27. Private Property and Society
40. Created Goods and Society
40a) The Universal Destination of Material Goods
Every human being has the natural right to use created goods, since God has meant them for all. Since, in general, these goods are not directly available in a usable form, man has to obtain and use them through his work. Work thus becomes the way to acquire property and the means of production. At the same time, the Church considers the right of ownership not as something absolute and unconditional, but as a right that is subordinated to the common use or universal destination of material goods.1
Every man, as a being endowed with reason, has from nature the basic right to use the material goods of the earth; however, it is left to the human will and to the juridical forms of peoples to regulate more particularly its practical achievement.… All this, nevertheless, is subordinated to the natural purpose of material goods and could not make itself independent of the first and fundamental right, which grants their use to all; rather, it should serve to make its achievement possible in accordance with its aim.2
The exercise of this original right to the use of material goods offers an occasion and a greater facility for the fulfillment of moral duties, as well as for the practice of virtue.
40b) Private Property
As we have just seen, private property is not only the fruit of human work; it is also ordained to work. Using private property for work fulfills the purpose of material goods, which is that they be used by all people. Possession for the sake of possession is unthinkable within the social doctrine of the Church; properties must be made to yield fruit for the benefit and service of all.3
In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.4
41. The Scope of the Right to Property
41a) A Right of All Persons
All people should have equal access to property through work and savings. Any sort of restriction on the possibility of acquiring some private property is a violation of distributive justice.
Therefore, the dignity of the human person normally demands the right to the use of earthly goods as the natural foundation for a livelihood; and to that right corresponds the fundamental obligation to grant private property, as far as possible, to all.5
The universal right to private property is parallel to the universal right to work. Any worker has the natural tendency “to know that in his work, even on something that is owned in common, he is working ‘for himself.’”6
This is not a condemnation of the system of salaried work—that is, of working for others in exchange for a salary. In so many cases, this is precisely the means to start acquiring some property. It is opposed, though, to a depersonalized work:
This awareness is extinguished within him in a system of excessive bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel that he is just a cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more reasons than one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of work with an initiative of his own.7
41b) A Right to Own All Kinds of Goods
Insofar as God has destined all the goods of the earth for men’s use,8 the right to private ownership extends to all created goods, including production goods.9 It is limited only by the demands of justice and charity, which would not allow an unfair distribution.
If such a fair distribution of goods is not accomplished or is only imperfectly achieved, the genuine aim of national economy had not been reached; since, however great the abundance of available goods, the people not participating in them would not be economically rich, but poor. Instead, let such a fair distribution be actually effected in a durable manner, and you will see a people, even with a smaller quantity of goods at its disposal, become economically healthy.10
Property extends to immaterial goods as well, like professional skills. These goods can be shared, but not transferred.11
42. The Right to Private Ownership
42a) A Natural Right
The right to property is based on human nature itself, and precisely on account of its higher powers.12 Thanks to his intellect, man can foresee his needs and provide for them in advance. But this would not be possible without the stability that is allowed by the ownership and availability of material goods. The exercise of freedom, understood as mastery over one’s own acts, would be curtailed if that mastery could not be extended over material goods, which could be considered, with good reason, one’s own.13 Pope Leo XIII clearly explains this point:
For man, fathoming with his reason innumerable matters, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only over matters that regard his present welfare, but also over those that he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, because from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future.14
The other foundations of the right to ownership are the family and the nation. It is natural—especially in rural societies—for a father to wish to leave some property to his children, and for the latter to maintain and increase it.15 The national economy also benefits when citizens apply their ingenuity and natural capacities to what they consider and manage as their own. Moreover, the lack of private property eliminates the psychological stimulus to improve and increase productive goods. This has a negative effect on the wealth of the whole nation.16
42b) A Guarantee of Personal Freedom
Owning some property guarantees the essential freedom of the human person. Without stable ownership, personal and family autonomy would be in jeopardy, since they would not have anything to fall back on in case of adversity.17 This is another foundation of the natural right to property.
