Joseph Cardinal Höffner CHRISTIAN SOCIAL ... - Ordo Socialis

2. Reasons for the System of Private Property
The reasons advanced by Christian social teaching for the system of private ownership go
back in part to Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas and in no way stem, as has been asserted, 45
from the Enlightenment. They have been explained and expanded upon by recent popes, especially
Leo XIII, Pius XI, and Pius XII, and can be divided into two groups. Whereas the five
arguments in the first group emphasize the advantages of private ownership, the five arguments
of the second group begin with the pernicious effects of the abolition of private property.
a) The five ‘positive’ reasons:
First, private ownership corresponds to a well-ordered self-love. It grants man independence,
freedom of disposal, and self-sufficiency and thus stands „in the closest relation to the personal
dignity and the personal rights of man“ (Pius XII, June 6, l94l). „Private ownership or
some other kind of dominion over material goods provides everyone with a wholly necessary
area of independence, and should be regarded as an extension of human freedom. Finally,
since it adds incentives for carrying on one’s function and duty, it constitutes a kind of prerequisite
for civil liberties“ (Gaudium et spes, 7l).
Second, private ownership serves the clear division and delimitation of jurisdictions and
realms of responsibility within the economy. It enables man „to fill out that realm of permanent
obligations and decisions in legitimate freedom for which he is immediately responsible
before his Creator“ (Pius XII, June l, l94l; Cf. also Gaudium et spes, 7l).
Third, private ownership meets man’s need to be secure and to make provision for himself,
which is especially important for the family. A „most sacred law of nature“ obligates the father
of the family to secure the subsistence of those who are his by being provident in a consciously
responsible way (Rerum novarum,11), so that one can call private property the
„foundation of the family’s existence“ (Pius XII, June l3, l943).
Fourth, an active economic exchange is proper to the system of private ownership and connects
branches of the economy and peoples with one another peacefully and voluntarily and
not through the official intervention of functionaries. The Christian tradition has pointed again
and again to the fact that God’s providence has distributed wealth and natural resources unequally
among the peoples in order to tie a band of love around the people of different lands
and races (Theodoret of Cyrrhus, Henry of Langenstein, Johannes Mayor). Merchants should
not be ambassadors of greed, but of understanding among peoples.
Fifth, private property gives people the possibility of doing good through their selfless helping
of others. „Where then would the possibility be of sharing with others, if no one possessed
anything any longer?...How then can one ask and receive and borrow, if there is no one who
has and gives and lends?“ (Clement of Alexandria). State welfare is cold and impersonal.
b) The five ‘negative’ reasons:
Compared with the foregoing arguments putting forward the advantages of the system of private
ownership, the five ‘negative’ reasons, which point to the dangerous consequences of its
abolition , are even more compelling. Incidentally, it is to be observed that all ten reasons are
internally connected and have their full effect only as a whole.
First, the community of goods leads to laziness and disinclination to work, since each seeks to
shift his or her work on to others (Thomas Aquinas, II-II, 66, 2). Under such conditions, „all
incentive for individuals to exercise their ingenuity and skill would be removed and the very
founts of wealth dry up“ (Rerum novarum, l3). The collective must then have recourse to
forced labor or introduce elements of the private ownership system such as wages, premiums,
45
Léon de Sousberghe, „Propriété de droit naturel. Thèse néoscholastique et Tradition scholastique,“ Nouvelle
Révue de Théologie 82 (1950):580ff.
108