We forget many things. Usually, they do not disappear completely from memory; they just lie buried under countless other things. From time to time they rise to the surface, but quickly fall back into oblivion. When reminded about forgotten things, we often say, \u201cOh yes, now I remember; but I haven\u2019t thought about that in ages!\u201d<\/p>\n
One of these oft-forgotten truths, the universal destination of material goods, is extremely relevant today, especially in societies like the United States and Western Europe, where we defend the right to private property almost always without question.<\/p>\n
Pope Francis is reminding us of it. In \u201cLaudato Si\u2019\u201d he cites St. John Paul II: \u201cThe principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a golden rule of social conduct and \u2018the first principle of the whole ethical and social order.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
He returned to the theme in Bolivia in July 2015, a few months after the publication of \u201cLaudato Si\u2019\u201d: \u201cThe universal destination of goods is not a figure of speech found in the church\u2019s social teaching. It is a reality prior to private property. Property, especially when it affects natural resources, must always serve the needs of peoples.\u201d<\/p>\n
While welcomed by many, this assertion has also aroused strong negative reactions. Calmer voices have pointed out that the universal destination of material goods has been part of the church\u2019s teaching for centuries, though, in candor, one must admit that it has often been a \u201cforgotten truth.\u201d<\/p>\n
Actually, negative reactions to this teaching are not new. In early centuries, some bishops who preached on the theme met with exile and death. In modern times, sharp criticisms have frequently greeted encyclicals that touched on the matter.<\/p>\n
On March 26, 1967, for example, \u201cPopulorum Progressio\u201d called for \u201cconcrete action toward each person\u2019s complete development and the development of all humankind.\u201d In a quick, strong reaction, The Wall Street Journal labeled the encyclical \u201cwarmed-over Marxism,\u201d as if it were a radical departure from previous Catholic thinking. Paragraph 22 was the focal point of the criticism: \u201cThe recent Council reminded us of this: \u2018God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people….\u2019 All other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.\u201d<\/p>\n
This is hardly a radical departure from prior Christian teaching, as critics have suggested; rather, the universal destination of material goods or the social function of property is a long-standing tenet in Christian thought.<\/p>\n
It is clear from the Old Testament that God is the sole king of Israel and sole lord of the soil. God apportions land to God\u2019s people as its stewards. To use the more affective language favored by Pope Francis, Yahweh\u2019s people are to care for the land.<\/p>\n
God protects the land and, through the Seventh and Tenth Commandments and other prescriptions, guarantees it as the private property of those to whom it has been given. But private property also has a religious and social thrust. One\u2019s property must be used for tithing, for offering sacrifice and for giving alms to the poor. Legislation on interest-taking, gleaning and the sabbatical year emphasizes the social responsibility of those holding private property.<\/p>\n
In the New Testament, many sayings of Jesus address the use of property to aid one\u2019s brothers and sisters. St. Paul tells the Corinthians that since the form of this world is passing away, they should possess as if not possessing. The ideal picture of the primitive community in Acts shows Christians so bound together in selfless love that they voluntarily hold all things in common, so that those in need have their share. The motive behind the Christian attitude toward property is clear from Acts and Second Corinthians: the conviction that this community, founded on Jesus\u2019 love and his two-fold command, must be a fellowship of brothers and sisters.<\/p>\n
These are merely indications, but clear ones, that if Christian love is to permeate all human coexistence, then it must be given flesh on the level of owning too; that if human love is to be the love of an embodied spirit, then it must manifest itself in the material possessions that are a necessary extension of corporeality.<\/p>\n
The early Christian writers do not consider the right of private property as the basic norm in considering a Christian\u2019s relationship to material goods; rather, what is primary is that God created the world for the use of all. The human person is primarily the guardian and steward of goods; only secondarily is he or she their owner.<\/p>\n
The Didache<\/i>, written toward the end of the first century, clearly reflects the early Christian attitude toward property and its use: \u201cDo not turn away from the needy; rather, share everything with your brother, and do not say: \u2018It is private property.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n
