Universal Destination of Goods and Theft in Necessity

[Lazerlike42]

I need someone who really understands this to help me out, here.

In regards to the need of necessity, the CCC explains,

2408 The seventh commandment forbids theft, that is, usurping another’s property against the reasonable will of the owner. There is no theft if consent can be presumed or if refusal is contrary to reason and the universal destination of goods. This is the case in obvious and urgent necessity when the only way to provide for immediate, essential needs (food, shelter, clothing . . .) is to put at one’s disposal and use the property of others.190

In the Summa, Aquinas presents the objection and response as follows:

Objection 1. It would seem unlawful to steal through stress of need. For penance is not imposed except on one who has sinned. Now it is stated (Extra, De furtis, Cap. Si quis): “If anyone, through stress of hunger or nakedness, steal food, clothing or beast, he shall do penance for three weeks.” Therefore it is not lawful to steal through stress of need.

**Reply to Objection 1. **This decretal considers cases where there is no urgent need.

• II-II 66-7 newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm

Now in the case of Aquinas, he seems to reject the conception that merely need - even the stress of need - is insufficient to warrant taking that which belongs to another. He requires urgency.

The Catechism alludes to this urgency, but then lists situations in which it would seem that no urgency exists. Merely being without food is not urgent. Being without food for a week would be an urgent necessity. Is there a conflict here?

Another question lies in when the necessity becomes urgent. The Catechism speaks of taking another’s property as being acceptable when it is the “only way” to meet a need. Taking food as an example, how can taking property ever be the “only way?” Begging always exists as an option. When can we say that taking another’s property is the only option?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

I am not sure I understand your question. Let’s try this: A fat man has not eaten for 24 hrs, he is terribly hungry. He has no money or food and little to trade. He crosses private property ignoring signs not to trespass and harvests some fruit which he knows belongs to others to satisfy his hunger. He has sinned because his “stress of hungry” is winning against his weak will. Later he finds a man who has been accidentally and severely cut, thus he goes into a store and tells the owner he will take medical supplies to the injured man. Whether the owners agrees or disagree there is no sin because the “urgent” need for medical treatment is part of the “universal destination of goods” which means the medical supplies were developed for the medical needs which now exist. If the store owner fails to cooperate the owners does not have authority to override the universal destination of goods.

Another example is the care of infant ( born or not ) with terminal conditions. The doctors, hospital, nurses, are obligated to provide all available treatment regardless of the financial condition. Again the “universal destination of goods” means the doctors, hospitals, nurses etc exist and were developed for these services. Whether money is available or not has no bearing on sin. Urgent life threatening services can not be stolen

I hope that helps, I do not see a contradict in the eariler post.

 

[Genesis315]

I need someone who really understands this to help me out, here.

In regards to the need of necessity, the CCC explains,

In the Summa, Aquinas presents the objection and response as follows:

• II-II 66-7 newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm

Now in the case of Aquinas, he seems to reject the conception that merely need - even the stress of need - is insufficient to warrant taking that which belongs to another. He requires urgency.

The Catechism alludes to this urgency, but then lists situations in which it would seem that no urgency exists. Merely being without food is not urgent. Being without food for a week would be an urgent necessity. Is there a conflict here?

Another question lies in when the necessity becomes urgent. The Catechism speaks of taking another’s property as being acceptable when it is the “only way” to meet a need. Taking food as an example, how can taking property ever be the “only way?” Begging always exists as an option. When can we say that taking another’s property is the only option?

They’re saying the same thing, just using different terms. Necessity and urgency are the same (I would even say urgency is a more liberal application of the principle (not to be read with all the modern negative connotations of the word “liberal.”)). Sometimes there is only one way–ie if no one gave you anything when you begged and there was no one else for many miles away.

 

[chevalier]

Now in the case of Aquinas, he seems to reject the conception that merely need - even the stress of need - is insufficient to warrant taking that which belongs to another. He requires urgency.

Yes.

The Catechism alludes to this urgency, but then lists situations in which it would seem that no urgency exists. Merely being without food is not urgent. Being without food for a week would be an urgent necessity. Is there a conflict here?

No.

Another question lies in when the necessity becomes urgent. The Catechism speaks of taking another’s property as being acceptable when it is the “only way” to meet a need. Taking food as an example, how can taking property ever be the “only way?” Begging always exists as an option. When can we say that taking another’s property is the only option?

Let’s say begging doesn’t work, you have no means to purchase the food you need and you are starving. You may also be a covert ops soldier in enemy territory. Those are mostly theoretical situations and they don’t really apply to people who have the means and time to engage in theological speculations.

Later he finds a man who has been accidentally and severely cut, thus he goes into a store and tells the owner he will take medical supplies to the injured man. Whether the owners agrees or disagree there is no sin because the “urgent” need for medical treatment is part of the “universal destination of goods” which means the medical supplies were developed for the medical needs which now exist. If the store owner fails to cooperate the owners does not have authority to override the universal destination of goods.

