This brings us to the sticking point. Why has every pope since Leo XIII (and a
number before him, such as John XXII in 1329) stressed the importance of
private property? Clearly it is not
income, or (at least) income alone. The
whole concept of the just wage, while frequently misunderstood and even more
frequently misapplied, addresses the problem of an adequate and secure income,
even if mistaken for false charity and used in the short term as an expedient.
The whole question of what constitutes a just wage is, in
strict fact, a diversion from the main point that popes and political
scientists have addressed for centuries.
Property is not important merely because ownership of capital has the
potential to provide the owner with an adequate and secure income.
Property can do that, and more, but that is not the primary
reason why property in capital is important as an integral part of the common
good. If income were the chief or sole concern
of political science and religion, there would be no question that simple
redistribution, coerced or voluntary, would meet the case.
No, income is not the only concern popes and political
scientists address. The real issue is
power. If someone is dependent on
another for an income, regardless of the sufficiency or insufficiency thereof,
or whether it is paid by a private employer voluntarily or under coercion, or
by the State purely on the basis of need, a “condition of dependency” is
universally recognized as tantamount to the status of child or slave.
This is an offense against the demands of human dignity at
the most fundamental level. Treating an
adult as a child or, worse, as a slave is to prevent that individual from
developing more fully as a human being, and thereby defeats the whole purpose
of existence.
This is easily explained.
The job of each human being is to pursue happiness. Happiness, however, is not to be understood
as mere emotional contentment. On the
contrary, true happiness (at least according to Aristotle) consists of pursuing
and obtaining the good.
What is good?
Whatever is consistent with nature.
This brings in a bit of theology, although still based on
reason. God is by nature, that is, by definition,
absolute good. An all-good Creator cannot
create anything that is not good, for that would be a contradiction, and a
perfect, all-good Being cannot contradict Himself.
Human nature is thus something that is by nature good. By conforming ourselves to our own nature,
thereby becoming more fully human, we ipso
facto conform ourselves to the Nature of our Creator.
We conform ourselves to our own nature (and thus that of our
Creator) by exercising our natural rights.
In this way we build habits of doing good, that is, “virtue.” “Virtue” signifies “human-ness.” By becoming virtuous, then, we become more
fully human, and thus more like our Creator.
To exercise our rights, however (whether inherent in our nature
or vested in us by human positive law), we need power. Without power, we cannot exercise our rights,
and we cannot acquire and develop virtue, that is, build habits of doing good.
As has been recognized for millennia, the source of power is
direct ownership of capital. As Daniel
Webster reminded us during the Massachusetts Constitutional Convention of 1820,
“Power naturally and necessarily follows property.” Capital ownership vests the owner with the
means of exercising all other rights, natural or otherwise, and thus realize
the capacity to acquire and develop virtue, becoming more fully human.
If each person gets what he or she needs without effort
simply because he or she needs it, the whole purpose of life itself is
defeated. Anyone whose needs are met
without any effort on his or her own part remains a permanent child or slave, a
being without virtue, and thus fails to fulfill his or her potential to become
more fully human.
