T
- Status
E
Ender
Guest
Included in that citation you provided was this:Since, however, there are many who are in need, while it is impossible for all to be succored by means of the same thing, each one is entrusted with the stewardship of his own things …
I believe this fits with what manualman said. It certainly fits with my interpretation of his comments. I have an obligation to assist those in need but this is my personal obligation and the needy have no right to take - or insist that the government take - from me and give to them. If I am entrusted with my own things then it is left to me manage them. The only way I can be held morally accountable for my actions is if I am left free to decide what those actions will be.
And Aquinas also said this:* Just as a private individual is praised for moderation in his bounty, and blamed for excess therein, so too ought moderation to be observed in the distribution of common goods, wherein distributive justice directs. *(ST II-II 61, 1 ad 1)
Probably because Tulley said this
De Offic. ii, 15): *“He who receives becomes worse, and the more ready to expect that he will receive again.” *Ender
T
triumphguy
Guest
Well Aquinas also did say this:
This connects closely to Matthew 25 - “lord, when did we see you naked, or imprisoned, or sick,” etc., “what you did (or didn’t do) for the least of my brethren so you did (or didn’t do) unto me.”
So there’s definitely rights and responsibilities on both sides. Ownership of property is not absolute in the face of the “manifest and urgent” need of another. In fact when the “other” is in urgent need as we eat a second helping of bread or tuck a second cloak around ourselves it is the very bread and the cloak of the poor that we use. Sounds like a type of theft to me.
This connects closely to Matthew 25 - “lord, when did we see you naked, or imprisoned, or sick,” etc., “what you did (or didn’t do) for the least of my brethren so you did (or didn’t do) unto me.”
M
markomalley
Guest
I would think that this article from the Summa is dealing with the person with a “manifest and urgent” need taking because of “some imminent danger, and there is no other possible remedy”, not talking about the government stealing property from one person for the purpose of establishing “equality.”
…38. Here, however, it is expedient to bring under special notice certain matters of moment. First of all, there is the duty of safeguarding private property by legal enactment and protection. Most of all it is essential, where the passion of greed is so strong, to keep the populace within the line of duty; for, if all may justly strive to better their condition, neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another, or, under the futile and shallow pretext of equality, to lay violent hands on other people’s possessions. Most true it is that by far the larger part of the workers prefer to better themselves by honest labor rather than by doing any wrong to others. But there are not a few who are imbued with evil principles and eager for revolutionary change, whose main purpose is to stir up disorder and incite their fellows to acts of violence. The authority of the law should intervene to put restraint upon such firebrands, to save the working classes from being led astray by their maneuvers, and to protect lawful owners from spoliation.…
Of course, none of this relieves the well-to-do of their moral obligation to perform the corporal works of mercy (Cf. Matt 25). This is an on-going responsibility for all to care about all.
Nor is it talking about the obligation of the State to intervene in the event of some catastrophe that would overwhelm the capacity of those societal elements that are more immediate (Cf. Comp. Soc. Dott., Art. 188). However, short-term emergency assistance is clearly different than a long-term program that creates its own infrastructure and bureaucracy.
T
triumphguy
Guest
“The futile and shallow pretension of equality” I agree with that - It’s not "manifest or urgent " need.
- Status