The Social Function of Property in the Social Teaching of the Church

Summary

1 Introduction

2 Principles and Values of the Church’s Social Doctrine

2.1 Principles

2.2 Values

3 The Principle of Universal Destination of Goods

3.1 Meaning of This Principle

3.2 Universal Destination of Goods and Private Property

3.3 Universal Destination and Preferential Option for the Poor

4 Social Function of Property

4.1 Social Function or Social Mortgage

4.2 Distribution of Land Ownership

5 Other Forms of Property

6 Origin of Distortions in the Vision and Experience of Property

7 Bibliographic References

1 Introduction

The Church’s social teaching on property is fundamentally based on the principle of the universal destination of goods. In the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (hereafter: CDSI), the doctrine on property and its social function appears as a consequence of this basic principle. For this reason, we begin this entry with an analysis of the significance of this principle for the doctrine on property. The Church’s teaching on property and its social function has strong biblical roots and is part of the Church’s constant social teaching in its social encyclicals, from Pope Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum (hereafter: RN), to Pope Francis’ Laudato Si’ (hereafter, LS).

2 Principles and Values of the Church’s Social Doctrine

Initially, it is appropriate to briefly present the six principles and four values that underpin the Church’s social doctrine (hereafter, DSI). Since this doctrine has unity and internal coherence, understanding each principle is enriched by the vision of the set of principles and values of the social teaching.

2.1 Principles

Here are the six principles of the Church’s social doctrine (CDSI p.99-122):

1st. The dignity of the human person: the human being is the living image of God himself; the person is the holder of rights and duties, which are inherent to every human being.

2nd. The common good: it is the good of all and is indivisible (such as health, security, and peace); it is the responsibility of all, under the coordination of public authority.

3rd. The universal destination of goods: or the principle of the common use of goods, which precedes the various concrete forms of property (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, hereafter SRS, n.42); the distribution of property must be such that everyone has at least what is necessary to live with dignity.

4th. Subsidiarity: the greater should not replace the lesser, nor deprive it of its free initiative; it implies respect for the competences of each level of responsibility and the right to undertake.

5th. Participation: the right and duty to contribute to social life; it implies the rights and duties of active citizenship.

6th. Solidarity: a firm and persevering determination to commit to the common good; it opposes the “globalization of indifference.”

2.2 Values

Next, we present the four values of the Church’s social doctrine (CDSI n.198-203):

1st. Truth: it is the search to conform our actions to the objective demands of morality. It distances us from arbitrariness and brings us closer to rectitude, transparency, and honesty.

2nd. Freedom: self-determination in the horizon of truth; we can distinguish two dimensions of freedom: freedom from (coercion) and freedom for (doing good).

3rd. Justice: consists in giving each one what is due to them; justice can be: commutative; distributive; legal; social and restorative.

4th. Love: it is the form of all virtues, which animates all social commitment from within. It expresses itself as benevolence and mercy.

3 The Principle of Universal Destination of Goods

3.1 Meaning of This Principle

The Second Vatican Council summarizes the meaning of this principle as follows: “God destined the earth, with all that it contains, for the use of all men and all peoples, in such a way that created goods should suffice for all, in equity, according to the rule of justice, inseparable from charity” (Gaudium et Spes, hereafter GS, n.69).

The principle of the universal destination of the earth’s goods underlies the universal right to use goods. Every person should have the possibility to enjoy the well-being necessary for their full development. The principle of the common use of goods is the “first principle of all social ethics and the typical principle of Christian social doctrine” (SRS n.42). This principle affirms the basic equality of all in regard to sustaining their own lives: “God gave the earth to the whole human race, for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone” (Centesimus Annus, hereafter CA, n.31). Already Pius XII, in his Christmas radio message of 1941, affirmed the right of every person to the fulfillment of their basic needs, as the basis for peace in the world: “The person cannot do without the material goods that respond to their primary needs and constitute the basic needs of their existence.”

This is a natural, original, and priority right. Pope Paul VI affirms:

All other rights, whatever they may be, including the right to property and free trade, are subordinated to it; they must not, therefore, prevent its realization; it is a serious and urgent social duty to restore them to their first purpose” (Populorum Progressio, hereafter PP, n.22).

This principle also implies the assertion that the economy is made for man and not man for the economy. “We must educate for a humanism of work, where man, and not profit, is at the center; where the economy serves man, and does not exploit man,” Pope Francis affirmed on October 16, 2016, in an audience with members of the Christian Workers Movement of Italy.

