FREE BOOKS

Author's List




PREV.   NEXT  
|<   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634  
635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   >>   >|  
man has a natural dominion over things, as regards the power to make use of them. Reply Obj. 2: The rich man is reproved for deeming external things to belong to him principally, as though he had not received them from another, namely from God. Reply Obj. 3: This argument considers the dominion over external things as regards their nature. Such a dominion belongs to God alone, as stated above. _______________________ SECOND ARTICLE [II-II, Q. 66, Art. 2] Whether It Is Lawful for a Man to Possess a Thing As His Own? Objection 1: It would seem unlawful for a man to possess a thing as his own. For whatever is contrary to the natural law is unlawful. Now according to the natural law all things are common property: and the possession of property is contrary to this community of goods. Therefore it is unlawful for any man to appropriate any external thing to himself. Obj. 2: Further, Basil in expounding the words of the rich man quoted above (A. 1, Obj. 2), says: "The rich who deem as their own property the common goods they have seized upon, are like to those who by going beforehand to the play prevent others from coming, and appropriate to themselves what is intended for common use." Now it would be unlawful to prevent others from obtaining possession of common goods. Therefore it is unlawful to appropriate to oneself what belongs to the community. Obj. 3: Further, Ambrose says [*Serm. lxiv, de temp.], and his words are quoted in the Decretals [*Dist. xlvii., Can. Sicut hi.]: "Let no man call his own that which is common property": and by "common" he means external things, as is clear from the context. Therefore it seems unlawful for a man to appropriate an external thing to himself. _On the contrary,_ Augustine says (De Haeres., haer. 40): "The 'Apostolici' are those who with extreme arrogance have given themselves that name, because they do not admit into their communion persons who are married or possess anything of their own, such as both monks and clerics who in considerable number are to be found in the Catholic Church." Now the reason why these people are heretics was because severing themselves from the Church, they think that those who enjoy the use of the above things, which they themselves lack, have no hope of salvation. Therefore it is erroneous to maintain that it is unlawful for a man to possess property. _I answer that,_ Two things are competent to man in respect of exterior things. On
PREV.   NEXT  
|<   610   611   612   613   614   615   616   617   618   619   620   621   622   623   624   625   626   627   628   629   630   631   632   633   634  
635   636   637   638   639   640   641   642   643   644   645   646   647   648   649   650   651   652   653   654   655   656   657   658   659   >>   >|  



Top keywords:

things

 

unlawful

 
common
 

external

 

property

 
Therefore
 

contrary

 

dominion

 
natural
 

possess


Further

 

quoted

 

possession

 

community

 
belongs
 

Church

 

prevent

 

context

 

Augustine

 

Apostolici


Haeres

 

extreme

 

persons

 

severing

 

people

 

heretics

 

salvation

 

competent

 

respect

 
exterior

answer

 

erroneous

 

maintain

 
reason
 
communion
 
married
 

number

 

Catholic

 
considerable
 

clerics


arrogance

 
SECOND
 
ARTICLE
 
stated
 

nature

 

Possess

 
Lawful
 

Whether

 

considers

 

argument