In the previous posting on this subject, we looked at the importance of private property as an institution within the common good . . . which is, of course, where institutions exist by definition. We therefore made legal case for the importance of private property.
We have to keep in mind, however, that the title of Sheen’s book from which we “borrowed” this posting is “Freedom Under God.” Sheen’s purpose was not to present a treatise or contract delineating humanity’s legal rights and duties in human society. Our constitutions, bills of rights, and legal systems are intended to serve that purpose. (See William W. Crosskey, Politics and the Constitution in the History of the United States. Chicago, Illinois: University of Chicago Press, 1953, for an in-depth analysis of what happens when special interests can subvert the original intent of the lawmakers and control the law for their own purposes.)
Rather, Sheen’s purpose was to examine humanity’s moral responsibilities. In Freedom Under God, Sheen makes the moral case for the importance of private property and its critical role as the prop for true freedom. Even then, he acknowledges the primacy of rights such as life, liberty, and property in human affairs: “[M]an has certain inalienable rights which no one can take away — not even the State.” (Freedom Under God, 74.)
Moral obligations are “not enforced by human law.” (Rerum Novarum, § 22.) They are, instead, something that most people would agree are consistent with basic principles of “right” and “wrong.” In Sheen’s view, such moral obligations govern our relations with our fellows guided or directed not by human authority under justice, but (for people of faith) by divine authority, under charity.
Thomas Aquinas
That is not to say that human laws should not be moral. It does mean that not
everything that is moral must or should be enforced by human law backed up with the coercive power of the State. As Aquinas explained,
Human government is derived from the Divine government, and should imitate it. Now although God is all-powerful and supremely good, nevertheless He allows certain evils to take place in the universe, which He might prevent, lest, without them, greater goods might be forfeited, or greater evils ensue. Accordingly in human government also, those who are in authority, rightly tolerate certain evils, lest certain goods be lost, or certain greater evils be incurred. (Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theologica, IIa IIae q. 10, a. 11.)
There is a very great evil that can “ensue” when someone tries to criminalize everything he or she regards as immoral. That is the possibility the one making the judgment might be mistaken as to the objective evil of something, and the degree of harm criminalization has the potential to cause. Making everything considered immoral also illegal would unnecessarily take away the liberty essential to our full development as human persons.
This is a special danger with respect to laws based on religious beliefs. However true religious beliefs may be, they are necessarily regarded as opinions by the State and society at large — even if everyone in society holds the same religious beliefs. Freedom of conscience otherwise ceases to have any meaning. (Cf. The Catechism of the Catholic Church, § 1743.)
For example, a Jew or a Muslim may regard eating pork as immoral, where a Christian sees nothing wrong in it, while a Buddhist or Hindu might regard all three as unenlightened for eating meat at all. Should the State then prohibit the production, sale and consumption of all animal products? Obviously not.
Fulton J. Sheen
Similarly, can we legislate against
greed, envy, pride, gluttony, or any of the other “seven deadly sins,” and
force people to be generous, content with their lot, humble, or ascetic? Sheen certainly disagreed. As he explained,
The asceticism of Communism leaves nothing to free choice; everything is imposed by force. They rend everyone else’s garments, sprinkle ashes on everyone else’s head, chastise everyone else’s body and turn the nation into a vast madhouse where everyone has the vows without ever taking them. . . . The masses all had to take the “vows” of the leaders whether they wanted to or not. . . . Confronted with the problem of abuse they destroyed the use, and face to face with the fact of selfishness they took away everyone else’s liberty. Like some vegetarians who would deny meat to anyone else, Communism forces its views down everyone else’s throats, an expedient which proves profitable only to the unascetic Red leaders of the new asceticism. (Freedom Under God, 204-205.)
Human law based on justice guarantees our freedom under duly constituted human authority. Divine law based on justice and charity guarantees our freedom under God. (Graves de Communi Re, §§ 6-7, 13, 16.) Until we understand the difference, we cannot understand Sheen’s purpose or even meaning in Freedom Under God. To take one example, in Chapter 5 Sheen declared, “though man has a natural right to private property, this right is not absolute.” (Freedom Under God, 51.)
.jpg)
Pope Leo XIII
What? This statement, on the surface, is as
contradictory as “everything I say is a lie,” “greed is good,” or “everyone is
equal, but some are more equal than others”! It doesn’t make any sense. Natural rights are, by
definition, absolute rights. Sheen states this explicitly: “inalienable rights which no one can take away — not even the
State.” As Pope Leo XIII explained,
[M]an alone among the animal creation is endowed with reason — it must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time. (Rerum Novarum, § 6.)
Private property is part of human nature, and human nature in Jewish, Christian and Islamic belief is created by a perfect, that is, unchanging and unchangeable God, an Absolute Source. The idea human nature can be changed is the principal error of socialism; Sheen quoted the Communist Program (the italics are his), “[t]he mass awakening of communist consciousness, the cause of socialism itself, calls for a mass change of human nature.” (Freedom Under God, 61.)
Sheen’s apparent contradiction was resolved, however, when we read further. As he explained,
Only God has an absolute right. The principle of unlimited, unqualified ownership of money, material, and economic goods is wrong and inadmissible. Man is only the steward of wealth — not its Creator. (Ibid., 51.)
Even this, however, is unclear, at least to non-theologians — which is most of us. First off, we must realize Sheen was using “create” in its theological meaning. When we speak of God as a Creator in theology, it is in the sense of “first cause.” Nothing could exist had not some First Cause or Absolute Source brought it into being or “created” it out of nothing.
Fulton J. Sheen
Human beings obviously create wealth, as Sheen himself stated quite clearly several times. (Ibid., 31, 38-39, 49, 59, 71, 73,
94-120, 189.) We do not, of course,
create it out of nothing; we are not Creators (First Causes), but creators. We craft artifacts using what God has provided us to create something uniquely
our own. In human terms, we own what we
produce, and we own it exclusively.
This is the distinction between “the generic right of dominion” and “the universal destination of all goods.” The former refers to access, while the latter refers to use. Every single human being absolutely has the right to own. That is the natural right of or to private property.
At the same time, no one has the right to own so much that others do not have enough or anything at all, or to do whatever he or she likes with what is owned. There are even things, such as certain weapons, which should not be owned privately at all, such as nuclear bombs and other means of mass destruction for which a good case can be make for eliminating them entirely.
This leads into the concept of stewardship, which we address in the next posting.
#30#
