature is simple occupation. Originally the goods of this earth were without a definite owner, i. e. there was nobody who could call them his exclusive property. But since they had been given to man and since everybody had the right of acquiring property, the first men could take as much of these goods by simple occupation as seemed useful to them. Later genera- tions, too, could make their own such goods as were still without a master. As time went on and the earth was populated, its goods passed more and more into the hands of individuals, families, or whole tribes. Now in order to acquire or occupy something, the mere will to possess it as private property is not sufficient; the object must, by some exterior fact, be brought under our control and must be perma- nently marked as our own. These marks may be of various kinds and depend on custom, agreement etc.

Philosophical Explanation. — We shall prove first of all that, generally speaking, the institution of private property is necessary for human society and that it is consequently a postulate of the natural law; this established, it follows at once that the right of acquiring property is a natural right. The first reason for the necessity of pri\'ate property is the moral impossibility of any other disposition of prof)- erty. If all goods remained without a master and were common to all, so that anybody might dispose of them as he saw fit, then peace and order would be impossible and there would be no sufficient incentive to work. Who indeed would care to cultivate a field or build a house, if everj-body else were allowed to harvest the crop pr occupy the building? Con-