Some
Moral Problems in the Order of Private Property
in
Organizations and Religious Groups
Introduction:
The moral order of property is my chosen
topic. Issues regarding property seem to be an interesting topic because of at
least two personal encounters. First, our province has allowed a part of the
seminary in Quezon City to be developed into a columbary business since 2000.
However, the Augustinians have lost the right over the property because the
project is not yet done even the contract to develop had already expired after
five years or less. The company that were hired were only the developer but not
as owner. Supposedly, an agreed percent of the income of the columbary should
proceed to its owner yet not even a single centavo was given to the province.
At this moment, the province finally filed a lawsuit against the company. My
second encounter is about land grabbing. It is a land grabbing that is legal
however its morality is being questioned. There are some lay people, either with
good or bad intention, want to help religious congregations to acquire lands
legally. It is allowed in the Philippine
law that unused or unprotected government lands can be given a land title to
spiritual groups, like religious orders, or religious organization, to develop
for non-profit purposes. However, there’s a twist with one condition, the land
processor wants a part of the land to be named to a politician or government.
Thus, the process of acquiring land is fast and easy. These case narrations
lack particular details. However, the practicality of the cases have truly
happened.
It is presumed
that these two stories are not isolated cases in our province. I believe that
these are all true to other congregations. Based from these two unsolicited
anecdotes, there are quite a number of moral issues being addressed. Many
questions are raised against moral norms of the order of property. How should
property then be valued? What are the moral bases of private property? Do the
acts fulfill the moral duties concerning property?
Sacred
Scripture and Property
There
is a strong view of property in the bible. An article, “A Biblical view of Private Property,” published in www.americanvision.org
gives us an overview. Private property is closely associated to ownership in biblical terms. The Old
Testament shows us that “God’s sovereignty includes ownership of all His creation. Melchizedek, in blessing Abram,
said, “Blessed be Abram of God Most High, Possessor of heaven and earth (Gen.
14:19; cf. v. 22).”[1] The Bible continues the
relationship between sovereignty and ownership by declaring to Israel that all
the earth is His (Ex. 19:5). God is the owner of all things. In other words,
the Old Testament makes us aware of the social obligations that are incumbent
upon property.[2]
Those who wish to deny private property,
and thus, the biblical mandate of stewardship, fail to recognize God’s order
for society. A person’s property is tied to the past and has meaning for the
future because it is seen in the context of the family as God’s means of
insuring future dominion. This is why Naboth was unwilling to sell his
vineyard: “The Lord forbid that I should give you [Ahab] the inheritance of my
fathers” (1 Kings 21:3). Property must be seen in the context of a man and his
family’s calling under God. The commandments “You shall not steal” and “You
shall not covet” (Exodus 20:15, 17) are meaningless unless there are prior
owners responsible to God as faithful stewards of His property.
Nevertheless,
phrases from the Bible explain to us the value of property as seen in the
material goods possessed by the Israelites. Ownership of property is supported
as long as it is for the good of the family and the community at large.
On
the other hand , the overall emphasis of the New Testament teaching is however
not on the defence of the right to private property , but on the sins of
avarice and not giving. The parable of the laborers in the vineyard shows us
the right of the person to own property lawfully, and his right to dispose it
freely (Mt. 20:10-16).
Social
teaching of the Church on Private property
With
regards to the stand of the church on private properties, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the
Church, No. 176 discusses the stand of the church on private property.
176.
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”. 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”. 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, so that all may become, at
least in some measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and
promiscuous dominion”[3]
Mater
et Magistra, No. 112 of John XXIII can b added about the right to private
property. “It is strange that the innate character of a right which derives its
force and validity from the fruitless of work should ever be called in question
– a right which constitutes so efficacious means of asserting one’s personality
and exercising responsibility in every field, and an element of solidity and
security for family life and of greater peace and prosperity in the state.”
In
addition, Gaudium et Spes 71 gives us the reason to have this right. “Ownership
and other forms of private control over material goods contribute to the
expression of personality.”
Also
in Gaudium et Spes No., 69, it gives us the universal purpose of the goods of
this world. “A man should regard his awful possessions not merely as his own
but also as common property in the sense that they should accrue to the benefit
of not only himself but of others.”
Catechism
of the Catholic Church, No. 2402 and 2013 further develops our understanding of
private property. “The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race…
The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and
dignity of persons, and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and
the needs of those in charge.” Thus, “the universal designation of goods
remains primordial.”
