杏MAP导航

By Andrea Tornielli

The Acts of the Apostles tells us that 鈥渘o one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common.鈥� This 鈥渋s not communism; it is Christianity in its pure state.鈥� With these words, 杏MAP导航 Francis, in the Mass celebrated on Divine Mercy Sunday, commented on the sharing of goods realized in the first Christian community.

Often, and even very recently, the current Bishop of Rome has been criticized for questioning the untouchability of the right to private property, and his words have been linked to Marxism and communism. Last November 30, in a Message on the occasion of the opening of work of the International Conference of member judges of the Committee for Social Rights of Africa and America, 杏MAP导航 Francis said, 鈥淲e build social justice on the basis of the fact that the Christian tradition has never recognized the right of private property as absolute and untouchable, and has always emphasized the social function of any of its forms. The right of ownership is a secondary natural right, derived from the right held by all, arising from the universal destination of created goods. There is no social justice capable of addressing inequity that presupposes the concentration of wealth.鈥�

杏MAP导航 Francis has addressed the topic twice in his social encyclicals, most recently in , published on 4 October 2020. In that text, the 杏MAP导航 recalls the positions advanced in the social encyclicals of 杏MAP导航s John Paul II and Paul VI. For instance, in paragraph 120 of the encyclical signed on at the tomb of the 鈥淟ittle Poor Man of Assisi,鈥� we read, 鈥淥nce more, I would like to echo a statement of Saint John Paul II whose forcefulness has perhaps been insufficiently recognized: 鈥楪od gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone鈥� (Centesimus annus, 31)鈥� The principle of the common use of created goods is the 鈥榝irst principle of the whole ethical and social order鈥� (Laborem exercens, 19); it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others (Compendium of Social Doctrine, 172).鈥�

鈥淭he right to private property,鈥� 杏MAP导航 Francis continued in Fratelli tutti, 鈥渃an 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.鈥�

The same topic was addressed in paragraph 93 of . Referring again to the Magisterium of 杏MAP导航 John Paul II, and commenting on his words, 杏MAP导航 Francis wrote, 鈥淭he 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 鈥榯he first principle of the whole ethical and social order鈥� (Laborem exercens, 19). 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. Saint John Paul II鈥� noted that 鈥榓 type of development which did not respect and promote human rights 鈥� personal and social, economic and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples 鈥� would not be really worthy of man (Sollicitudo rei socialis, 33). He clearly explained that 鈥榯he Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them鈥� (Address to Indigenous and Rural People, Cuilapán, Mexico [29 January 1979], 6). Consequently, he maintained, 鈥榠t is not in accord with God鈥檚 plan that this gift be used in such a way that its benefits favour only a few鈥� (Homily at Mass for Farmers, Recife, Brazil [7 July 1980]. This calls into serious question the unjust habits of a part of humanity (Cf. , 8).鈥�

On two occasions 鈥� in the letter , addressed in November 1939 to the American bishops; and later in the on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the encyclical Rerum Novarum 鈥� 杏MAP导航 Pius XII had earlier dwelt on the use of material goods, and had affirmed that it was 鈥渁n indispensable requirement that the goods created by God for all men should flow equally to all, according to the principles of justice and charity.鈥� Mention should also be made of the Apostolic Constitution (1952), which recalls the principle of the universal destination of goods in the context of migration. In fact, 杏MAP导航 Pius wrote that migratory movements permit 鈥渢he most favourable distribution of people on the surface of the earth, a surface which God created and prepared for the use of all.鈥�

In 1961 John XXIII commemorated the social teaching of his predecessors with the encyclical . With regard to private property and its social purpose he wrote: 鈥淭his does not mean that the doctrine of the social function of private ownership is out of date, as some would maintain. It is inherent in the very right of private ownership. Then, too, a further consideration arises. Tragic situations and urgent problems of an intimate and personal nature are continually arising which the State with all its machinery is unable to remedy or assist. There will always remain, therefore, a vast field for the exercise of human sympathy and the Christian charity of individuals.鈥�

It would then be the conciliar Constitution , published in 1965 at the conclusion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, that clearly formulated the principle of the universal destination of goods: 鈥淕od intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner鈥� (para. 69).

Two years later, in 1967, Paul VI published the encyclical Populorum progressio, linking the social Magisterium to the great tradition of the Fathers of the Church: 鈥溾�楬e who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?鈥� (1 John 3:17) Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: 鈥榊ou are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich鈥� (De nubate, c. 12, n. 53). These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional. No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, 鈥榓s the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good.鈥� When 鈥榩rivate gain and basic community needs conflict with one another,鈥� it is for the public authorities 鈥榯o seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups.鈥欌��

Finally, it is worth recalling number 48 of the encyclical of Benedict XVI, which connects the principle of the universal destination of goods to the environmental question, including future generations among the recipients of the goods of creation and the consequent task of safeguarding and cultivating creation without plundering it: 鈥淭oday the subject of development is also closely related to the duties arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole.鈥