I don’t want to be nitpicking, but he should ask first or tell the owner he needs those medical supplies for a severely wounded man. “Hello, I’m taking these,” is not enough, I think. “Sir, I need this supplies for a wounded man. It’s emergency. I have no money to pay you,” would be more appropriate.

Additionally, taking food or other things in such urgent necessity doesn’t necessarily mean that no debt is incurred. I think the owner should be reimbursed if possible.

 

[vern_humphrey]

Consider a recent case – a family was stranded with their car stuck on a remote road in wintry conditions. The father left to get help, and was later found dead. (The rest of the family survived.)

The man’s body was found within about a mile from a cabin where food, shelter, firewood, clothing and so on were available. The owner of the cabin said it was sad that the man didn’t know the cabin was there – because he would have been welcome to whatever he needed for himself and his family.

 

[Lazerlike42]

In the case of the medical supplies, I see the principle easily. When it comes to food, I do not see it so easily, barring some of the unusual situations that have been suggested. For example, is a homeless man who has not eaten in one day in ‘urgent’ need, or must he go without food until he truly is in danger of death for the need to be urgent?

The reason I began to look into this was from investigating St. Francis and the early Friars Minor, who seemed to be rather quick to take property that did not belong to them. It was rather… unsettling reading about some of it. Any thoughts?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

In the earlier example the man is listed as fat to display he does not have a “urgent” or "immediate "need so he has time to work, find food which does not belong to others, or find charity… Concerning St Francis I know practical nothing. However it is hard to assign the label of thief to one who has nothing and has taken a vowel to possess nothing of significant value. Our society is made up all types of people from newborns to death bed people and some times they are one in the same. The universal destination of goods is an understanding that society is built by people for people and that all people must be allowed to participate. There are many passages in the bible about this subject. the universal destination of goods is just a summary of dozens if not hundreds of biblical teachings on the subject.

 

[DL82]

In the case of medical supplies, that would seem to imply that there are some very very serious ethical problems with countries like America where people rely on private medical insurance.

 

[Lazerlike42]

In the earlier example the man is listed as fat to display he does not have a “urgent” or "immediate "need so he has time to work, find food which does not belong to others, or find charity… Concerning St Francis I know practical nothing. However it is hard to assign the label of thief to one who has nothing and has taken a vowel to possess nothing of significant value. Our society is made up all types of people from newborns to death bed people and some times they are one in the same. The universal destination of goods is an understanding that society is built by people for people and that all people must be allowed to participate. There are many passages in the bible about this subject. the universal destination of goods is just a summary of dozens if not hundreds of biblical teachings on the subject.

Neglecting for a moment the technicalities of what constitutes theft for a poor person, I would suggest that perhaps St. Francis and the fat man are in the same position here. St. Francis was not poor out of necessity, but by choice. He chose to own nothing and live the lifestyle as he did, leaving behind a home wherein he would not have to worry about such things. St. Francis would have been suffering a need that he voluntarilly put upon himself, not a need put upon him by unfortunate circumstances.

On top of this, his entire reason for doing this, one which he specifically offered in defense of his order many times, was that God would provide for them. They would trust in God, as did the birds of the air, and trust in Him, and God would provide. If God has, in a given situation, yet to provide, would not taking the food of another in some way portray a lack of trust in or lack of patience with God? For people voluntarilly living in poverty and trusting God for all of their needs, I can’t get around the idea that if on a given day God chose not to provide through the begging of the friars and the not uncommon unexpected donor that He would send that the right thing to do would be to accept the suffering out of trust in God.

So many other saints have born the suffering of God not providing for them in various ways without taking steps to provide for themselves, why not St. Francis?

 

[Texas_Roofer]

Neglecting for a moment the technicalities of what constitutes theft for a poor person, I would suggest that perhaps St. Francis and the fat man are in the same position here. St. Francis was not poor out of necessity, but by choice. He chose to own nothing and live the lifestyle as he did, leaving behind a home wherein he would not have to worry about such things. St. Francis would have been suffering a need that he voluntarilly put upon himself, not a need put upon him by unfortunate circumstances.

On top of this, his entire reason for doing this, one which he specifically offered in defense of his order many times, was that God would provide for them. They would trust in God, as did the birds of the air, and trust in Him, and God would provide. If God has, in a given situation, yet to provide, would not taking the food of another in some way portray a lack of trust in or lack of patience with God? For people voluntarilly living in poverty and trusting God for all of their needs, I can’t get around the idea that if on a given day God chose not to provide through the begging of the friars and the not uncommon unexpected donor that He would send that the right thing to do would be to accept the suffering out of trust in God.

So many other saints have born the suffering of God not providing for them in various ways without taking steps to provide for themselves, why not St. Francis?

Well I do not know, however I think God always provides. As humans we think providing means to give us something we want however providing may include challenging us to control our desires? or forcing us to be humbled? I think God provided all we will ever need. Whether we use it as destined is another issue.