An Essay on Mediæval Economic Teaching

by George O'Brien

SECTION 2.—DUTIES REGARDING THE ACQUISITION AND USE OF PROPERTY

We referred at the end of the last section to the very important distinction which Aquinas draws between the power of procuring and dispensing[1] exterior things and the power of using them. 'The second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. In this respect man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.'[2] These words wherein St. Thomas lays down the doctrine of community of user of property were considered as authoritative by all later writers on the subject, and were universally quoted with approval by them,[3] and may therefore be taken as expressing the generally held view of the Middle Ages. They require careful explanation in order that their meaning be accurately understood.[4] Cajetan's gloss on this section of the Summa enables us to understand its significance in a broad sense, but fuller information must be derived from a study of other parts of the Summa itself. 'Note,' says Cajetan, 'that the words that community of goods in respect of use arises from the law of nature may be understood in two ways, one positively, the other negatively. And if they are understood in their positive sense they mean that the law of nature dictates that all things are common to all men; if in their negative sense, that the law of nature did not establish private ownership of possessions. And in either sense the proposition is true if correctly understood. In the first place, if they are taken in their positive sense, a man who is in a position of extreme necessity may take whatever he can find to succour himself or another in the same condition, nor is he bound in such a case to restitution, because by natural law he has but made use of his own. And in the negative sense they are equally true, because the law of nature did not institute one thing the property of one person, and another thing of another person.' The principle of community of user flows logically from the very nature of property itself as defined by Aquinas, who taught that the supreme justification of private property was that it was the most advantageous method of securing for the community the benefits of material riches. While the owner of property has therefore an absolute right to the goods he possesses, he must at the same time remember that this right is established primarily on his power to benefit his neighbour by his proper use of it. The best evidence of the correctness of this statement is the fact that the scholastics admitted that, if the owner of property was withholding it from the community, or from any member of the community who had a real need of it, he could be forced to apply it to its proper end. If the community could pay for it, it was bound to do so; but if the necessitous person could not pay for it, he was none the less entitled to take it. The former of these cases was illustrated by the principle of the dominium eminens of the State; and the latter by the principle that the giving of alms to a person in real need was a duty not of charity, but of justice.[5] We shall see in a moment that the most usual application of the principle enunciated by Aquinas was in the case of one person's extreme necessity which required almsgiving from another's superfluity, but, even short of such cases, there were rules of conduct in respect of the user of property on all occasions which were of extreme importance in the economic life of the time.

[Footnote 1: Goyau insists on the importance of the words 'procure' and 'dispense.' 'Dont le premier éveille l'idée d'une constante sollicitude, et dont le second évoque l'image d'une générosité sympathetique' (Autaur du Catholicisme Sociale, vol. ii. p. 93).]

[Footnote 2: II. ii. 66, 2. In another part of the Summa the same distinction is clearly laid down. 'Bona temporalia quae* homini divinitus conferuntur, ejus quidem sunt quantum ad proprietatem; sed quantum ad usum non solum desent esse ejus, sed aliorum qui en eis sustentari possunt en eo quod ei superfluit,' II. ii. 32, 6, ad 2.]

[Footnote 3: Janssen, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 91.]

[Footnote 4: The Abbé Calippe summarises St. Thomas's doctrine as follows: 'Le droit de propriété est un droit réel; mais ce n'est pas un droit illimité, les propriétaires ont des devoirs; ils ont des devoirs parce que Dieu qui a créé la terre ne l'a pas créée pour eux seuls, mais pour tous' (Semaine Sociale de France, 1909, p. 123). According to Antoninus of Florence, goods could be evilly acquired, evilly distributed, or evilly consumed (Irish Theological Quarterly, vol. vii. p. 146).]

[Footnote 5: On the application of this principle by the popes in the thirteenth and fifteenth centuries in the case of their own estates, see Ardant, Papes et Paysans, a work which must be read with a certain degree of caution (Nitti, Catholic Socialism, p. 290).]

