For my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property”. The principle of the common use of created goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social order”; it is a natural and inherent right that takes priority over others. All other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral fulfilment of persons, including that of private property or any other type of property, should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this right], but should actively facilitate its implementation”. The right to private property can only be considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the universal destination of created goods. (120)
Actually, on the contrary, private property is historically and loudly recognized by the Christian tradition since Naboth had his vineyard forcibly stolen from him by Ahab in 3 Kings 21. Since the divine commandment was given of "thou shalt not steal". And even in Rerum Novarum by Pope Leo XIII it is recognized multiple times.
The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property. For God has granted the earth to mankind in general, not in the sense that all without distinction can deal with it as they like, but rather that no part of it was assigned to any one in particular, and that the limits of private possession have been left to be fixed by man's own industry, and by the laws of individual races. (8)
With reason, then, the common opinion of mankind, little affected by the few dissentients who have contended for the opposite view, has found in the careful study of nature, and in the laws of nature, the foundations of the division of property, and the practice of all ages has consecrated the principle of private ownership, as being pre-eminently in conformity with human nature, and as conducing in the most unmistakable manner to the peace and tranquillity of human existence. (11)
Private ownership, as we have seen, is the natural right of man, and to exercise that right, especially as members of society, is not only lawful, but absolutely necessary. "It is lawful," says St. Thomas Aquinas, "for a man to hold private property; and it is also necessary for the carrying on of human existence."" But if the question be asked: How must one's possessions be used? - the Church replies without hesitation in the words of the same holy Doctor: "Man should not consider his material possessions as his own, but as common to all, so as to share them without hesitation when others are in need. Whence the Apostle with, ‘Command the rich of this world... to offer with no stint, to apportion largely.’" (22)
The New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia further adds that,
The Catholic Church has always regarded private property as justified, even though there may have existed personal abuses. Far from abolishing the commandments of the Old Law (Thou shalt not steal; thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, nor anything that is his) Christ inculcated them anew (Matthew 19:18-19; Mark 10:19; Romans 13:9). And though the Catholic Church, following in the footsteps of her Founder, has always recommended voluntary poverty as an evangelical counsel, yet she has at the same time asserted the justice and, as a rule, the necessity of private property and rejected the contrary theories of the Circumcellions, Waldenses, Anabaptists etc. Moreover, theologians and canonists have at all times taught that private ownership is just. Leo XIII, especially in several encyclicals, strongly insisted on the necessity and justice of private ownership. Thus the encyclical "Rerum novarum" expressly condemns as unjust and pernicious the design of the socialists to abolish private property. The right of acquiring private property has been granted by nature, and consequently he who would seek a solution of the social question must start with the principle that private property is to be preserved inviolate (privatas possessiones inviolate servandas). And Pius X, in his Motu Proprio of 18 Dec., 1903, laid down the following two principles for the guidance of all Catholics: (1) "Unlike the beast, man has on earth not only the right of use, but a permanent right of ownership; and this is true not only of those things which are consumed in their use, but also of those which are not consumed by their use"; (2) "Private property is under all circumstances, be it the fruit of labour or acquired by conveyance or donation, a natural right, and everybody may make such reasonable disposal of it as he thinks fit."
Just War
The irony of this one is that in Fratelli Tutti, Pope Francis actually ends up refuting himself. He states,
War can easily be chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly “justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy” have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated”. At issue is whether the development of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons, and the enormous and growing possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”. We can no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never again war! (258)
While he is correct from a human perspective that wars are almost never carried out justly, he actually reiterates that the teaching of the Church is that there is a legitimate use of defense and yet ends up deciding to reject this teaching flatly. This is simple obstinance in an alleged papal document! People have asked me if I have read "all of it". I've certainly read enough of it to get the gist that this Encyclical belongs on an Index of Forbidden Books, not in the official teaching Magisterium of the Church!
Death penalty
This one has raised heated controversy but nonetheless the rejection of it by Pope Francis does constitute a heresy.
There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of penal justice. There can be no stepping back from this position. Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is inadmissible” and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition worldwide. (263)
Once again, Pope Francis has taken the position that inadequacy leads to rejection of the teaching. The Church's bureaucracy itself in the Middle Ages had instituted the death penalty against those most pernicious of heretics who intruded upon the life of the Church and disturbed greatly the worship of the parishioners. It was not instituted to "eliminate others" for we eliminate ourselves with our own heresies and destruction of the image of God with our own sins. But several saints, including St. Augustine, St. John Chrysostom, St. Joseph Volotsky, and St. Thomas Aquinas. The position of Francis, being contrary to their views, effectively undermines the credibility of the Church. For if the Church is infallible on faith and moral teachings then the Church screwed up by permitting the death penalty to be carried out by the State. Such would mean that the Church is not infallible on morals. Francis has actually explicitly denied the infallibility of the Church.
Equality
This one should be more obvious but it is not. Paragraphs 103, 104, 131, 161, and 272 all show that Fratelli Tutti is devoted to the establishment of equality in a fraternity called for by Francis. But if equality is supposed to be called for then we would have no angelic hierarchy of St. Dionysios or St. Thomas Aquinas, no priestly hierarchy of the sacraments, and men would become the same parts of the body of Christ. Men are different. They are created differently. They have different purposes, different qualifications, and are inherently unequal. We are competing against nature by advocating for equality. This is why the Church has always taught that in proper social ordering, there is hierarchy. Improper social ordering is anarchy and chaos. Only in anarchy and chaos is there true equality.
This document should be seen as non-binding on those who are faithful to the teachings of the Catholic faith. There are too many heresies for this to be dogmatic. Therefore, I humbly reject it and denounce it.
No comments:
Post a Comment