42c) The Fruit of One’s Work
People often save part of the fruits of their work and invest it in land or some other property. If this right were to be denied, people’s effort to earn extra income that they can save would be frustrated. They would no longer be enticed to increase their output.18 This stimulus is precisely one of the conditions for civil liberties.19
43. The Social Function of Private Property
43a) A Natural Consequence of Ownership
The social function of private ownership stems from the very nature of this right. This social service has three aspects: juridical, economic, and political. Still, the key issue here is one’s concept of economic goods and of the nature of private rights.
It is obvious that any good that juridically belongs to a private individual was previously part of the common heritage of mankind. All people were equally entitled to use it. For social reasons—the demands of social peace and of a diligent and orderly administration, as well as the consequences of the spiritual nature of man—it has now become subject to private ownership. But this does not mean that the right of private ownership makes the previous right of all people null and void. Individualistic capitalism, however, claims that it does. The owner would be entitled to use the goods that he has acquired without any limitation or condition. The fallacy of this view becomes clear when we consider two basic principles: first, the instrumental nature of the right to private property, which is meant for the peaceful and fruitful possession of wealth; second, the primary right of all people to use created goods in support of their basic right to life.20
Although the social function of private property may have received special attention in our times, it has always been a valid demand. St. Thomas had already proclaimed it as such: “The 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, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in need.”21 This was already practiced in the early Christian communities, following the teachings of Christ: Man is the administrator of the goods and talents that he has received.
The owner has a real right over his property. It is a right erga omnes—that is, it can be exercised against all those who try to violate it to the detriment of social order. However, such right must be enjoyed for one’s benefit and, at the same time, for the benefit of society. Holding one’s properties “in common” is the characteristic trait of the social function of ownership. Pope John Paul II defines it as a “social mortgage” on private property.22
Since not all owners would spontaneously respect the social purpose that is inherent to their fundamental right of ownership, a proper juridical ordination is needed in order to guarantee the social equilibrium.
Nevertheless, the exercise of property rights in common—for one’s own and the community’s benefit at the same time--is not exclusively governed by the provisions of the juridical ordination.
Such ordination binds in conscience when it is just, in the same way as tax laws do. But it is not the only requirement that the owner must obey in the community-oriented exercise of his right. He is also bound in conscience by moral norms. These demand that, once his own needs and his family’s have been satisfied—including a prudent provision for the future—he must take into account the common interest. This means helping others, especially the poor, and not just with one’s superfluous goods.23
To determine what is necessary and what is superfluous, each Christian has the imperative obligation of gauging what is superfluous for him in the light of the needs of others. He should also be vigilant to ensure that the administration and distribution of created goods benefits the whole community.24
Pope John XXIII, showing the huge scope that is open to the social function of private property, affirms:
The State, with all its machinery, is unable to remedy or assist the tragic situations and urgent problems of an intimate and personal nature that are continually arising. There will always remain, therefore, a vast field for the exercise of human sympathy and the Christian charity of individuals. We would observe, finally, that the efforts of individuals, or of groups of private citizens, are definitely more effective in promoting spiritual values than is the activity of public authority.25
In summary, we can say that the social doctrine of the Church, while defending the right to private ownership, demands a deep transformation of the present economic structures, based on the social function of property. It proclaims the universality of the right to life and of the right to private property, which belong to every single human being. This universality demands the imposition of all the limitations that will be necessary and sufficient to ensure that the right to property itself is not made void.