These principles for the guidance of the owner of property are not collected under any single heading in the Summa, but must be gathered from the various sections dealing with man's duty to his fellow-men and to himself. One leading virtue which was inculcated with great emphasis by Aquinas was that of temperance. 'All pleasurable things which come within the use of man,' we read in the section dealing with this subject, 'are ordered to some necessity of this life as an end. And therefore temperance accepts the necessity of this life as a rule or measure of the things one uses, so that, to wit, they should be used according as the necessity of this life requires.'[1] St. Thomas explains, moreover, that 'necessary' must be taken in the broad sense of suitable to one's condition of life, and not merely necessary to maintain existence.[2] The principles of temperance did not apply in any special way to the user of property more than to the enjoyment of any other good;[3] but they are relevant as laying down the broad test of right and wrong in the user of one's goods.

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 141, 5.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 2. As Buridan puts it (Eth., iv. 4), 'If any man has more than is necessary for his own requirements, and does not give away anything to the poor, and to his relations and neighbours, he is acting against right reason.']

[Footnote 1: 'Rationalis creaturae* vera perfectio est unamquamque rem tanti habere quanti habenda est, sicut pluris est anima quam esca; fides et aequitas* quam pecunia' (Gerson, De. Cont.).]

More particularly relevant to the subject before us is the teaching of Aquinas on liberality, which is a virtue directly connected with the user of property. Aquinas defines liberality as 'a virtue by which men use well all those exterior things which are given to us for sustenance.'[1] The limitations within which liberality should be practised are stated in the same article: 'As St. Basil and St. Ambrose say, God has given to many a superabundance of riches, in order that they might gain merit by their dispensing them well. Few things, however, suffice for one man; and therefore the liberal man will advantageously expend more on others than on himself. In the spiritual sphere a man must always care for himself before his neighbours; and also in temporal things liberality does not demand that a man should think of others to the exclusion of himself and those dependent on him.'[2]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, 1.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 1.]

'It is not necessary for liberality that one should give away so much of one's riches that not enough remains to sustain himself and to enable him to perform works of virtue. This complete giving away without reserve belongs to the state of the perfection of spiritual life, of which we shall treat lower down; but it must be known that to give one's goods liberally is an act of virtue which itself produces happiness.'[1] The author proceeds to discuss whether making use of money might be an act of liberality, and replies that 'as money is by its very nature to be classed among useful goods, because all exterior things are destined for the use of man, therefore the proper act of liberality is the good use of money and other riches.'[2] Moreover, 'it belongs to a virtuous man not simply to use well the goods which form the matter of his actions, but also to prepare the means and the occasions to use them well; thus the brave soldier sharpens his blade and keeps it in the scabbard, as well as exercising it on the enemy; in like manner, the liberal man should prepare and reserve his riches for a suitable use.'[3] It appears from this that to save part of one's annual income to provide against emergencies in the future, either by means of insurance or by investing in productive enterprises, is an act of liberality.

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, ad. 2.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 3.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., ad. 2. 'Potest concludi quod accipere et custodire modificata sunt acta liberalitatis…. Major per hoc probatur quod dantem multotiens et consumentem, nihil autem accipientem et custodientem cito derelinqueret substantia temporalis; et ita perirent omnis ejus actus quia non habent amplius quid dare et consumere…. Hic autem acceptio et custodia sic modificari debet. Primo quidem oportet ut non sit injusta; secundo quod non sit de cupiditate vel avaritia suspecta propter excessum; tertio quod non permittat labi substantiam propter defectum … Dare quando oportet et custodire quando oportet dare contrariantur; sed dare quando oportet et custodire quando oportet non contrariantur' (Buridan, Eth., iv. 2).]