Clement of Alexandria (c. 150-215) strongly emphasizes the prime importance of the common destiny of material goods: \u201cIt is God himself who has brought our race to possession in common, by sharing himself first of all, and by sending his word to all alike, and by making all things for all. Therefore, everything is common, and the rich should not grasp a greater share.\u201d<\/p>\n
Ambrose (339-97) also emphasizes the primacy of the common destiny of created goods. He argues from the natural order: \u201cGod has ordered all things to be produced, so that there should be food in common to all, and that the earth should be a common possession for all. Nature, therefore, has produced a common right for all, but greed has made it a right for a few.\u201d Isidore of Seville (c. 560-636) lists the common possession of material goods as a natural-law right, alongside the right to acquire goods.<\/p>\n
In summary, it is clear that early Christian writers, while recognizing the right of private property, strongly emphasize the destiny of material goods for all; they see the social function of property as the primary moral norm. Ambrose and others stress this norm so much that they declare that material help is owed to the poor person in justice.<\/p>\n
St. Thomas Aquinas reflects the same tradition. He writes that nature as such is indifferent to private ownership. But rational reflection shows the necessity of private property in our fallen state. In the Summa Theologiae<\/i> he distinguishes between the right to private property and its use. Nature prescribes the preservation of peace, the maintenance of order and the encouragement of human industry as necessary ends. Reason shows that the best way of attaining these ends is through the institution of private property. Private property is therefore commanded by the secondary principles of natural law. Still, nature does not determine who shall own what. The determination of specific property rights is the concern of positive law.<\/p>\n
It is noteworthy that this defense of private property is conditional. It sees the right to private property as necessary in our fallen state and as the most rational way of preserving peace. But in the same article St. Thomas adds forcefully: \u201cThe second thing that is competent to man with regard to external things is their use. In this respect, man ought to possess external things, not as his own, but as common, so that, namely, he is ready to communicate them to others in their need.\u201d<\/p>\n
Aquinas\u2019s approach is subtle. His point of departure is the general necessity of material goods as a means for the human person\u2019s self-realization. The right of individuals to own material goods is a corollary of this, given our sinful human condition. But the right to the use of material goods is primordial and superior: each person, because he or she is a person, is entitled to a share of the means necessary for his or her wellbeing.<\/p>\n
The social encyclicals \u201cRerum Novarum\u201d (1891), \u201cQuadragesimo Anno\u201d (1931), \u201cMater et Magistra\u201d (1961) and \u201cPacem in Terris\u201d (1963) take up the theme with increasing force. At Vatican II, the \u201cPastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World\u201d (1965) makes the strongest statement up to that time on the common purpose of created things: \u201cGod intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people…. Whatever the forms of ownership may be…attention must always be paid to the universal purpose for which created goods are meant.\u201d<\/p>\n
St. John Paul II defended the theme vigorously on many occasions, but especially in \u201cCentesimus Annus\u201d (1991). He calls the right to the common use of goods the \u201cfirst principle of the whole ethical and social order\u201d and \u201cthe characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.\u201d<\/p>\n
The Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/i>, promulgated by St. John Paul II in 1992, summarizes this theme carefully:<\/p>\n 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…. The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others…. Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n From the evidence presented above, it is clear that Pope Francis\u2019 statements about the universal destination of material goods, while striking for their strength and urgency, are by no means revolutionary in a theological sense; rather, they echo a strong, though sometimes forgotten, strain in Christian tradition. But Francis\u2019 views are revolutionary in this sense: that their application would produce radical changes in social structures. In the interest of stimulating discussion, let me propose 10 considerations, some containing crucial questions.<\/p>\n First, to summarize the matter briefly, a long Catholic Church tradition about the universal destiny of material goods, described above, states that the right to private property must be conditioned by the right of all to have a just share in the universe\u2019s material goods.<\/p>\n Second, Pope Paul VI\u2019s statement in \u201cPopulorum Progressio\u201d has played a pivotal role in recent official Catholic teaching on the universal destination of material goods. It has been cited again and again: \u201cAll other rights whatsoever, including those of property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle.\u201d<\/p>\n Third, even more forcefully, St. John Paul II calls the right to the common use of goods the \u201cfirst principle of the whole ethical and social order\u201d and \u201cthe characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine.\u201d<\/p>\n Fourth, ethics are crucial in guiding the economic and social choices that determine how various rights are to be balanced. Adequate solutions will be found only in ethical choices made by individuals, groups and governments. Such choices will inevitably incorporate concrete elements from various \u201csystems.\u201d To address issues in general terms of systems like \u201ccapitalism,\u201d \u201csocialism\u201d and \u201ccommunism\u201d is of little help. The bottom line is that no pure system exists and no \u201csystem\u201d as such provides a solution. There is no pure capitalism, no pure socialism and no pure communism. In the concrete, all socioeconomic systems incorporate elements from other systems, though, of course, the mix varies considerably. If one condemns \u201cunbridled capitalism,\u201d for instance, the concrete question becomes: What \u201cbridles\u201d could make the system acceptable? If one condemns \u201ctotalitarian socialist governments,\u201d then the question becomes: What about socialist states that are democratic?<\/p>\n Fifth, key questions requiring an ethical response are: What should the public sector (the state and the services it provides) and the private sector (N.G.O.\u2019s, private firms, charities and individuals) do to provide a social safety net\u2014 that is, to prevent people who are vulnerable to disasters, displacement, unemployment and poverty from falling below a certain socioeconomic level? What can the public and private sectors do to reduce the huge gap between the rich and the poor within countries, and between rich nations and poor nations?<\/p>\n Sixth, one of the clearest optics for understanding Francis is the final document from the Fifth General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean, held in Aparecida, Brazil, in May 2007. Pope Francis, serving as the chairperson of its editorial committee, was a key figure in preparing the document. He later described it as \u201cthe \u2018Evangelii Nuntiandi\u2019 of Latin America.\u201d \u201cLaudato Si\u2019\u201d echoes many of its themes. In the words of Aparecida: How might society \u201cpursue an alternative development model, one that is comprehensive and communal, based on an ethics that includes responsibility for an authentic natural and human ecology…?\u201d \u201cLaudato Si\u2019\u201d repeats this question and expands on it. How might society redouble its efforts to enact government policies and also promote private sector involvement to assure the protection, conservation and restoration of nature? What is the most appropriate forum for deciding how to monitor the application of international environmental standards within particular countries?<\/p>\n Seventh, the Catechism of the Catholic Church<\/i> states that goods of production\u2014material or immaterial\u2014like land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. It emphasizes that those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for the migrant, the sick and the poor. It asserts that for the sake of the common good, political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership.<\/p>\n Eighth, to put the principle of the universal destination of material goods into practice concretely, we must further ask: How can clean water be made readily available to all? Basic health care? Basic education? How can all be provided with the opportunity to work at a just wage? Have access to adequate housing? What are valid criteria for land reform?<\/p>\n Ninth, might the Catholic Church, which is in fact a large landowner in many countries, be not only a thought leader in regard to the universal destination of material goods but also a leader of practice, as Pope Francis has suggested? While leadership through teaching is very significant, leadership through witness is all the more so.<\/p>\n Tenth, Pope Francis is convinced that a basic spirituality underlies this entire discussion. He regards such a spirituality as central to living out the biblical call to care for creation and to share material goods justly with our brothers and sisters in need. The pope calls for the creation of an ecological culture in which we adopt a \u201cdistinctive way of looking at things, a way of thinking, policies, an educational program, a lifestyle and a spirituality which together generate resistance to the assault of the technocratic paradigm.\u201d In his recent trip to the United States, he emphasized the importance and interconnectedness of land, lodging and labor, all essential to a truly human life. He has consistently affirmed that a cultural transformation is the only lasting way to counter widespread poverty.<\/p>\n If we are convinced of the universal destination of material goods, a largely forgotten truth, such a transformation will be possible.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"Some Implications of the Universal Destiny of Material Goods<\/h3>\n