"In our time the most important kind of property has become intellectual property," stated Fr Peter Serracino Inglott (The Sunday Times, May 2), adding that "the Roman law idea on private property has again become current, although in clear contrast with Christian doctrine".

Lina Caruana (May 16) stated that "private property today is a fundamental human right". There is no doubt that she was including land ownership. She should explain how this 'human right' came about in supporting the current belief that land can be considered as private property.

It would also help if Fr Serracino Inglott were to elucidate where, in his opinion, lies the conflict between Roman law and Christian doctrine with regard to land ownership.

I hold that natural law is anterior to Roman law, and in any conflict that arises between the two I follow the former.

There are two simple principles that are both self-evident: 1) that all human beings have equal rights to the use and enjoyment of the elements provided by nature; and 2) that each individual has an exclusive right to the use and enjoyment of what is produced by his own labour.

Since land was provided by the Creator before man was created, it is common (public) property to be enjoyed by all without distinction.

Private ownership of land is as indefensible as ownership of human beings, and is so flagrantly subversive of the true right of property that it can only be instituted by force and maintained by confounding in the popular mind the distinction between ownership of land and ownership of things that are the result of labour.