The question is then discussed whether liberality is a part of justice. Aquinas concludes 'that liberality is not a species of justice, because justice renders to another what is his, but liberality gives him what is the giver's own. Still, it has a certain agreement with justice in two points; first that it is to another, as justice also is; secondly, that it is about exterior things like justice, though in another way. And therefore liberality is laid down by some to be a part of justice as a virtue annexed to justice as an accessory to a principal.'[1] Again, 'although liberality supposes not any legal debt as justice does, still it supposes a certain moral debt considering what is becoming in the person himself who practises the virtue, not as though he had any obligation to the other party; and therefore there is about it very little of the character of a debt.'[2]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 117, art. 5.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 1.]

It is important to draw attention to the fact that liberalitas consists in making a good use of property, and not merely in distributing it to others, as a confusion with the English word 'liberality' might lead us to believe. It is, as we said above, therefore certain that a wise and prudent saving of money for investment would be considered a course of conduct within the meaning of the word liberalitas, especially if the enterprise in which the money were invested were one which would benefit the community as a whole. 'Modern industrial conditions demand that a man of wealth should distribute a part of his goods indirectly—that is, by investing them in productive and labour-employing enterprises.'[1]

[Footnote 1: Ryan, The Alleged Socialism of the Church Fathers, p. 20, and see Goyau, Le Pape et la Question Sociale, p. 79.]

The nature of the virtue of liberalitas may be more clearly understood by an explanation of the vices which stand opposed to it. The first of these treated by Aquinas is avarice, which he defines as 'superfluus amor habendi divitias.' Avarice might be committed in two ways—by harbouring an undue desire of acquiring wealth, or by an undue reluctance to part with it—'primo autem superabundant in retinendo … secundo ad avaritiam pertinet superabundare in accipiendo.'[1] These definitions are amplified in another part of the same section. 'For in every action that is directed to the attainment of some end goodness consists in the observance of a certain measure. The means to the end must be commensurate with the end, as medicine with health. But exterior goods have the character of things needful to an end. Hence human goodness in the matter of these goods must consist in the observance of a certain measure, as is done by a man seeking to have exterior riches in so far as they are necessary to his life according to his rank and condition. And therefore sin consists in exceeding this measure and trying to acquire or retain riches beyond the due limit; and this is the proper nature of avarice, which is defined to be an immoderate love of having.'[2] 'Avarice may involve immoderation regarding exterior things in two ways; in one way immediately as to the receiving or keeping of them when one acquires or keeps beyond the due amount; and in this respect it is directly a sin against one's neighbour, because in exterior things one man cannot have superabundance without another being in want, since temporal goods cannot be simultaneously possessed by many. The other way in which avarice may involve immoderation is in interior affection….' These words must not be taken to condemn the acquisition of large fortunes by capitalists, which is very often necessary in order that the natural resources of a country may be properly exploited. One man's possession of great wealth is at the present day frequently the means of opening up new sources of wealth and revenue to the entire community. In other words, superabundance is a relative term. This, like many other passages of St. Thomas, must be given a contemporanea expositio. 'There were no capitalists in the thirteenth century, but only hoarders.'[3]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 118, 4.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3: Rickaby, Aquinas Ethicus, vol. ii. p. 234.]

It must also be remembered that what would be considered avarice in a man in one station of life would not be considered such in a man in another. So long as one did not attempt to acquire an amount of wealth disproportionate to the needs of one's station of life, one could not be considered avaricious. Thus a common soldier would be avaricious if he strove to obtain a uniform of the quality worn by an officer, and a simple cleric if he attempted to clothe himself in a style only befitting a bishop.[1]

[Footnote 1: Aquinas, In Orat. Dom. Expos., iv. Ashley gives many quotations from early English literature to show how fully the idea of status was accepted (Economic History, vol. i. pt. ii. p. 389). On the warfare waged by the Church on luxury in the Middle Ages, see Baudrillard, Histoire du Luxe privé et publique, vol. iii. pp. 630 et seq.]