Commutative justice demands respect for the division of goods, and not invading other’s rights by overstepping the limits of one’s own property. The proper, community-minded usage of one’s goods does not belong to this justice, however, but to social justice.26 The fulfillment of the duties of social justice can be demanded by law. Public authority has the responsibility of preventing abuses of private property to the detriment of the common good.27
We can thus conclude that social function is not something extrinsic or added to private property, but inherent to it,28 insofar as the goods of the earth are meant for the legitimate support of all human beings. This social function is not the result of a special intervention of the state. It is inherent to the owner’s proper exercise of his right. The social function includes both compliance with the norms of justice—without which the law itself loses its force—and concern for the needs of others. These needs are discovered by private individuals who exercise Christian mercy and charity.29
The very right of ownership, legitimate in itself, must, in a Christian view of the world, carry out its function and observe its social purpose. Thus, in the use of the goods possessed, the general purpose that God assigned to them and the requirements of the common good prevail over the advantages, the comforts, and sometimes even the secondary necessities of private origin.30
The social doctrine of the Church teaches that “all private property involves a social obligation.”31
43b) A Contribution to the Common Good
Private property, as we have seen, has two inseparable aspects: individual and social.32 There is no possible opposition between the two. As an individual property, it is owned and administered by the individual; as a social property, its use and enjoyment must be geared toward the needs of the common good. There is incompatibility, though, when the individual right to property is unjustly abolished, or when the use of that right is not subordinated to the common good. The latter may be due to an unjust distribution that prevents the extension of the right of ownership to all people, or to mismanagement, as in the case of idle agricultural lands. Since public authority is in charge of protecting and supervising the common good, it has the responsibility of laying down specific norms in this matter.
It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property.33
44. State Intervention in Private Property
44a) Equitable Distribution
The state must foster an equitable distribution of private property among all citizens. The Church is aware of the historical and social changes that may make one form of distribution more advisable than others. She does not espouse, therefore, an immutable and perpetually valid form of property. God has not imposed any fixed system in this area: “The limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry, and by the laws of individual races.”34
If a conflict were to appear between a specific distribution of property and the universal destination of material goods, the state must step in.35 Among the possible reforms that could help solve this problem, the Magisterium suggests that “estates insufficiently cultivated must even be divided up and given to those who will be able to make them productive.”36
The new nations that have emerged from former colonies that have gained their independence, and the problems affecting the Third World, call for urgent reforms and adaptations in the field of the ownership of the means of production.37 The Church denounces any violation of the right to exercise the basic freedoms, whether within a country or between countries.
The scandal of the shocking inequality between the rich and poor—whether between rich and poor countries, or between social classes in a single nation—is no longer tolerated. On one hand, people have attained such an unheard of abundance that is given to waste, while on the other hand so many live in such poverty, deprived of the basic necessities, that one is hardly able even to count the victims of malnutrition.38
Nevertheless, the fact that private property is a natural right of all people does not mean that all have the same titles to property. It rather means that all are entitled to use their natural abilities and professional skills to attain the actual exercise of that right. And since individuals and families are naturally different from each other, and each carries out his work under different circumstances and with different degrees of dedication, it follows that the distribution of property must reflect such differences—insofar as these are natural and just. An egalitarian division of property among all citizens would not solve the problem of unequal distribution. This would mean a separation of property and work, since the criteria for such a distribution would ignore work, effort, and natural talents.
44b) Laws Must Protect the Right of Ownership
The state has no power to grant or abolish the right to private property. Its role is thus to recognize and protect this right in its laws. The state should not impose such heavy taxes and social security contributions that the viability of the right to private property is jeopardized.39
44c) Private Property and Public Property
The right to private ownership does not preclude the existence of public property. Nevertheless, public property must be restricted to what is really necessary:
The State and other agencies of public law must not extend their ownership beyond what is clearly required by considerations of the common good properly understood, and even then there must be safeguards. Otherwise private ownership could be reduced beyond measure, or, even worse, completely destroyed.40
Besides, there must be a proper control of state-owned enterprises to make sure that they are managed with due professional competence, with honesty, and with a spirit of justice. Mismanagement and abuses are especially likely when economic power is excessively concentrated.41
44d) Expropriation
Expropriation is an emergency measure. It is the last resort that can be taken when all other means have failed to remove an obstacle to the prosperity of the country (for example, properties that are left idle or under-utilized).42 Other measures must be tried first whenever the individual’s exercise of property rights could harm the common good. Some of these measures are: “Incomes must be raised, working conditions improved, security in employment assured, and personal incentives to work encouraged.”43
Abuse or mere lack of use of property does not automatically void the right of ownership. While the respect for private property is a demand of commutative justice, the proper way of using it belongs to other aspects of justice—legal justice—and to other virtues.44 The state is thus bound to indemnify the owner of the expropriated asset. “Compensation must be made and is to be calculated according to equity, with all circumstances taken into account.”45
Footnotes:
1. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14; CCC, 2402–2406.
