Set in medieval England, the exploits of Robin Hood have captured the imaginations of young and old for the past two hundred years.  The story is familiar to most of us—Robin Hood stole from the rich and gave to the poor.  While it is debatable whether or not Robin of Locksley was a real man or not, there is no debate over the fact that many real men in our own age, especially those with political power have fashioned themselves after him.  Like their beloved patron, these men see it as their vocation to take from the rich and give to the poor.  Most of us simply cheer them on, quibbling only with the amounts that are taken.  “Quibbling” is rather a gentle description as the dispute can often grow quite contentious even though it need not be so.  For with a proper understanding of private property the lines are drawn more clearly and Robin Hood himself is revealed not as a hero but a thief.

Private Property

When examining the question of what constitutes theft, St. Thomas Aquinas asks whether it is lawful for men to own private property.  He replies in the affirmative, but, in his usual manner, he does not give an unqualified assent.  Private property is linked to man’s innate capacity for freedom.  First, because man is dependent upon natural resources in order not only to survive but to thrive, he must have access to those resources that are necessary to his survival.  In order to remain free he must have not just temporary access but also have the means by which he gains permanent access to those necessary things.  This need extends also to goods not just for the man himself but also those necessary for those for whom he has responsibility for.  Finally, to assure that this freedom is preserved in the future, especially in time of emergency, he may set aside a certain amount.

We can see why access to the goods is needed, but perhaps not yet why private property is necessary.  When we speak of the relationship of man to things there are three aspects of particular interest—the power to procure and disburse the goods and their use.  Regarding the first two, St. Thomas says man has a right to possess private property, that is, he might obtain natural resources, apply his personality to them and claim ownership over them.  Private ownership is not only expedient, but also necessary for three reasons. First, because a man is more careful to look after what belongs to him than something that is owned in common.  All men tend to shun labor and when “someone else” is doing the work and no one then does it.  Second, human affairs are more ordered when each handles his own rather than the confusion of who has responsibility for what.  Finally, society remains at peace when each is content with his own possessions.  Intuitively this is easy to grasp once we reflect on our own experience.  A man is more likely to pick up trash in his own yard than in a public park both because he owns the property and wants to keep it looking good and because he knows the boundaries of his responsibilities for the upkeep.

Ownership and use however are not coterminous.  Just because a man owns a thing does not mean he has absolute dominion over that thing.  Not only does it mean he may not use the thing in a way that is immoral, but also that he may not use it in a manner that inhibits others from reaching their fulfillment.  A man may own his own backyard but this does not mean he can landscape it such that all the runoff water floods his neighbor’s house.

The Universal Destination of Goods

The use of property is also limited by a particular mindset.  St. Thomas articulates what became the Church’s teaching on the Universal Destination of Goods—“a man should 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” (ST II-II q.66 a. 2).  We may possess as much as we want, but we should use them as if they belonged to everyone.  That is because in a very real sense they do.  So insistent is the Church on this point that it, at least in appearance, justifies stealing.  When a man has an extreme need and cannot otherwise help himself, he may make use of the property of another person.  There is an important nuance that must be highlighted because it pertains to use.  He may use the thing as if it belonged to no one, but he does not become the owner of the thing.  For example, suppose that a man has an allergic reaction but does not have an EpiPen with him nor any money to pay for one.  He could enter a pharmacy and take one and not be guilty of theft.  He could not grab an extra one for later, but can only take what he needs to keep from perishing.

Now suppose a man meets another man in anaphylaxis, but has neither an EpiPen nor the money to purchase one.  He too may enter the pharmacy and take one and administer it to the man without being guilty of theft.  Like the first example, he can only take what is immediately needed to save the man’s life.  The example seems like common sense until we begin to extend it a little.  The Good Samaritan may not enter the pharmacy take an EpiPen for the man who is ill and then take a few more in case he meets another man.  Nor can he take five of them and go out and look for five people having allergic reactions.  The use of the object that is taken must be immediate and it must be immediately necessary.  Otherwise it is theft.

Now we are closing in on Robin Hood and his modern day crony.  Assuming the property truly belongs to the rich man, they may not take it from him to give to the poor except in the case of dire need of a specific man.  That is, only in the extreme case can they redistribute specific property to a specific man.  They cannot take from the rich and then find the poor who might benefit from it.  In other words, Robin Hood and his cronies are thieves.

This does not absolve the rich from giving to the poor even if their need is not dire.  Because of the Universal Destination of Goods, redistribution is obligatory.  As St. Basil the Great said, “the bread in your cupboard belongs to the hungry; the coat unused in your closet belongs to the one who needs it; the shoes rotting in your closet belong to the one who has no shoes; the money which you hoard up belongs to the poor.”  But the redistribution must be done freely because the property is truly his.  The goods that are redistributed are not the only things that are stolen—forced redistribution robs from the rich the opportunity to exercise charity and from the poor the opportunity to receive it.