The avaricious man offended against liberality by caring too much about riches; the prodigal, on the other hand, cared too little about them, and did not attach to them their proper value. 'In affection while the prodigal falls short, not taking due care of them, in exterior behaviour it belongs to the prodigal to exceed in giving, but to fail in keeping or acquiring, while it belongs to the miser to come short in giving, but to superabound in getting and in keeping. Therefore it is clear that prodigality is the opposite of covetousness.'[1] A man, however, might commit both sins at the same time, by being unduly anxious to acquire wealth which he distributed prodigally.[2] Prodigality could always be distinguished from extreme liberality by a consideration of the circumstances of the particular case; a truly liberal man might give away more than a prodigal in case of necessity.[3] Prodigality, though a sin, was a sin of a less grievous kind than avarice.[4]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 119, 1.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 1.]

[Footnote 3: Ibid., ad. 3.]

[Footnote 4: Ibid., art. 3. 'Per prodigalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis præter vel contra dictamen rectae rationis circa pecunias excedit in datione vel consumptione vel custodia; et per illiberalitatem intelligimus habitum quo quis contra dietamen rectae rationis deficit circa pecunias in datione vel consumptione, vel superabundat in acceptione vel custodia ipsarum' (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).]

In addition to the duties which were imposed on the owners of property in all circumstances there was a further duty which only arose on special occasions, namely, magnificentia, or munificence. This virtue is discussed by Aquinas[1], but we shall quote the passages of Buridan which explain it, not because they depart in any way from the teaching of Aquinas, but because they are clearer and more scientific. 'By munificence, we understand a habit inclining one to the performance of great works, or to the incurring of great expenses, when, where, and in the manner in which they are called for (fuerit opportunum), for example, building a church, assembling great armies for a threatened war, and giving splendid marriage feasts.' He explains that 'munificence stands in the same relation to liberality as bravery acquired by its exercise in danger of death in battle does to bravery simply and commonly understood.' Two vices stand opposed to munificentia: (1) parvificentia, 'a habit inclining one not to undertake great works, when circumstances call for them, or to undertaking less, or at less expense, than the needs of the situation demand,' and (2) ([Greek: banousia],) 'a habit inclining one to undertaking great works, which are not called for by circumstances, or undertaking them on a greater scale or at a greater expense than is necessary[2].'

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 134.]

[Footnote 2: Eth., iv. 7.]

Both in the case of avarice and prodigality the offending state of mind consisted in attaching a wrong value to wealth, and the inculcation of the virtue of liberality must have been attended with good results not alone to the souls of individuals, but to the economic condition of the community. The avaricious man not only imperilled his own soul by attaching too much importance to temporal gain, but he also injured the community by monopolising too large a share of its wealth; the prodigal man, in addition to incurring the occasion of various sins of intemperance, also impoverished the community by wasting in reckless consumption wealth which might have been devoted to productive or charitable purposes. He who neglected the duty of munificence, either by refusing to make a great expenditure when it was called for (parvificentia) or by making one when it was unnecessary ([Greek: banousia]) was also deemed to have done wrong, because in the one case he valued his money too highly, and in the other not highly enough. In other words, he attached a wrong value to wealth. Nothing could be further from the truth than the suggestion that the schoolmen despised or belittled temporal riches. Quite on the contrary, they esteemed it a sin to conduct oneself in a manner which showed a defective appreciation of their value[1]. Riches may have been the occasion of sin; but so was poverty. 'The occasions of sin are to be avoided,' says Aquinas, 'but poverty is an occasion of evil, because theft, perjury, and flattery are frequently brought about by it.

[Footnote 1: 'Non videtur secundum humanam rationem esse boni et perfecti divitias abjicere totaliter, sed eis uti bene et reficiendo superfluas pauperibus subvenire et amicis' (Buridan, Eth., iv. 3).]

