Today we focus on Part 1, Chapter 4, III, b of the Compendium on the Social Doctrine of the Church: The Universal Destination of Goods and Private Property.

“By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home. ‘In this way, he makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property' ( Centesimus Annus ).

“Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods ‘assure a person a highly necessary sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension of human freedom...stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberty' ( Gaudium et Spes ).

“Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church's social doctrine requires that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all, ( Centesimus Annus ) so that all may become, at least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of ‘common and promiscuous dominion' ( Rerum Novarum ).

“Christian tradition has never recognised the right to private property as absolute and untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone' ( Laborem Exercens ).

“The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity ( Catechism , 2402-2406). This principle is not opposed to the right to private property ( Rerum Novarum ) but indicates the need to regulate it.

“Private property, in fact, regardless of the concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods, in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an end but a means ( Populorum Progressio ).

“The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of private ownership ( Mater et Magistra ) that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good ( Quadragesimo Anno ). Man ‘should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others ( Gaudium et Spes ).

“The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will have, rather they must act in a way that benefits no only themselves and their family but also the common good.

From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.

“The present historical period has placed at the disposal of society new goods that were completely unknown until recent times. This calls for a fresh reading of the principle of the universal destination of the goods of the earth and makes it necessary to extend this principle so that it includes the latest developments brought about by economic and technological progress.

The ownership of these new goods – the results of knowledge, technology and know-how – becomes ever more decisive, because ‘the wealth of the industrialised nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources' ( Centesimus Annus ).

“New technological and scientific knowledge must be placed at the service of mankind's primary needs, gradually increasing humanity's common patrimony. Putting the principle of the universal destination of goods into full effect therefore requires action at the international level and planned programmes on the part of all countries.

‘It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development ( Centesimus Annus ).

“If forms of property unknown in the past take on significant importance in the process of economic and social development, nonetheless, traditional forms of property must not be forgotten. Individual property is not the only legitimate form of ownership.

The ancient form of community property also has a particular importance; though it can be found in economically advanced countries, it is particularly characteristic of the social structure of many indigenous peoples.

“This is a form of property that has such a profound impact on the economic, cultural and political life of those peoples that it constitutes a fundamental element of their survival and well-being.

The defence and appreciation of community property must not exclude, however, an awareness of the fact that this type of property also is destined to evolved. If actions were taken only to preserve its present form, there would be the risk of tying it to the past and in this way compromising it ( Gaudium et Spes ).

“An equitable distribution of land remains ever critical, especially in developing countries and in countries that have recently changed from systems based on collectivities or colonisation. In rural areas, the possibility of acquiring land through opportunities offered by labour and credit markets is a necessary condition for access to other goods and services.

Besides constituting an effective means for safeguarding the environment, this possibility represents a system of social security that can be put in place also in those countries with a weak administrative structure.

“To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise of various types of property accrue a series of objective advantages; better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater number of options from which to choose.

On the other hand, property may also bring a series of deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to absolutise the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery.

In fact there is no category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have both on individuals and o n institutions.

“Others who heedlessly idolise their goods (Mt 6:24 , 19: 21 -26; Lk 16:13 ) become owned and enslaved by them ( Sollicitudo Rei Socialis ). Only by recognising that these goods are dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples.”

Next week we will focus on the universal destination of goods and the preferential option for the poor. We then move on to the principle of “subsidiarity”.