History of "Universal Destination of Goods"

  • Thread starter Thread starter Loud-living-dogma
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
L

Loud-living-dogma

Guest
Does anyone here know a history of the term “Universal Destination of Goods”? At what point was it introduced as part of the Catechism, was there an older term for this? Was it in an older version of the Catechism?
Thanks for any help!
 
The concept goes way back. Aquinas argues that since the natural destination of goods is the provision of human needs, it is not theft to take them, because natural law overrides positive law. He quotes Ambrose on the subject (As does Pope Paul VI in his encyclical). Ambrose essentially says anyone who holds on to goods when others are in need is a thief, since they belong to all who need them.
 
Thanks - - that was helpful.
I am reading that in this summary of Aquinas and the Summa.
However, it does not seem to have this exact title “the universal destination of goods”. That phrase is not, for example, in the newadvent.org encyclopedia.

Any knowledge of when it became called that? (“universal destination of goods”)

"66. Theft and Robbery
  1. External goods can be lawfully owned by a person. Man has a natural need for such things, and for their use,and thus he has a natural right to acquire dominion over them.
  2. Since man has a natural need to procure, to dispense,and to use material goods, it is lawful for him to possess suchgoods as his own. But in the use of such goods, man must be willingto give or share, according to reason and justice, to a neighbor inneed.
  3. Theft is the secret and unlawful taking ofwhat belongs to another.
  4. Robbery differs specifically from theft, forit is the open and forceful taking of another’s goods.
  5. Theft is a sin directly contrary to the divinecommandment, “Thoushalt not steal.” Theft isopposed to justice directly, and also by the fact that it involvesguile or fraud.
  6. Theft, in its kind or genus, is a grave sin,for it opposes commutative justice and also opposes charity whichis the spiritual life of the soul. For charity imposes the duty ofloving one’s neighbor, and theft is injury to one’sneighbor. Yet the full and grave nature of theft as sin is notfound in the taking of trifling things, unless, indeed, the thiefintends serious injury by his stealing. Small thievingsare, in themselves, venial sins.
  7. When a person is in extreme need of material things,and there is no way of emerging from his extremity but by takingwhat belongs to another, the surplus which anotherpossesses becomes common property, and the taker is not guilty oftheft. Thus a starving man, or one whose dependents are starving,may take, openly or secretly, the food that will save human life.This, of course, is on condition that the taker of the food has noother means of getting it, and that he does not leave the personfrom whom he takes the food in as desperate a situation as hisown.
  8. Robbery involves two offenses against both justice andcharity, namely, the taking of goods unlawfully, and the inflictingof violence or coercion on the victim. Robbery is, therefore,always sinful. When public authority forcefully takes overproperty, either as lawful penalty, or for use in an emergency suchas war or public calamity, there is no robbery in the act.
    "
  9. It seems that robbery is a more grievous wrong than theft. It takes a man’s goods and adds injury or ignominy tohis person. Thus, it is more noticeably oppressive to a man than theft with its sly guile or fraud.
    Tour of the Summa | Precis of the Summa Theologica of St Thomas Aquinas | Msgr P Glenn
 
In his book “The Art of Dying Well” St. Robert Bellarmine quotes Pope St. Gregory the Great (6th century) on this point:
And St. Gregory, in the third part of his Pastoral Care: “Those are to be admonished, who, whilst they desire not the goods of others, do not distribute their own; that so they may carefully remember, that as the common origin of all men is from the earth, so also its produce is common to them all: in vain, then, they think themselves innocent, who appropriate to themselves the common gifts of God.”
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top