Therefore poverty should not be voluntarily undertaken, but rather avoided.'[1] Buridan says: 'There is no doubt that it is much more difficult to be virtuous in a state of poverty than in one of moderate affluence;'[2] and Antoninus of Florence expresses the opinion that poverty is in itself an evil thing, although out of it good may come.[3] Even the ambition to rise in the world was laudable, because every one may rightfully desire to place himself and his dependants in a participation of the fullest human felicity of which man is capable, and to rid himself of the necessity of corporal labour.[4] Avarice and prodigality alike offended against liberality, because they tended to deprive the community of the maximum benefit which it should derive from the wealth with which it was endowed. Dr. Cunningham may be quoted in support of this view. 'One of the gravest defects of the Roman Empire lay in the fact that its system left little scope for individual aims, and tended to check the energy of capitalists and labourers alike. But Christian teaching opened up an unending prospect before the individual personally, and encouraged him to activity and diligence by an eternal hope. Nor did such concentration of thought on a life beyond the grave necessarily divert attention from secular duties; Christianity did not disparage them, but set them in a new light, and brought out new motives for taking them seriously…. The acceptance of this higher view of the dignity of human life as immortal was followed by a fuller recognition of personal responsibility. Ancient philosophy had seen that man is the master of material things; but Christianity introduced a new sense of duty in regard to the manner of using them…. Christian teachers were forced to protest against any employment of wealth that disregarded the glory of God and the good of man.'[5] It was the opinion of Knies that the peculiarly Christian virtues were of profound economic value. 'Temperance, thrift, and industry—that is to say, the sun and rain of economic activity—-were recommended by the Church and inculcated as Christian virtues; idleness as the mother of theft, gambling as the occasion of fraud, were forbidden; and gain for its own sake was classed as a kind of robbery[6].'

[Footnote 1: Summa cont. Gent., iii. 131.]

[Footnote 2: Eth., iv. 3.]

[Footnote 3: Summa, iv. 12, 3.]

[Footnote 4: Cajetan, Comm. on II. ii. 118, 1.]

[Footnote 5: Western Civilisation, vol. ii. pp. 8-9.]

[Footnote 6: Politische Oekonomie vom Standpuncte der geschichtlichen Methode, p. 116, and see Rambaud, Histoire, p. 759; Champagny, La Bible et l'Economie politique; Thomas Aquinas, Summa, II. ii. 50, 3; Sertillanges, Socialisme et Christianisme, p. 53. It was nevertheless recognised and insisted on that wealth was not an end in itself, but merely a means to an end (Aquinas, Summa, I. ii. 2, 1).]

The great rule, then, with regard to the user of property was liberality. Closely allied with the duty of liberality was the duty of almsgiving—'an act of charity through the medium of money.'[1] Almsgiving is not itself a part of liberality except in so far as liberality removes an obstacle to such acts, which may arise from excessive love of riches, the result of which is that one clings to them more than one ought[2]. Aquinas divides alms-deeds into two kinds, spiritual and corporal, the latter alone of which concern us here. 'Corporal need arises either during this life or afterwards. If it occurs during this life, it is either a common need in respect of things needed by all, or is a special need occurring through some accident supervening. In the first case the need is either internal or external. Internal need is twofold: one which is relieved by solid food, viz. hunger, in respect of which we have to feed the hungry; while the other is relieved by liquid food, viz. thirst, in respect of which we have to give drink to the thirsty. The common need with regard to external help is twofold: one in respect of clothing, and as to this we have to clothe the naked; while the other is in respect of a dwelling-place, and as to this we have to harbour the harbourless. Again, if the need be special, it is either the result of an internal cause like sickness, and then we have to visit the sick, or it results from an external cause, and then we have to ransom the captive. After this life we give burial to the dead.[3] Aquinas then proceeds to explain in what circumstances the duty of almsgiving arises. 'Almsgiving is a matter of precept. Since, however, precepts are about acts of virtue, it follows that all almsgiving must be a matter of precept in so far as it is necessary to virtue, namely, in so far as it is demanded by right reason. Now right reason demands that we should take into consideration something on the part of the giver, and something on the part of the recipient. On the part of the giver it must be noted that he must give of his surplus according to Luke xi. 4, "That which remaineth give alms." This surplus is to be taken in reference not only to the giver, but also in reference to those of whom he has charge (in which case we have the expression necessary to the person, taking the word person as expressive of dignity)…. On the part of the recipient it is necessary that he should be in need, else there would be no reason for giving him alms; yet since it is not possible for one individual to relieve the needs of all, we are not bound to relieve all who are in need, but only those who could not be succoured if we did not succour them. For in such cases the words of Ambrose apply, "Feed him that is dying of hunger; if thou hast not fed him thou hast slain him." Accordingly we are bound to give alms of our surplus, as also to give alms to one whose need is extreme; otherwise almsgiving, like any other greater good, is a matter of counsel.'[4] In replying to the objection that it is lawful for every one to keep what is his own, St. Thomas restates with emphasis the principle of community of user: 'The temporal goods which are given us by God 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 succour out of what we have over and above our needs.'[5] Albertus Magnus states this in very strong words: 'For a man to give out of his superfluities is a mere act of justice, because he is rather then steward of them for the poor than the owner;'[6] and at an earlier date St. Peter Damian had affirmed that 'he who gives to the poor returns what he does not himself own, and does not dispose of his own goods.' He insists in the same passage that almsgiving is not an act of mercy, but of strict justice.[7] In the reply to another objection the duty of almsgiving is stated by Aquinas with additional vigour. 'There is a time when we sin mortally if we omit to give alms—on the part of the recipient when we see that his need is evident and urgent, and that he is not likely to be succoured otherwise—on the part of the giver when he has superfluous goods, which he does not need for the time being, so far as he can judge with probability.'[8]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 1.]

