…[P]roperty rights are not a panacea \u2013 protecting and enhancing private ownership will not cure all that ails us personally or socially. Nor can we separate the exercise of our right to property from the moral law or, for Christians, the Gospel. But Orthodox social thought does I think allow us to make a convincing case that property rights are a key element of human flourishing, a necessary ingredient of a just society, and an aid to Christian ministry. Rooted as it is in human nature, it is also a right that can help us see the dignity of all members of the human family and of the ability that all of us \u2013 rich or poor, male or female, young or old \u2013 have to serve the flourishing of those around us, our society and the Church.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
![](\"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2010\/06\/divider-2.png\")
<\/div>\n<\/p>\n
As a pastor, I\u2019ve been struck by the hostility, or at least suspicion, that some Orthodox Christians reveal in their discussions of private property. While there are no doubt many reasons for this disconnect, I think a central factor is a lack of appreciation for the role that private property can, and does, play in fostering human flourishing. It is through the wise and prudent use of our property that we are able to give ourselves over in love to the next generation and so give them the possiblity of likewise transcending a purely material way of life through an act of self-donation. Economists Terry Anderson and Laura Huggins, in Property Rights: A Practical Guide to Freedom and Prosperity<\/em><\/a> (Hoover Institution, 2009), are right when they remind us that while not a panacea, \u201cproperty rights to oneself (human capital), one\u2019s investments (physical capital), or one\u2019s ideas (intellectual capital), secure claims to assets\u201d and so \u201cgive people the ability to make their own decisions, reaping the benefits of good choices and bearing the costs of bad ones.\u201d In part, I think the hesitancy among some Orthodox Christians to embrace a robust understanding and application of property rights reflects an uncritical reading of the patristic witness. I have in mind here specifically the homilies of St. John Chrysostom in which the saint is often critical of how some abuse their wealth. But as recent scholarship has demonstrated, his argument is more subtle than we might at first think. As with other Church fathers, Chrysostom is not a proponent of abolishing private property but of its morally right use.<\/p>\n We see this especially in his teaching on almsgiving where he distinguishes between \u201cbeggars\u201d (pt\u014dchoi<\/em>) and what today we call the working poor (pen\u0113tes<\/em>). For the latter, the Church\u2019s intervention aims at helping the working poor obtain a degree of economic independence so that they too can meet their own personal familial obligations. Thus anything that undermines our ability to work is morally evil and the Church must seek to correct it. As for those who, objectively, are unable to care for themselves because they can\u2019t work, yes, the Church has an obligation to care for for them \u2014 but this doesn\u2019t exhaust Chrysostom\u2019s economic argument. Like members of the working poor, the small middle class and the even smaller upper class, the beggar is expected to allieviate the suffering of others in whatever way his circumstances make possible. According to Eric Coztanzo in his study<\/a> of St. John Chrysostom, \u201cJohn exhorted the wealthy and the poor to participate\u201d in almsgiving \u201cas an act of virtue.\u201d In any case, while Chrysostom speaks in terms of the morally good use of wealth, it is a standard inconceivable apart from private property and, as his understanding of the moral obligation of even the poorest Christian suggests, there is no one so poor as to be wholly without any personal wealth even if that wealth is other than material.<\/p>\n One thinker who can help us understand more fully the anthropological vision that underlies Chrysostom\u2019s argument is the 19th<\/sup> century Russian Orthodox philospher Vladimir Solovyov. Though he doesn\u2019t engage Chrysostom\u2019s sermons, Solovyov advances an argument that helps us understand why for the saint even the materially poor are obligated to participate in the philanthropic work of the Church. Specifically, I have in mind Solovyov\u2019s broader argument that our right to property and to use it as we see fit (within the limits of the moral law) reflects our ability (1) to think, (2) to recognize ourselves in our own thoughts, and (3) to recognize our thoughts as distinct from ourselves. These are qualities that are not limited to the middle class or much the wealthy but are common to all human beings, including the very poorest