I have recently had reason to study Pope Leo XIII's Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum. The sense as one reads Leo XIII's account of the right to private property, of which he gives an extensive defence in terms of natural law, the family and in its nature as the fruit of a persons labour (nn.4-9, 11-13), is that it is the right to private ownership of property that comes first followed by the teaching on the demands of the universal destination of goods (n.22).
The balance in the account of the seventh commandment in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (nn.2402-2406) appears more strongly to put the universal destination of goods first, and the right to private ownership of property as second to it.
The right to private property, acquired by work or received from others by inheritance or gift, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.
Pope Francis cites Pope John Paul II's Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens on exactly this point. John Paul II asserts that the right to private property is subordinated to the universal destination of goods in the context of a particular discussion of ownership of the means of industrial production (n.14), though Pope Francis cites a later reference (n.19) to this principle in John Paul's account of the part played by a worker's wage in allowing access to a share in the universal destination of goods.
In a section of the Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti entitled "Re-envisioning the social role of property", Pope Francis writes:
118. The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with the same dignity. Differences of colour, religion, talent, place of birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development.
119. In the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a universal vision in their reflections on the common destination of created goods.[91] This led them to realize that if one person lacks what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as well”.[92] In the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we provide the needy with their basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to them, not to us”.[93]
120. Once more, I would like to echo a statement of Saint John Paul II whose forcefulness has perhaps been insufficiently recognized: “God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone”.[94] For my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property”.[95] The principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order”;[96] it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others.[97] All other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral fulfilment of persons, including that of private property or any other type of property, should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this right], but should actively facilitate its implementation”.[98] The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in practice making them irrelevant.
The three Popes - Leo XIII, John Paul II and Francis - each address different historical contexts: the rise of socialism (but read carefully how this term is to be understood) in the case of Leo XIII, the question of ownership in largely industrialized societies in the case of John Paul II and the selfishness of largely post-industrial societies in the case of Francis. Pope Francis teaching can be seen to be in absolute continuity with that of his predecessors in the See of St Peter, and with a particular application to the circumstances of his time.
No comments:
Post a Comment