[Footnote 2: Ibid., ad. 4.]

[Footnote 3: II. ii. 32, art. 2.]

[Footnote 4: II. ii. 32, art. 5.]

[Footnote 5: Ibid., ad. 2.]

[Footnote 6: Jarrett, Mediæval Socialism, p. 87.]

[Footnote 7: De Eleemosynis, cap. 1.]

[Footnote 8: II. ii. 32, 5, ad. 3.]

The next question which St. Thomas discusses is whether one ought to give alms out of what one needs. He distinguishes between two kinds of 'necessaries.' The first is that without which existence is impossible, out of which kind of necessary things one is not bound to give alms save in exceptional cases, when, by doing so, one would be helping a great personage or supporting the Church or the State, since 'the common good is to be preferred to one's own.' The second kind of necessaries are those things without which a man cannot live in keeping with his social station. St. Thomas recommends the giving of alms out of this part of one's estate, but points out that it is only a matter of counsel, and not of precept, and one must not give alms to such an extent as to impoverish oneself permanently. To this last provision, however, there are three exceptions: one, when a man is entering religion and giving away all his goods; two, when he can easily replace what he gives away; and, three, when he is in presence of great indigence on the part of an individual, or great need on the part of the common weal. In these three cases it is praiseworthy for a man to forgo the requisites of his station in order to provide for a greater need.[1]

[Footnote 1: II. ii. 32, 6.]

The mediæval teaching on almsgiving is very well summarised by Fr. Jarrett,[1] as follows: '(1) A man is obliged to help another in his extreme need even at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (2) a man is obliged to help another who, though not in extreme need, is yet in considerable distress, but not at the risk of grave inconvenience to himself; (3) a man is not obliged to help another when necessity is slight, even though the risk to himself should be quite trifling.'

[Footnote 1: Mediæval Socialism, p. 90.]