The concrete application of the principle of the universal destination of goods, according to different social and cultural contexts, implies a precise definition of the modes, limits, and objects. It does not mean that everything is at the disposal of each and everyone. Therefore, it is necessary to regulate this right in the legal order. This legal order must be such as to allow everyone access to the goods necessary for a dignified life and integral development, in a society “where the progress of some is no longer an obstacle to the development of others, nor a pretext for their subjugation” (Instruction Libertatis Conscientia, hereafter LC, n.90). The legal order must respect another principle enunciated by Saint Thomas Aquinas: “in necessitate sunt omnia communia”, that is, “in case of necessity, all things are common” (Summa Theologica, 2, 2, q. 66, ad 7). According to this principle, the DSI considers it lawful for a person who is starving to take what is necessary to feed themselves (a situation framed in the legal figure of “famished theft”). Thus, a minimum income (such as “Bolsa Família” or continued provision benefit) for people proven to be poor, who have no other source of income, is not a favor, but a right.

The principle of the universal destination of goods is an invitation to cultivate a vision of the economy inspired by moral values, which allow never losing sight of either the origin or the purpose of such goods, so as to achieve a fair and supportive world. This principle also corresponds to the Gospel’s call to overcome the temptation of greed for possession.

3.2 Universal Destination of Goods and Private Property

Through work, the human person, using their intelligence, manages to dominate the earth and make it their worthy dwelling. “In this way, he appropriates a part of the earth, acquired precisely with work. This is the origin of individual property” (CA n.31). Private property, associated with other forms of private ownership of goods, gives each person an absolutely necessary extension for personal and family autonomy and “must be considered as an extension of human freedom” (GS n.71). The right to property must not hinder the right to property. That is, the right of some (the rich) must not be an obstacle for many others (the poor) to access property. In the words of Paul VI, “it is not lawful to increase the wealth of the rich and the power of the strong, confirming the misery of the poor and making the slavery of the oppressed greater” (PP n.33).

This understanding of property differs from both the vision of collectivism and the vision of capitalism, as practiced by liberalism. John Paul II writes: “The Christian tradition has never upheld such a right as something absolute and untouchable; on the contrary, it has always understood it in the broader context of the common right of all to use the whole creation” (Laborem Exercens, hereafter LE, n.14). And he concludes by summarizing: “the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, subordinated to the universal destination of goods” (LE n.14).

The primary origin of property is in work. The work accumulated in the form of capital has the basic function of serving work. Hence derives the “principle of the priority of ‘labor’ over ‘capital’” (LE n.12). John Paul II thus bases this principle:

This principle directly concerns the production process itself, in relation to which work is always an efficient primary cause, while ‘capital’, being the set of means of production, remains only an instrument or instrumental cause. This principle is an evident truth, resulting from the whole historical experience of man (LE n.12).

Private property stimulates work and responsibility. It is important that it is accessible to all. Thus, private property constitutes “an instrument for fulfilling the principle of the universal destination of goods.” It is a means, not an end (PP n.22-23).

Public property (state or communal) is an important form of property by which the universal destination of goods is realized. A responsibility incumbent on those responsible for public goods is their competent administration, within their purpose, and the care to ensure that such goods are well used and preserved.

3.3 Universal Destination of Goods and Preferential Option for the Poor

The principle of the universal destination of goods requires special care for the poor, those who are in positions of marginalization, and, in any case, for people whose living conditions prevent adequate growth. “In this regard, the preferential option for the poor must be reaffirmed with all force” (John Paul II, Puebla, 1979). It is a special form of primacy in the practice of Christian charity and the practice of our social responsibilities.

Jesus’ attention to the poor was constant and priority, as revealed by the Gospels. Christians’ care for the poor is inspired by the Gospel and refers to both material poverty and numerous forms of cultural, spiritual, psychosocial, and religious poverty.

All efforts to overcome poverty are commendable, and it is necessary to guard against ideological positions and messianisms. The poor are entrusted to us, and we will be judged by God for this responsibility (Mt 25, 31-46).