2. Pius XII, Address, June 1, 1941.
3. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
4. GS, 69.
5. Pius XII, Christmas Address, 1942; cf. GS, 69.
6. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 15.
7. Ibid.
8. Cf. GS, 69.
9. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109.
10. Pius XII, Address, 1 June 1941, no. 10.
11. Cf. GS, 71.
12. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 5; CCC, 2403.
13. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109; GS, 71.
14. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 5.
15. Cf. Ibid., 9.
16. Cf. Ibid., 11.
17. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109; GS, 71.
18. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 3; Pius XII, Address, Sep. 1, 1944.
19. Cf. GS, 71.
20. Cf. Ibid.
21. ST, II-II, q. 66, a. 2.
22. Cf. John Paul II, Opening Address to the 3rd General Conference of CELAM, Jan. 28, 1979, in Puebla: A Pilgrimage of Faith, 116–117.
23. Cf. GS, 69.
24. Cf. John XXIII, Address, Sep. 11, 1962.
25. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 120.
26. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 47.
27. Cf. GS, 71.
28. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 119.
29. Cf. Ibid., 120.
30. John Paul II, Homily for Farmers in Recife, Brazil, July 7, 1980.
31. John Paul II, Opening Address to the 3rd General Conference of CELAM, Jan. 28, 1979, in Puebla: A Pilgrimage of Faith, 116–117.
32. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 45.
33. Ibid., 49.
34. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 6.
35. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 23; CCC, 2406.
36. GS, 71.
37. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
38. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” 1.6.
39. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 6.
40. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 117.
41. Cf. Ibid., 118.
42. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 24.
43. GS, 71.
44. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 47.
45. GS, 71.
40a) The Universal Destination of Material Goods
Every human being has the natural right to use created goods, since God has meant them for all. Since, in general, these goods are not directly available in a usable form, man has to obtain and use them through his work. Work thus becomes the way to acquire property and the means of production. At the same time, the Church considers the right of ownership not as something absolute and unconditional, but as a right that is subordinated to the common use or universal destination of material goods.1
Every man, as a being endowed with reason, has from nature the basic right to use the material goods of the earth; however, it is left to the human will and to the juridical forms of peoples to regulate more particularly its practical achievement.… All this, nevertheless, is subordinated to the natural purpose of material goods and could not make itself independent of the first and fundamental right, which grants their use to all; rather, it should serve to make its achievement possible in accordance with its aim.2
The exercise of this original right to the use of material goods offers an occasion and a greater facility for the fulfillment of moral duties, as well as for the practice of virtue.
40b) Private Property
As we have just seen, private property is not only the fruit of human work; it is also ordained to work. Using private property for work fulfills the purpose of material goods, which is that they be used by all people. Possession for the sake of possession is unthinkable within the social doctrine of the Church; properties must be made to yield fruit for the benefit and service of all.3
In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.4
41. The Scope of the Right to Property
41a) A Right of All Persons
All people should have equal access to property through work and savings. Any sort of restriction on the possibility of acquiring some private property is a violation of distributive justice.
Therefore, the dignity of the human person normally demands the right to the use of earthly goods as the natural foundation for a livelihood; and to that right corresponds the fundamental obligation to grant private property, as far as possible, to all.5
The universal right to private property is parallel to the universal right to work. Any worker has the natural tendency “to know that in his work, even on something that is owned in common, he is working ‘for himself.’”6
This is not a condemnation of the system of salaried work—that is, of working for others in exchange for a salary. In so many cases, this is precisely the means to start acquiring some property. It is opposed, though, to a depersonalized work:
This awareness is extinguished within him in a system of excessive bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel that he is just a cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more reasons than one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of work with an initiative of his own.7
41b) A Right to Own All Kinds of Goods
Insofar as God has destined all the goods of the earth for men’s use,8 the right to private ownership extends to all created goods, including production goods.9 It is limited only by the demands of justice and charity, which would not allow an unfair distribution.