Meaning and basis of private
property
Our question
on the full sense of property is generally described by Peschke. Ownership in a
perfect sense includes 1.) The right to dispose of a thing freely, i.e. use,
consume, sell, donate or bequeath it; 2.)
the right to the fruit of a thing, be they natural of industrial; 3.) the right
to exclude others from acting upon the thing and to restitution in the event
unlawful deprivation.[4]
“When a man is
secure in the possession of his property, he has an area of liberty and
dominion that is beyond the reach of other men. If no man or no State can reach
in to tax and confiscate property, man can enjoy true liberty and great
security, whether he’s prosperous or poor. Every attack on private property is,
therefore, an attack on man’s liberty. Man’s freedom and security in the
possession of his property is not only basic to man’s independence, but it is
also basic to his power. A man has power if he can act independently of other
men and the state, if he can make his stand in the confidence of liberty. Every
attack on private property therefore is also an attack on the powers of free
men as well as their liberty.”[5]
Whereas in the
field of economic it explains that, “the right to private property is an
indisputably valid, absolute principle of ethics and the basis for continuous
“optimal” economic progress.”[6]
Whatever field
of study, everyone should understand that material possessions, like private
property, are not values in themselves. They are meant to serve man’s needs.
And inasmuch as the ultimate destiny of man is the glory and praise of God
through cooperation in his plan of creation and salvation, material possessions
must likewise be ordained to his end.[7]
General
appraisal and evaluation of the right to private property
There
are already enough and substantial foundations and implications regarding the
right of human beings to private property. We have found out that private
properties are not means towards an achievement of an end but it should also
the end. It is an end according to the providential and natural definition of
possessions of material goods, by which it includes private property. The
Sacred Scriptures, Social teachings of the church and morals of some authors
testify that at least private property is not something personal but communal
in purpose. Private property should be at the service of the common good, which
is the objective end. But the ultimate end of private property points us for
the greater glory of God. I have to agree with Peschke that all property always
has a social character with corresponding social obligations.[8] It
only entails that the meaning of human’s life does not exhaust itself in
material well-being and the accumulation of wealth. The person has demands of a
social, intellectual, moral, spiritual and religious nature which transcend the
goods of the material order and are to be served by them.
In the
Philippines, the issues on private property are commonly addressed in the land
grabbing of capitalistic companies and some government officials. There had
been many reports and complains reported in news televisions and news papers
about the displacement of indigenous people because of the abuse of power of
some government officials and private companies. The project of the Enriles in
the Cordillera region of an international port is being questioned particularly
its moral implications. There might be development in that region; however, it
would consequently displace many indigenous people.
Moreover,
there are some corporate organizations who would properly compensate private
owners in order to legally and accordingly morally pay the right person. The
influence of capitalistic and relativistic thinking has pierced into the heart
with greediness to the extent that private property losses its purpose. The
accumulation of wealth and more materials goods is a sign of greediness and un-contentment.
Land grabbing
is not private property. It is an abuse of private property. The process may be
legal but its moral implications should always be considered. Land grabbing
forfeits the objective and ultimate end of private property.
Finally, the
same biblical, ecclesial and moral principles of private property are applicable
to the two case narrations in the introduction. Our right as ownership should
be justly compensated to the harm it caused to our community but importantly to
the harm it caused in the eyes of God.
[1] Gary Demar, A Biblical View of Private Property, November 23, 2010, http://americanvision.org/3756/a-biblical-view-of-private-property/ (Date accessed: February 27,
2013)
[2] Karl Peschke, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the
Light of Vatican II, Vol. 2,
(England: C. Goodliffe Neale Ltd., 1997), 663.
[3] COMPENDIUM OF THE SOCIAL
DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH, http://www.vatican.va
/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/ justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html
[4] Peschke, Christian Ethics: Moral Theology in the Light of Vatican II, Vol.
2, 661.
[5] Rousas John Rushdoony, Law and Liberty, (New Jersey: Craig
Press, 1971), 83.
[6] Hanns-Hermann Hope, The Economics and Ethics of Private
Property: Studies in Political Economy and Philosophy, (Alabama: Ludwig von
Mises Institute, 2006), xi
[7]
Peschke, 669.
[8]
Peschke, 670.
No comments:
Post a Comment