among us. <\/p>\n Though he begins with the thinking subject, Solovyov is no Cartesian and is sensitive to the social dimension of the person and so of property. While all \u201cthe acute questions of the economic life are closely connected with the idea of property,\u201d the question of property itself \u201cbelongs to the sphere of jurisprudence, morality, and psychology rather than to that of economic relations\u201d in the narrow sense. Moreover, all human wealth \u2013 not just material but intellectual, spiritual, and cultural \u2013 is always at least partially inherited. The Russian philosopher observed, in his The Justification of the Good: An Essay on Moral Philosophy<\/em><\/a>, that if \u201cit were not for the intentional and voluntary handing down of what has been acquired, we should have only a physical succession of generations, the later repeating the life of the former, as is the case with animals.\u201d Inherited wealth has potential to humanize us because it embodies and communicates the \u201cmoral interaction in the most intimate and the most fundamental social group,\u201d the family. As the \u201cembodiment of pity\u201d (i.e., philanthropy, compassion and love) inherited wealth transcends \u201cthe grave\u201d making tangible the parents\u2019 love \u201cfor their children\u201d while at the same time serving as \u201ca concrete point of departure for a pious memory of the departed parents.\u201d<\/p>\n Solovyov concludes by arguing that \u201cit is not sufficient to recognise the ideal character which obviously attaches to such property: it is necessary to strengthen and develop this character\u201d through the protection of personal property rights. It is only in this way that we can hope to combat the sinful human tendency to treat \u201cthe earth as a lifeless instrument of rapacious exploitation; the plots of land handed down from one generation to another must, in principle, be made inalienable and sufficient to maintain in each person a moral attitude towards the earth.\u201d While his last assertion is problematic \u2014 how precisely does one guarantee sufficient land for subsequent generations simply through inheritance? \u2014 nevertheless whatever the practical challenges, Solovyov is clear that private property is key to protecting human dignity and to creating a just society, both civil and religious.<\/p>\n Given the pressing need to undo the economic, and more importantly moral and spiritual, damage done during the Soviet era, it is not suprising that the Russian Orthodox Church affirms the right to property. The Moscow Patriarchate in its 2000 document, \u201cThe Basis of the Social Concept of the Russian Orthodox Church\u201d<\/a> teaches that private property is essential to both a just civil society and the Church\u2019s own ministries. Property, or more broadly wealth, is \u201cGod\u2019s gift given to be used for [our] own and [our] neighbor\u2019s benefit\u201d (VII.2). The right to private property is \u201ca socially recognized form of people\u2019s relationship to the fruits of their labour and to natural resources\u201d that under normal circumstances includes not only \u201cthe right to \u2026 use property\u201d but also \u201cto control and collect income\u201d from one\u2019s property and \u201cto dispose of, lease, modify or liquidate property\u201d (VII.1). While acknowledging that in a fallen world the creation of wealth and the right to private property can \u201cproduce \u2026 sinful phenomena\u201d when undertaken in ways that are not \u201cproper and morally justified\u201d (VII.3), the Church stresses that this does not justify the dissolution of property rights or income re-distribution since \u201cthe alienation and re-distribution of property\u201d violates \u201cthe rights of its legitimate owners\u201d (VII.3). <\/p>\n To be clear, property rights are not a panacea \u2013 protecting and enhancing private ownership will not cure all that ails us personally or socially. Nor can we separate the exercise of our right to property from the moral law or, for Christians, the Gospel. But Orthodox social thought does I think allow us to make a convincing case that property rights are a key element of human flourishing, a necessary ingredient of a just society, and an aid to Christian ministry. Rooted as it is in human nature, it is also a right that can help us see the dignity of all members of the human family and of the ability that all of us \u2013 rich or poor, male or female, young or old \u2013 have to serve the flourishing of those around us, our society and the Church.<\/p>\n![\"fr-gregory-jensen-150x150\"](\"https:\/\/www.aoiusa.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2011\/12\/fr-gregory-jensen-150x150.png\")
<\/a>Source: Action Institute<\/a> | Fr. Gregory Jensen<\/p>\n\n\tSocial Dimensions<\/h3>\n