If such a fair distribution of goods is not accomplished or is only imperfectly achieved, the genuine aim of national economy had not been reached; since, however great the abundance of available goods, the people not participating in them would not be economically rich, but poor. Instead, let such a fair distribution be actually effected in a durable manner, and you will see a people, even with a smaller quantity of goods at its disposal, become economically healthy.10
Property extends to immaterial goods as well, like professional skills. These goods can be shared, but not transferred.11
42. The Right to Private Ownership
42a) A Natural Right
The right to property is based on human nature itself, and precisely on account of its higher powers.12 Thanks to his intellect, man can foresee his needs and provide for them in advance. But this would not be possible without the stability that is allowed by the ownership and availability of material goods. The exercise of freedom, understood as mastery over one’s own acts, would be curtailed if that mastery could not be extended over material goods, which could be considered, with good reason, one’s own.13 Pope Leo XIII clearly explains this point:
For man, fathoming with his reason innumerable matters, linking the future with the present, and being master of his own acts, guides his ways under the eternal law and the power of God, whose providence governs all things. Wherefore, it is in his power to exercise his choice not only over matters that regard his present welfare, but also over those that he deems may be for his advantage in time yet to come. Hence, man not only should possess the fruits of the earth, but also the very soil, because from the produce of the earth he has to lay by provision for the future.14
The other foundations of the right to ownership are the family and the nation. It is natural—especially in rural societies—for a father to wish to leave some property to his children, and for the latter to maintain and increase it.15 The national economy also benefits when citizens apply their ingenuity and natural capacities to what they consider and manage as their own. Moreover, the lack of private property eliminates the psychological stimulus to improve and increase productive goods. This has a negative effect on the wealth of the whole nation.16
42b) A Guarantee of Personal Freedom
Owning some property guarantees the essential freedom of the human person. Without stable ownership, personal and family autonomy would be in jeopardy, since they would not have anything to fall back on in case of adversity.17 This is another foundation of the natural right to property.
42c) The Fruit of One’s Work
People often save part of the fruits of their work and invest it in land or some other property. If this right were to be denied, people’s effort to earn extra income that they can save would be frustrated. They would no longer be enticed to increase their output.18 This stimulus is precisely one of the conditions for civil liberties.19
43. The Social Function of Private Property
43a) A Natural Consequence of Ownership
The social function of private ownership stems from the very nature of this right. This social service has three aspects: juridical, economic, and political. Still, the key issue here is one’s concept of economic goods and of the nature of private rights.
It is obvious that any good that juridically belongs to a private individual was previously part of the common heritage of mankind. All people were equally entitled to use it. For social reasons—the demands of social peace and of a diligent and orderly administration, as well as the consequences of the spiritual nature of man—it has now become subject to private ownership. But this does not mean that the right of private ownership makes the previous right of all people null and void. Individualistic capitalism, however, claims that it does. The owner would be entitled to use the goods that he has acquired without any limitation or condition. The fallacy of this view becomes clear when we consider two basic principles: first, the instrumental nature of the right to private property, which is meant for the peaceful and fruitful possession of wealth; second, the primary right of all people to use created goods in support of their basic right to life.20
Although the social function of private property may have received special attention in our times, it has always been a valid demand. St. Thomas had already proclaimed it as such: “The 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, to wit, he is ready to communicate them to others in need.”21 This was already practiced in the early Christian communities, following the teachings of Christ: Man is the administrator of the goods and talents that he has received.
The owner has a real right over his property. It is a right erga omnes—that is, it can be exercised against all those who try to violate it to the detriment of social order. However, such right must be enjoyed for one’s benefit and, at the same time, for the benefit of society. Holding one’s properties “in common” is the characteristic trait of the social function of ownership. Pope John Paul II defines it as a “social mortgage” on private property.22
Since not all owners would spontaneously respect the social purpose that is inherent to their fundamental right of ownership, a proper juridical ordination is needed in order to guarantee the social equilibrium.
Nevertheless, the exercise of property rights in common—for one’s own and the community’s benefit at the same time--is not exclusively governed by the provisions of the juridical ordination.