The importance of the duty of almsgiving further appears from the section where Aquinas lays down that the person to whom alms should have been given may, if the owner of the goods neglects his duty, repair the omission himself. 'All things are common property in a case of extreme necessity. Hence one who is in dire straits may take another's goods in order to succour himself if he can find no one who is willing to give him something.'[1] The duty of using one's goods for the benefit of one's neighbours was a fit matter for enforcement by the State, provided that the burdens imposed by legislation were equitable. 'Laws are said to be just, both from the end, when, to wit, they are ordained to the common good—and from their author, that is to say, when the law that is made does not exceed the power of the law-giver—and from their form, when, to wit, burdens are laid on the subjects according to an equality of proportion and with a view to the common good. For, since every man is part of the community, each man in all that he is and has belongs to the community: just as a part in all that it is belongs to the whole; wherefore nature inflicts a loss on the part in order to save the whole; so that on this account such laws, which impose proportionate burdens, are just and binding in conscience.'[2]

[Footnote 1: Ibid., art. 7 ad. 3.]

[Footnote 2: I. ii. 96,4.]

There can be no doubt that the practice of the scholastic teaching of community of user, in its proper sense, made for social stability. The following passage from Trithemius, written at the end of the fifteenth century, is interesting as showing how consistently the doctrine of St. Thomas was adhered to two hundred years after his death, and also that the failure of the rich to put into practice the moderate communism of St. Thomas was the cause of the rise of the heretical communists, who attacked the very foundations of property itself: 'Let the rich remember that their possessions have not been entrusted to them in order that they may have the sole enjoyment of them, but that they may use and manage them as property belonging to mankind at large. Let them remember that when they give to the needy they only give them what belongs to them. If the duty of right use and management of property, whether worldly or spiritual, is neglected, if the rich think that they are the sole lords and masters of that which they possess, and do not treat the needy as their brethren, there must of necessity arise an inner shattering of the commonwealth. False teachers and deceivers of the people will then gain influence, as has happened in Bohemia, by preaching to the people that earthly property should be equally distributed among all, and that the rich must be forcibly condemned to the division of their wealth. Then follow lamentable conditions and civil wars; no property is spared; no right of ownership is any longer recognised; and the wealthy may then with justice complain of the loss of possessions which have been unrighteously taken from them; but they should also seriously ask themselves the question whether in the days of peace and order they recognised in the administration of these goods the right of their superior lord and owner, namely, the God of all the earth.'[1]

[Footnote 1: Quoted in Janssen, op. cit., vol. ii. p. 91.]

It must not, however, be imagined for a moment that the community of user advocated by the scholastics had anything in common with the communism recommended by modern Socialists. As we have seen above, the scholastic communism did not at all apply to the procuring and dispensing of material things, but only to the mode of using them. It is not even correct to say that the property of an individual was limited by the duty of using it for the common good. As Rambaud puts it: 'Les devoirs de charité, d'équité naturelle, et de simple convenance sociale peuvent affecter, ou mieux encore, commander un certain usage de la richesse; mais ce n'est pas le même chose que limiter la propriété.'[1] The community of user of the scholastics was distinguished from that of modern Socialists not less strongly by the motives which inspired it than by the effect it produced. The former was dictated by high spiritual aims, and the contempt of material goods; the latter is the fruit of over-attachment to material goods, and the envy of their possessors.[2]

[Footnote 1: Op. cit., p. 43. The same writer shows that there is no authority in Christian teaching for the proposition, advanced by many Christian Socialists, that property is a 'social function' (ibid., p. 774). The right of property even carried with it the jus abutendi, which, however, did not mean the right to abuse, but the right to destroy by consumption (see Antoine, Cours d'Economie sociale, p. 526).]

[Footnote 2: Roscher, op. cit., p. 5: 'Vom neuern Socialismus freilich unterscheidet sich diese Auffassung nicht blosz durch ihre religiöse Grundlage, sondern auch durch ihre, jedem Mammonsdienst entgegengesetze, Verachtung der materiellen Güter.']

The large estates which the Church itself owned have frequently been pointed to as evidence of hypocrisy in its attitude towards the common user of property. This is not the place to inquire into the condition of ecclesiastical estates in the Middle Ages, but it is sufficient to say that they were usually the centres of charity, and that in the opinion of so impartial a writer as Roscher, they rather tended to make the rules of using goods for the common use practicable than the contrary.[1]

[Footnote 1: Roscher, op. cit., p. 6.]