The universal destination of goods requires that private property serves to meet people’s needs, especially the poor. It also implies promoting policies for their social inclusion. In the Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Gaudium, Pope Francis considers the social inclusion of the poor one of the “great issues that (…) seem fundamental at this moment in history” (Evangelii Gaudium, hereafter EG, n.185), along with the issue of peace and social dialogue. In his speech at the World Meeting of Popular Movements in Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, on July 9, 2015, Francis stated:

The universal destination of goods is not a rhetorical adornment of the Church’s social doctrine. It is a reality prior to private property. Property, especially when it affects natural resources, must always be in function of people’s needs. And these needs are not limited to consumption. (…) Assistance plans that address certain emergencies should be thought of only as temporary responses. They can never replace true inclusion: inclusion that gives dignified, free, creative, participatory, and supportive work.

It is necessary to pay attention to the social and political dimension of poverty. “Do not give as charity what is already due as justice” (Apostolicam Actuositatem, hereafter AA, 8).

4 Social Function of Property

4.1 Social Function or Social Mortgage

The DSI teaches to recognize the social function of any form of private property, frequently referring to the indispensable requirements of the common good (cf. Quadragesimo Anno, hereafter QA, 23). These requirements can be summarized as follows: no one should hold goods as solely their own, but as common in use, so that they can also be useful to others; one cannot ignore the effects of using their own goods and resources (which implies, for example, avoiding waste); it is not fair to keep idle the goods possessed, especially the means of production, but it is necessary to entrust them to those who have the desire and ability to make them productive. The social function also covers the fruits of recent progress in scientific and technological fields.

Entrepreneurs have a special responsibility to use their entrepreneurial capacity to create new ventures or modernize traditional businesses, aiming to ensure their economic, political, and socio-environmental sustainability, promoting development with social justice. Christians and people of goodwill are called to “worry about building a better world” and to care for the earth, “our common home” (EG n.183). For the commitment to organize the economy and promote the common good, says Pope Francis, “we have a very appropriate tool in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, whose use and study I strongly recommend” (EG n.184).

In the encyclical Laudato Si’, Pope Francis associates the social use of goods with a “human ecology,” which in turn “is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a principle that plays a central and unifying role in social ethics” (LS n.156). The common good “presupposes respect for the human person as such, with fundamental and inalienable rights, oriented towards their integral development” (LS n.156), which requires the creation of welfare and social security devices and the development of intermediate groups. It also requires the application of the principle of subsidiarity, with emphasis on the family. It also requires social peace, security, and distributive justice (cf. LS n.156).

Furthermore, actions are required on an international level, “to break barriers and monopolies,” which impede or hinder the exercise of the social function of property (cf. CA n.35). Criticizing the lack of ethics in financial management during the 2008-2009 crisis, Benedict XVI writes: “Finance, after its misuse that harmed the real economy, should return to being an instrument aimed at development.” He adds: “Financial operators must rediscover the ethical foundation of their activity” (Caritas in Veritate, hereafter CV, n.62-64).

The Puebla document adopted John Paul II’s teaching on the social mortgage that weighs on all private property:

As John Paul II teaches us, a social mortgage weighs on all private property. Property compatible with the universal destination of goods is above all a power of management and administration, which, without excluding ownership, does not make it absolute or unlimited.” (Puebla Document, hereafter DP, n.492).

The expression “social mortgage” thus emphasizes the role of managers as inherent to the holders of the property of goods and knowledge. Private property is never an absolute right, but conditioned by rules and limits that the law can establish. The Brazilian Constitution of 1988, in two distinct moments (in articles 5, item XXIII, and 170, item III), immediately after guaranteeing the right to property, established the need to observe its social function. Based on this constitutional provision, a municipality can establish a progressive property tax on idle land or buildings and, ultimately, expropriate this property.

One way to practically realize the social function of property is to promote forms of worker participation in the ownership of companies. John Paul II proposes the following forms: co-ownership, labor shareholding, and profit-sharing. He also proposes associating work with the ownership of capital through “intermediate bodies with economic purposes,” commonly called “self-managed companies” (LE n.14). In these companies, owned by workers, generally in the form of cooperatives, the initiative passes into the hands of workers, where it should never have left. The system of self-managed companies shows that it is possible to produce efficiently without capitalist bosses. In them, the priority of labor over capital is realized, since capital is nothing more than accumulated labor. The goods of nature, technology, and capital are instrumental factors, placed at the service of human labor, the only efficient cause of production.

A logical conclusion of the doctrine of the social function inherent in all property is that part of the fortunes accumulated by the owners of large companies belongs, by right, to the workers, whose labor was essential for the accumulation of these goods.