Such ordination binds in conscience when it is just, in the same way as tax laws do. But it is not the only requirement that the owner must obey in the community-oriented exercise of his right. He is also bound in conscience by moral norms. These demand that, once his own needs and his family’s have been satisfied—including a prudent provision for the future—he must take into account the common interest. This means helping others, especially the poor, and not just with one’s superfluous goods.23
To determine what is necessary and what is superfluous, each Christian has the imperative obligation of gauging what is superfluous for him in the light of the needs of others. He should also be vigilant to ensure that the administration and distribution of created goods benefits the whole community.24
Pope John XXIII, showing the huge scope that is open to the social function of private property, affirms:
The State, with all its machinery, is unable to remedy or assist the tragic situations and urgent problems of an intimate and personal nature that are continually arising. There will always remain, therefore, a vast field for the exercise of human sympathy and the Christian charity of individuals. We would observe, finally, that the efforts of individuals, or of groups of private citizens, are definitely more effective in promoting spiritual values than is the activity of public authority.25
In summary, we can say that the social doctrine of the Church, while defending the right to private ownership, demands a deep transformation of the present economic structures, based on the social function of property. It proclaims the universality of the right to life and of the right to private property, which belong to every single human being. This universality demands the imposition of all the limitations that will be necessary and sufficient to ensure that the right to property itself is not made void.
Commutative justice demands respect for the division of goods, and not invading other’s rights by overstepping the limits of one’s own property. The proper, community-minded usage of one’s goods does not belong to this justice, however, but to social justice.26 The fulfillment of the duties of social justice can be demanded by law. Public authority has the responsibility of preventing abuses of private property to the detriment of the common good.27
We can thus conclude that social function is not something extrinsic or added to private property, but inherent to it,28 insofar as the goods of the earth are meant for the legitimate support of all human beings. This social function is not the result of a special intervention of the state. It is inherent to the owner’s proper exercise of his right. The social function includes both compliance with the norms of justice—without which the law itself loses its force—and concern for the needs of others. These needs are discovered by private individuals who exercise Christian mercy and charity.29
The very right of ownership, legitimate in itself, must, in a Christian view of the world, carry out its function and observe its social purpose. Thus, in the use of the goods possessed, the general purpose that God assigned to them and the requirements of the common good prevail over the advantages, the comforts, and sometimes even the secondary necessities of private origin.30
The social doctrine of the Church teaches that “all private property involves a social obligation.”31
43b) A Contribution to the Common Good
Private property, as we have seen, has two inseparable aspects: individual and social.32 There is no possible opposition between the two. As an individual property, it is owned and administered by the individual; as a social property, its use and enjoyment must be geared toward the needs of the common good. There is incompatibility, though, when the individual right to property is unjustly abolished, or when the use of that right is not subordinated to the common good. The latter may be due to an unjust distribution that prevents the extension of the right of ownership to all people, or to mismanagement, as in the case of idle agricultural lands. Since public authority is in charge of protecting and supervising the common good, it has the responsibility of laying down specific norms in this matter.
It follows from what We have termed the individual and at the same time social character of ownership, that men must consider in this matter not only their own advantage but also the common good. To define these duties in detail when necessity requires and the natural law has not done so, is the function of those in charge of the State. Therefore, public authority, under the guiding light always of the natural and divine law, can determine more accurately upon consideration of the true requirements of the common good, what is permitted and what is not permitted to owners in the use of their property.33
44. State Intervention in Private Property
44a) Equitable Distribution
The state must foster an equitable distribution of private property among all citizens. The Church is aware of the historical and social changes that may make one form of distribution more advisable than others. She does not espouse, therefore, an immutable and perpetually valid form of property. God has not imposed any fixed system in this area: “The limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man’s own industry, and by the laws of individual races.”34
If a conflict were to appear between a specific distribution of property and the universal destination of material goods, the state must step in.35 Among the possible reforms that could help solve this problem, the Magisterium suggests that “estates insufficiently cultivated must even be divided up and given to those who will be able to make them productive.”36
The new nations that have emerged from former colonies that have gained their independence, and the problems affecting the Third World, call for urgent reforms and adaptations in the field of the ownership of the means of production.37 The Church denounces any violation of the right to exercise the basic freedoms, whether within a country or between countries.
