By IHE Fellow David Cloutier
Saint John Paul II terms the universal destination of goods “the first principle” of the economic order, and Francis names it the “golden rule of social conduct.” The principle itself is not well-known among ordinary Catholics, and it can easily be confused with socialism at first glance. But socialism is an account not of the universal destination of goods, but of the means by which it is achieved – namely, by government control. Capitalism can also be understood as a means to this end. Does the Church’s social teaching shed any light on this question of means? Actually, it does.
The Church understands private property not as an absolute right, but specifically as a means to the universal destination of goods. How so? After all, the popes are clear that private property is “subordinated” to the principle of universal destination; the use of property that impedes universal destination is unjust. Doesn’t this mean that government can take private property from some and give it to others? I think we immediately frame this in consumer terms; we think, for example, of redistribution through income taxes from our earnings as the “private property” at issue. But in fact the popes call our attention to the ownership of productive property. The principle is meant to address the owners of productive property – that is, capital.
What is the true responsibility of these owners? St. John Paul II says it is “through labor” that the universal destination of goods is achieved. Capital, he says, should serve labor, and by this means, achieve the universal destination of goods. Various forms of a social safety net are reasonable provisions to protect the dignity of every person, but it is not the case that these government provisions are the means to achieve universal destination. Rather, it is achieved primarily through the dignity of work, so long as it is work that is truly human and actually distributes the proceeds of the enterprise in a just manner.
Francis reiterates this in Fratelli Tutti, speaking of his “insistence that helping the poor financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a dignified life through work….for there is no poverty worse than that which takes away work and the dignity of work.” Like John Paul II before him, Francis recognizes that a truly humane economy is one in which work is at the center, as the key means to the universal destination of goods.
