راهنمای اخلاقی برای کشورهای انگلیسی‌زبان (جلد ۱)

referenced by Mario Derksen [on NovusOrdoWatch.org](https://novusordowatch.org/wire/francis-ghostwriter-kissing.htm) Usury on **PDF pp. 321 ff.** Has a proper understanding of © on [pp. 227-8 (DjVu pp. 242-3)](https://archive.org/stream/MN5034ucmf_1#page/n241/mode/2up) (i.e., unlike [MgHugh & Callan](https://isidore.co/calibre/browse/book/5930), he does not say © infringement is theft, [which it isn't](https://law.stackexchange.com/q/16407/10457), at least not in U.S. law). cf. also Noldin, S.J.'s *Summa theologiae moralis* "[De dominio auctorum](https://archive.org/stream/summatheologiaem02nold#page/408)" I used to think what WikiLeaks does ("hacktivism") is sinful, akin to opening a private citizen's mail and publishing it, but when a public figure and national security are involved, it might even be obligatory to publicize such secrets (DjVu p. 310): > The obligation to observe a natural secret will cease after the secret has become public property. The party whose secret it is may sometimes be reasonably presumed not to be unwilling that the matter should be communicated to another, as, for example, to somebody who can and who will be of assistance to him. **If the public good requires that the secret should be made known in order to prevent public wrong, the obligation of secrecy will cease, for the public welfare is of greater importance than that of an individual.** If serious harm threatens one's self or some other innocent person, or the party whose secret is in question, and the harm can only be averted by making known the secret, this will be allowed in the case of natural or promised secrets. The right of defence from impending evil prevails over that of natural and promised secrets.