Intellectual property is guaranteed by laws in many countries and constitutes a way of rewarding investments made in research that generated an invention or the creation of a medication. But it is important to verify whether these laws take into account the principle of the social function of property, allowing access to this knowledge at an adequate cost, and meeting the social needs of entire populations (for example, medication for epidemic control). Another discussion that arises is in relation to the privatization of public services, such as water and basic sanitation. The risk involved in the privatization of such services is that, by becoming commodities, they become inaccessible to poor populations due to the high prices charged by companies that provide such services.

4.2 Distribution of Land Ownership

A crucial issue in all peoples is the equitable distribution of land, whether in the form of urban land or rural land. Also in relation to this issue, the principle of the universal destination of goods and the social function of property apply. It is worth recalling the warning of the Holy Fathers: “The land was given to all, not just the rich” (St. Ambrose, De Nabuthe, c. 12, n. 53; PL 14, 747. apud PP n.23). The possibility of land ownership in rural areas is a condition for access to other goods and services, such as credit (cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, “For a Better Distribution of Land. The Challenge of Agrarian Reform”, 1997, n.27-31).

Property provides a series of objective advantages, but it can also give rise to illusory and tempting promises. Those who absolutize property and only think of accumulating goods end up experiencing the most radical slavery.

Among the challenges of today’s world, the Evangelii Gaudium places an economy of exclusion, a new idolatry of money, money that governs instead of serving, and inequality that generates violence (cf. EG n.55-58). The EG also calls for dialogue in the construction of new national and local policies, as well as “dialogue and transparency in decision-making processes” (LS n.182), in the field of the economy, sustainable development, and the fight against corruption.

5 Other Forms of Property

Given the predominance of private appropriation of goods in capitalist societies, it is important not to forget traditional forms, such as community property, which is of particular importance and characterizes the social structure of many indigenous peoples and quilombolas. The physical and cultural survival of indigenous peoples largely depends on the guarantee of possession and use of the territories where their ancestors already lived. Ensuring the preservation of the possession of these lands, forests, and subsoil is fundamental for their survival, security, and well-being. The defense and valorization of this form of property should not exclude the awareness that this type of property can also evolve.

Another form of property is collective property, in the form of cooperatives or associations. In Mater et Magistra (hereafter MM), Pope John XXIII expresses support for cooperativism (MM n.82-87), especially in the agricultural sector (MM n.143), which according to him has been neglected by many governments. There is an implicit recognition of the forms of property on which cooperativism is based and the principles that this system practices in managing its businesses. One principle is democratic management (one voice, one vote); another is the distribution of surpluses at the end of each fiscal year in proportion to each member’s operations with the cooperative and not based on the amount of capital contributed by the member (in the form of quotas), thus highlighting the principle of the priority of labor over capital.

6 Origin of Distortions in the Vision and Experience of Property

We can ask ourselves about the origin of the serious and frequent distortions that occur today in the distribution of goods and business management. The trend analysts observe in our globalized economy is that property has become an (almost) absolute right. They note the increasing dominance of financial capital over productive capital. These trends result in the growing concentration of wealth in the hands of a few, with the disproportionate growth of great fortunes. Economist Thomas Piketty’s studies on inequality, capital concentration, and the financialization of the modern economy provide solid evidence in this direction.

Benedict XVI, in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate, highlights the social function of the company, which is realized both in the production of goods and services and in the generation of jobs. In fulfilling its functions, the company cannot only consider the interests of the owners or shareholders:

the company cannot only consider the interests of its owners, but must also concern itself with the various categories of subjects that contribute to the life of the company: the workers, customers, suppliers of various production factors, the community of reference. (CV n.40)

The pope warned against the speculative use of the company’s resources in the financial market, putting the company’s sustainability at risk:

It is necessary to avoid the motive for using financial resources being speculative, succumbing to the temptation to seek only short-term profit, without equally taking care of the company’s long-term sustainability, its concrete service to the real economy, and an adequate and timely promotion of economic initiatives, also in countries in need of development. (CV n.40).

Pope Francis, in turn, diagnoses a profound anthropological crisis at the base of the market economy system. He writes in the Apostolic Exhortation Joy of the Gospel:

The financial crisis we are going through makes us forget that at its origin, there is a profound anthropological crisis: the denial of the primacy of the human being. We have created new idols. The worship of the ancient golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-5) has found a new and cruel version in the fetishism of money and the dictatorship of an economy without a face and without a truly human purpose. The world crisis affecting finance and the economy lays bare its own imbalances and, above all, the grave lack of anthropological orientation that reduces the human being to one of their needs: consumption” (EG n.55).

