Annotation CXLVIII

”I will gather together all things that are grown to me, and my goods, etc.” — Luke 12:18

Whether it is lawful for a Christian to have anything of his own.

Basil, in the sermon On the Rich Man whose field brought forth abundant fruits, is thought to hold that it is lawful for no one to possess any thing as his own. For he uses such words as these: “‘To whom,’ [says] the rich man, ‘do I do injury, if I retain and keep what is mine?’ Tell me, what [things are] ‘thine’? Whence, having received [them], didst thou bring [them] into life? Just as if someone, in a theater, the place for spectating being [already] occupied, should then forbid [others] entering — judging that to be his own property which is set forth in common for the use of all: such are the rich. For, seizing beforehand the common [goods], they make them their own by anticipation, and think them to be theirs. Whereas, if each one, taking what [suffices] for the solace of his own need, would leave to the needy what is superfluous, no one would be rich, no one poor. Didst thou not fall naked from the womb? shalt thou not return naked again into the earth? But whence are the present [things] thine? If thou sayest [they came] by spontaneous chance: thou art impious, not acknowledging the Creator. But if thou confessest [they are] from God: tell us the reason for which thou hast received [them]. Is God unjust, who distributed to us unequally the things necessary for life? Why art thou rich, but that one needy?” And below: “Art thou not a plunderer? — thou who makest thine own those [things] which thou hast received to be dispensed? It is the bread of the hungry which thou withholdest; it is the cloak of the naked which thou keepest in [thy] wardrobe; it is the silver of the needy which thou hast buried. Wherefore thou doest injury to as many men as thou couldst give to,” etc.

Ambrose, the translator of Basil, in the eighty-first sermon published on this passage, subscribes to Basil’s opinion with these words: “‘What is unjust,’ thou sayest, ‘if — since I do not invade another’s [goods] — I keep my own more diligently?’ O shameless saying! Thou callest [them] ‘thine own.’ What [things]? From what hidden stores didst thou bring [them] into this world? When thou didst enter this light, when thou camest forth from the mother’s womb — with what resources, I ask, and with what supplies begirt, didst thou enter? Learn thy coming into this world from the Apostle Paul, saying:¹ ‘For we brought nothing into the world; nor indeed can we take anything away. But having food and clothing, let us be content with these.’ The earth was given in common to all men; let no one call ‘his own’ that which, taken from the common [store] beyond what would suffice, has been violently gotten.” And a little after: “Is God unjust, in not distributing to us equally the supports of life — that thou shouldst be affluent and abounding, but to these it should be lacking, and they be in want? It is the bread of the hungry which thou withholdest; it is the clothing of the naked which thou lockest away; the redemption and release of the wretched is the money which thou buriest in the earth. Know, therefore, that thou seizest as many goods as thou couldst bestow, as many as thou wilt.”

These passages of Basil and Ambrose are to be prudently inspected, lest we slip into the error of the Apostolics: concerning whom Augustine, in the book On Heresies, to Quodvultdeus, chapter 40, relates these [things] from the second book of Epiphanius Against Heresies: “The Apostolics, who most arrogantly called themselves by this name, because they did not receive into their communion [those] using marriage and possessing things of their own — such as the Catholic Church has, and very many monks and clerics. But these are heretics for this [reason]: that, separating themselves from the Church, they think that those have no hope who use these things which they themselves lack. These are like the Encratites: for they are also called Apotactites — that is, ‘extraordinary,’ or ‘renouncers.’”

St. Thomas, in the Secunda Secundae, question 66, articles 1 and 2, sifting the sayings of both authors, says that the right of possessing things of one’s own can signify two [things], among others. First, indeed, the power of procuring and dispensing external goods delivered to one by God; in which manner it is certainly lawful for each to possess things of his own; nor do the aforesaid opinions of the fathers disapprove the possession of this kind of property. Secondly, [it can signify] a certain peculiar and singular use of a thing, assigned to its possessor alone; by which arrangement it is lawful for no one to possess external things as though proper to himself alone. And this is what Basil and Ambrose chiefly condemn in the rich, who — spending nothing on the needy — draw all things into their own uses. But it is worth here subscribing the words of Thomas himself, since they have something more than I have expressed: “To the second argument, from Basil, it must be said that he who, coming beforehand to the spectacles, seized a place before others, would not act unlawfully; but he acts unlawfully in this — that he forbids others. And similarly the rich man does not act unlawfully if, seizing beforehand the possession of a thing which from the beginning was common, he also shares [it] with others; but he sins if he indiscriminately forbids others from the use of that thing. Whence Basil says in the same place: Why art thou rich, but that one begs — unless that thou mightest obtain the merits of good stewardship, and he be crowned with the rewards of patience? To the third it must be said that when Ambrose says, ‘Let no one call his own that which is common,’ he speaks of property as regards use. Whence he adds: ‘Taken beyond what would suffice, it has been violently gotten.’”