Changes
Additional material on the political views of Thomas Aquinas
== Political Philosophy ==
Unlike many conservatives, Thomas Aquinas did not strenuously uphold the intrinsic merit of property rights and the Biblical prohibition on theft. Of theft, he wrote that "It is not theft, properly speaking, to take secretly and use another's property in a case of extreme need: Because that which he takes for the support of his life becomes his own property by reason of that need."<ref>https://books.google.com/books?id=6IocPeCoVFgC&pg=PA42&lpg=PA42&dq=It+is+not+theft,+properly+speaking,+to+take+secretly+and+use+another%27s+property+in+a+case+of+extreme+need:+Because+that+which+he+takes+for+the+support+of+his+life+becomes+his+own+property+by+reason+of+that+need&source=bl&ots=E_BgCJN47l&sig=VbAU1bJaaGVd9-61oRcm4q_eMBg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj7g92OpfPWAhVL9IMKHWvSA0kQ6AEIOTAD#v=onepage&q=It%20is%20not%20theft%2C%20properly%20speaking%2C%20to%20take%20secretly%20and%20use%20another's%20property%20in%20a%20case%20of%20extreme%20need%3A%20Because%20that%20which%20he%20takes%20for%20the%20support%20of%20his%20life%20becomes%20his%20own%20property%20by%20reason%20of%20that%20need&f=false</ref> In another statement foreshadowing later [[socialist]] arguments, Aquinas claimed that "In cases of need all things are common property, so that there would seem to be no sin in taking another's property, for need has made it common."<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3066.htm</ref>
However, Thomas Aquinas did on very Conservative views on other issues, he supported the use of captial punishement. He wrote, "Therefore if a man be dangerous and infectious to the community, on account of some sin, it is praiseworthy and advantageous that he be killed in order to safeguard the common good" . . . . ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 2.
"It is permissible to kill a criminal if this is necessary for the welfare of the whole community. However, this right belongs only to the one entrusted with the care of the whole community -- just as a doctor may cut off an infected limb, since he has been entrusted with the care of the health of the whole body." ST IIa-IIae, q. 64, a. 3. <ref>http://www.aquinasonline.com/Questions/cappunsh.html</ref>
He wrote that war was justifiable "Those who wage war justly aim at peace, and so they are not opposed to peace, except to the evil peace, which Our Lord "came not to send upon earth" (Matthew 10:34). Hence Augustine says (Ep. ad Bonif. clxxxix): "We do not seek peace in order to be at war, but we go to war that we may have peace. Be peaceful, therefore, in warring, so that you may vanquish those whom you war against, and bring them to the prosperity of peace." <ref>http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3040.htm</ref>
He wrote that people have a right to private property "Human affairs are conducted in more orderly fashion if each man is charged with taking care of some particular thing himself, whereas there would be confusion if everyone had to look after any one thing indeterminately." <ref>https://tifwe.org/five-insights-about-private-property-from-aquinas/</ref>
He wrote that according to natural law a marriage can only be between a man and a woman and that sex outside of marriage is a sin "This union with a certain definite woman is called matrimony; which for the above reason is said to belong to the natural law. Since, however, the union of the sexes is directed to the common good of the whole human race, and common goods depend on the law for their determination, as stated above (FS, Question [90], Article [2]), it follows that this union of man and woman, which is called matrimony, is determined by some law. What this determination is for us will be stated in the Third Part of this work (XP, Question [50], seqq.), where we shall treat of the sacrament of matrimony. Wherefore, since fornication is an indeterminate union of the sexes, as something incompatible with matrimony, it is opposed to the good of the child's upbringing, and consequently it is a mortal sin." <ref>http://www.alexanderpruss.com/145/AquinasOnMarriage.html</ref>
He wrote a defence tha would support the "Stand Your Ground" laws that many Liberals object to, "Accordingly the act of self-defense may have two effects, one is the saving of one's life, the other is the slaying of the aggressor. Therefore this act, since one's intention is to save one's own life, is not unlawful, seeing that it is natural to everything to keep itself in "being," as far as possible. And yet, though proceeding from a good intention, an act may be rendered unlawful, if it be out of proportion to the end. Wherefore if a man, in self-defense, uses more than necessary violence, it will be unlawful: whereas if he repel force with moderation his defense will be lawful, because according to the jurists [Cap. Significasti, De Homicid. volunt. vel casual.], "it is lawful to repel force by force, provided one does not exceed the limits of a blameless defense."<ref>http://www.newadvent.org/summa/3064.htm#article7</ref>
== In literature ==