The scandal of the shocking inequality between the rich and poor—whether between rich and poor countries, or between social classes in a single nation—is no longer tolerated. On one hand, people have attained such an unheard of abundance that is given to waste, while on the other hand so many live in such poverty, deprived of the basic necessities, that one is hardly able even to count the victims of malnutrition.38
Nevertheless, the fact that private property is a natural right of all people does not mean that all have the same titles to property. It rather means that all are entitled to use their natural abilities and professional skills to attain the actual exercise of that right. And since individuals and families are naturally different from each other, and each carries out his work under different circumstances and with different degrees of dedication, it follows that the distribution of property must reflect such differences—insofar as these are natural and just. An egalitarian division of property among all citizens would not solve the problem of unequal distribution. This would mean a separation of property and work, since the criteria for such a distribution would ignore work, effort, and natural talents.
44b) Laws Must Protect the Right of Ownership
The state has no power to grant or abolish the right to private property. Its role is thus to recognize and protect this right in its laws. The state should not impose such heavy taxes and social security contributions that the viability of the right to private property is jeopardized.39
44c) Private Property and Public Property
The right to private ownership does not preclude the existence of public property. Nevertheless, public property must be restricted to what is really necessary:
The State and other agencies of public law must not extend their ownership beyond what is clearly required by considerations of the common good properly understood, and even then there must be safeguards. Otherwise private ownership could be reduced beyond measure, or, even worse, completely destroyed.40
Besides, there must be a proper control of state-owned enterprises to make sure that they are managed with due professional competence, with honesty, and with a spirit of justice. Mismanagement and abuses are especially likely when economic power is excessively concentrated.41
44d) Expropriation
Expropriation is an emergency measure. It is the last resort that can be taken when all other means have failed to remove an obstacle to the prosperity of the country (for example, properties that are left idle or under-utilized).42 Other measures must be tried first whenever the individual’s exercise of property rights could harm the common good. Some of these measures are: “Incomes must be raised, working conditions improved, security in employment assured, and personal incentives to work encouraged.”43
Abuse or mere lack of use of property does not automatically void the right of ownership. While the respect for private property is a demand of commutative justice, the proper way of using it belongs to other aspects of justice—legal justice—and to other virtues.44 The state is thus bound to indemnify the owner of the expropriated asset. “Compensation must be made and is to be calculated according to equity, with all circumstances taken into account.”45
Footnotes:
1. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14; CCC, 2402–2406.
2. Pius XII, Address, June 1, 1941.
3. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
4. GS, 69.
5. Pius XII, Christmas Address, 1942; cf. GS, 69.
6. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 15.
7. Ibid.
8. Cf. GS, 69.
9. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109.
10. Pius XII, Address, 1 June 1941, no. 10.
11. Cf. GS, 71.
12. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 5; CCC, 2403.
13. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109; GS, 71.
14. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 5.
15. Cf. Ibid., 9.
16. Cf. Ibid., 11.
17. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 109; GS, 71.
18. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 3; Pius XII, Address, Sep. 1, 1944.
19. Cf. GS, 71.
20. Cf. Ibid.
21. ST, II-II, q. 66, a. 2.
22. Cf. John Paul II, Opening Address to the 3rd General Conference of CELAM, Jan. 28, 1979, in Puebla: A Pilgrimage of Faith, 116–117.
23. Cf. GS, 69.
24. Cf. John XXIII, Address, Sep. 11, 1962.
25. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 120.
26. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 47.
27. Cf. GS, 71.
28. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 119.
29. Cf. Ibid., 120.
30. John Paul II, Homily for Farmers in Recife, Brazil, July 7, 1980.
31. John Paul II, Opening Address to the 3rd General Conference of CELAM, Jan. 28, 1979, in Puebla: A Pilgrimage of Faith, 116–117.
32. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 45.
33. Ibid., 49.
34. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 6.
35. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 23; CCC, 2406.
36. GS, 71.
37. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
38. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” 1.6.
39. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 6.
40. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 117.
41. Cf. Ibid., 118.
42. Cf. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 24.
43. GS, 71.
44. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 47.
45. GS, 71.