The Vatican Would Profit From The Views Of This Jesuit – Forbes

Private property is the foundation of a free economy. From a moral standpoint, the commandment "thou shall not steal" is the clearest Biblical recognition that private property should be regarded as a human right. Not only economists but many moral philosophers have addressed property rights. Aristotle and Aquinas were some of the most prominent of these. In Catholic doctrine, the encyclical Rerum novarum, released in 1891, stressed the importance of this human right, so essential for a prosperous and virtuous economy. One can only do charitable acts with what he owns, not with what belongs to others. Rerum novarum resulted from the efforts of many people, but one of the driving forces behind its publication was the Jesuit priest and philosopher Matteo Liberatore (1810-1892).

(Photo by VINCENZO PINTO / AFP) (Photo by VINCENZO PINTO/AFP via Getty Images)

Liberatore, born in Salerno, Italy, played an important role in the drafting of Rerum novarum. One of his many accomplishments was the founding of the journal La Civilt Cattolica in 1850. Liberatore embarked on a program to revive the study of St. Thomas Aquinas and wrote many books and papers on ecclesiastical and social matters. In his later years, he began to focus more on economics. Several of his views had a great influence on the economic aspects of Rerum novarum. This papal document was the point of reference for Quadragesimo anno (1931), and Centesimus annus (1991), encyclicals written to celebrate the fortieth and one hundredth anniversary of Rerum novarums publication.

Regarding private property specifically, Liberatore defined it in in the tradition of great philosophers and jurists. In his book Principles of Political Economy (1891) he writes, "Property means exclusive possession of a thing with power to dispose of it at will." He was writing at a time when socialist theorists and activists were becoming popular, so he focused on this threat. He viewed socialist criticisms of private property as against "nature's commands." Similar to late medieval religious scholars, he regarded private property as necessary to secure peace and provide for one's future and that of one's children: "He who has the right to own a tract of land has the right to its fruits." Following traditional Christian doctrine, Liberatore pointed out that property owners are obliged in conscience to give their superfluous wealth to the poor. He recognized that on certain occasions the state has the right to regulate, but not abolish, private property. According to Liberatore, not even the consent of all nations could justify the abolition of private property. Common ownership could be imposed only by the unanimous consent of individuals (e.g. shipwrecked people on an island) but, according to him, the children and grandchildren would not be obliged to obey because they "receive the right of having property from nature" and not from their progenitors.

Liberatore went further in his criticism of socialism, saying that such a system is "evidently absurd; for it means that all the individual rights and powers of the subjects ought to be absorbed by the State. No man of common sense can seriously entertain such a notion, and therefore to speak of it further would only be a waste of time." For Liberatore, the biggest problem in all human-rights issues is the granting of excessive power to the state. He also added that the views of some late medieval scholars - such as those of the School of Salamanca in the sixteenth century, who argued that private property belonged to positive and human law - could create misunderstandings.

Matteo Liberatore's views on economics had great influence on Roman Catholic Doctrine on private ... [+] property

In Liberatores words, "the old Doctors said that the right of property is not a natural right, but a right of nations, because they distinguished the jus naturale from the jus gentium as being an absolute and primary dictate of nature, while the jus gentium is a relative and secondary one [emphasis mine], and therefore proceeds from discourse of reason. Closely connected with the right of having property is the right of inheritance...."

I italicize "secondary" to highlight the term recently used by Pope Francis when addressing private property in his encyclical Fratelli tutti. The Pope writes, "The right to private property can 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."

Liberatore, unlike Pope Francis, studied economics and wrote extensively about the dangers of socialism. He played an important role in changing the language of the Church in favor of property rights. In his time, human positive law was understood as that which depended solely on the will of legislators. For Liberatore, to continue with the old terminology would be imprudent and dangerous and favor the socialists, who would "play tricks of sophistry and confuse the question, by maintaining that because in modern language the right of having property is not given by nature, but by man, therefore private property may be abolished." Despite the long tradition of the Catholic Church and the clear statements in the Catechism of the Catholic Church (numbers 2401-2406), when Pope Francis again used the old terminology, referring to private property as a "secondary" right, many argued that he was saying that private property can be put aside as "secondary." That would be a grave mistake, however.

Liberatore's regard for private property and his references to it as a natural right were partly due to language, since it is "better to use phrases not liable to false interpretation but easily understood....." He concludes: "Nowadays the question of property has left the School for the streets, and writers, therefore, should take the greatest care to avoid words that may be misused...." Liberatore does not disagree with the Scholastic notion that ownership, although consistent with natural law, is ultimately decided by positive law, mostly contract law; he rather adapted it to the language of his times in order not to weaken the importance of property rights. The Vatican in our day should also be careful with words that can be misconstrued.

The influence of Liberatore's views on Rerum novarum prompted Jacob Viner (1892-1970), a superb economist and historian of thought, to write: "The skeptical attitudes at the end of the Middle Ages towards the doctrine of a natural-law foundation of the institution of private property indicate that St. Thomas's use of even a quasi natural-law justification of private property was by no means universally accepted. It seemed to some, therefore, that Pope Leo XIII broke sharply with traditional doctrine when he went beyond St. Thomas in his campaign against nineteenth-century socialist doctrine, by proclaiming as an integral part of natural law the right of private property."

Average Per Capita Income by IPRI Quintiles

The recently released International Property Rights Index 2021 IPRI, provides ample evidence that Fr. Liberatore was right. His work deserves to be better known by moralists, especially in the Vatican. The IPRI shows that stronger property rights lead to better living environments. When respected for all, they make possible a healthy gender equality. Societies with high respect for private property also achieve higher degrees of prosperity, religious liberty, and opportunities for the poor. They are also more peaceful. Neglecting respect for private property is an option for poverty and not an option for the poor.

Read more from the original source:

The Vatican Would Profit From The Views Of This Jesuit - Forbes