The resulting anthropological crisis is in line with the ideology of total market freedom and the assertion of a minimal state: “This imbalance results from ideologies that defend the absolute autonomy of markets and financial speculation. For this reason, they deny the right of states to control, entrusted with overseeing the protection of the common good” (EG n.56). After speaking about debts, interest, selfish tax evasion, and corruption, which assume global dimensions, the pope states:

The ambition for power and possession knows no limits. In this system, which tends to swallow everything to increase profits, any fragile reality like the environment is defenseless before the interests of the deified market, transformed into an absolute rule. (EG n56).

The result of this anthropological crisis and the ideologies of individualism and materialism are the massive disregard for the basic human rights of individuals and entire peoples, climate change, and environmental degradation, on a planetary scale, as warned by the encyclical Laudato Si’.

The great challenge is how to strengthen economic and social practices that align with the principles of the Church’s social doctrine on property and the common use of goods, in order to reverse the current harmful trends to the common good and self-destructive to humanity.

Matias Martinho Lenz, SJ. Catholic University of Pelotas, RS. Original Portuguese text.

7 Bibliographic References

List of major social encyclicals of the popes, in chronological order, with abbreviation and year of publication:

LEO XIII. Rerum Novarum (RN). On the Condition of Workers, 1891.

PIUS XI. Quadragesimo Anno (QA). On the Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931.

JOHN XXIII. Mater et Magistra (MM). On the Evolution of Contemporary Social Life in the Light of Christian Principles, 1961.

______. Pacem in Terris (PT). On Establishing Universal Peace in Truth, Justice, Charity, and Liberty, 1963.

PAUL VI. Populorum Progressio (PP). On the Development of Peoples, 1967.

JOHN PAUL II. Laborem Exercens (LE). On Human Work. On the 90th Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 1981.

______. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (SRS). On the Social Concerns of the Church. On the 20th Anniversary of Populorum Progressio, 1987.

______. Centesimus Annus (CA). On the Hundredth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum, 1991.

BENEDICT XVI. Caritas in Veritate (CV). On Integral Human Development in Charity and Truth, 2009.

FRANCIS. Evangelii Gaudium (EG). The Joy of the Gospel. On the Proclamation of the Gospel in Today’s World, 2013.

______. Laudato Si’ (LS) – Praise Be to You. On Care for Our Common Home, 2015.

Other Official Social Documents of the Catholic Church

SECOND VATICAN COUNCIL. Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes (GS). On the Church in the Modern World, 1965.

______. Decree Apostolicam Actuositatem (AA). On the Apostolate of the Laity, 1965.

CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH. Instruction Libertatis Conscientia (LC), 1987.

LATIN AMERICAN EPISCOPAL COUNCIL. Conclusions of the II General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate. Puebla Document (DP), 1979.

______. Conclusions of the II General Conference of the Latin American Episcopate. Evangelization in the Present and Future of Latin America. Aparecida Document (DA), 1979.

2 Reference Texts and Books

ANTONCICH, R.; SANS, J. M. Social Teaching of the Church. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1986.

CALLEJA, J. I. Samaritan Social Ethics I. Foundations and Notions of Christian Economic Ethics. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2006.

CNBB. Church and Agrarian Issue at the Beginning of the 21st Century. CNBB Studies n. 99. Brasília: CNBB, 2010.

LENZ, M. M. Property and Its Social Function. In: CNBB. Social Doctrine of the Church Themes. National Evangelization Project We Want to See Jesus, the Way, the Truth, and the Life. São Paulo: Paulinas and Paulus, 2006, pp. 77-90.

______ (and the Social Teaching of the Church Project team, challenge to communities). Wealth and Poverty and the Social Teaching of the Church. Social Teaching of the Church Collection, Vol. Petrópolis: Vozes, 1993.

MARTINS, José de Souza. Agrarian Reform: The Impossible Dialogue. São Paulo: Edusp, 2000.

PIKETTY, T. Capital in the Twenty-First Century. Rio de Janeiro: Intrínseca, 2014.

______. The Economics of Inequality. Rio de Janeiro: Intrínseca, 2015.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CDSI). São Paulo: Paulinas, 2005.