The Message of Puebla: Notes and Comments– V (The End) – Folha de S. Paulo, May 19, 1979
by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
Does the ‘Social Function’ Affect Only Private Property?
In the final part of his message to the Third CELAM Conference, John Paul II says that, faithful to its evangelical commitment, “the Church wishes to stay free with regard to the competing systems, in order to opt only for man.”
In principle, no self-respecting movement would say the opposite, that is, that it does not choose man but some system, even to man’s detriment.
What are these “competing systems” between which the message refuses to choose? Given the ideological and political landscape of our time, they appear to be capitalism and communism.
A question then arises: what does it mean, in this context, to refuse to choose between the two regimes? Given the Church’s traditional teachings on communism and capitalism, it is clear that—although she criticizes both—her objections to the communist regime are far broader and more serious than those she raises against the capitalist one. The very notion of “refusing to choose” therefore requires essential clarification:
a) The Church does not opt for either, in the sense that both contain elements incompatible with it.
b) However, the incompatibilities with one of the regimes are so much broader than those with the other that, if forced by circumstances to choose the lesser evil, the Church must emphatically opt for the one that constitutes a much lesser evil (although not a small one). Although very brief, the passage from John Paul II quoted above does not provide a basis for such a statement. However, the message touches more closely on the issue in the immediately following topic: “Hence [from its option for man arises] the Church’s constant preoccupation with the delicate question of property.”
The Right to Property
The pontiff goes on to show that this concern is timeless. To this end, he quotes St. Ambrose (4th century) and St. Thomas Aquinas, whose “vigorous teaching” has been “repeated so many times.” He then refers to papal documents “in our own times,” naming the encyclicals Populorum Progressio and Mater et Magistra. He concludes that these teachings need to be heard “in our time also, when the growing wealth of a few parallels the growing poverty of the masses.”
Viewed in their entirety, all these teachings to which John Paul II refers undoubtedly affirm the principle of private property, the denial of which is essential to any form of collectivism, whether strictly Marxist or not.
Naturally, “undoubtedly” here means objectively. Today, almost everything can be said to be “beyond doubt” subjectively. In other words, there is no shortage of those who interpret the “writings of the Fathers of the Church through the first thousand years of Christianity,” as well as Populorum Progressio and Mater et Magistra, in ways that severely restrict or even distort the principle of private property.
Thus, many may find in these words of John Paul II a subjective pretext for continuing to profess their opposition or quasi-opposition to private property.
With just a few sentences, the pontiff could have dispelled these interpretations, which continue to cause painful divisions of mind among the faithful. It is regrettable that he did not do so. I can only hope that he will offer such clarification at the earliest opportunity.
Does the Social Function Apply Only to Property?
John Paul II does not stop there concerning private property.
In the following paragraph, he states that given these disparities between wealth and poverty, “the Church’s teaching, according to which all private property involves a social obligation, acquires an urgent character.”
This is indeed a great truth taught by many previous pontiffs. The social function of property has become a commonplace, a slogan among Catholic and even non-Catholic writers on social and economic issues.
Yet even here, modern conditions demand a more precise formulation. The repeated invocation of this “venerable” slogan has led many to suppose that property alone bears a social function, as if it were the only right encumbered by a social “mortgage,” while all others stood exempt. In truth, every right carries a social function; each is, in its own way, subject to the same encumbrance. The right to work offers an obvious illustration.
Severe distortions would be avoided if all holders of rights were reminded that their rights, too, carry this encumbrance. Had this been understood, the right to strike would not have led the doctors, nurses, and staff of a major hospital in Naples to abandon their posts months ago, leaving their patients in a tragic situation. The noble profession to which they are dedicated exists not only to secure their livelihood but also to safeguard the lives entrusted to them—indeed, not only the patients already under their care at the moment of the strike but also all those who, as members of society, might at any time depend upon them.
At a moment when the property right—explicitly acknowledged by the Pontiff, for whoever affirms that this right has a social function necessarily presupposes its existence, since a function cannot float in a vacuum—stands increasingly under suspicion, it would be important for the Church, the guardian of all rights, to free it carefully from the false appearance of weakness and quasi-illegitimacy with which current circumstances have disfigured it.
These aspirations are not mine alone but those of millions of faithful who are gravely concerned about the communist danger.
May God grant that a future document of John Paul II will be attentive to them.
As I approach the final considerations of this lengthy commentary, I will pass over in silence the section on human rights, for there are no particularly urgent or contentious theoretical disputes surrounding them at present—apart, of course, from questions touching their deepest doctrinal foundations.
And so I come to the final topic.
Liberation Theology
Undoubtedly, the body of doctrines condemned by John Paul II centers on the liberation of man from the contingencies that weigh so heavily on his earthly existence. Since these doctrines operate within a theological framework—even if only to reach conclusions that, in this respect, amount to a denial of Jesus Christ—it follows that they may rightly be described as a theology of liberation.
However, it seems excessive to deduce from this that John Paul II has condemned all liberation theology. On the contrary, he formally reserved a sense of liberation theology. Here are his exact words:
“The Church feels the duty to proclaim the llberation of millions of human beings, the duty to help this liberation become firmly established (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 30); but she also feels the corresponding duty to proclaim liberation in its integral and profound meaning, as Jesus proclaimed and realized it (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 31).”Liberation from everything that oppresses man but which is, above all, liberation from sin and the Evil One, in the joy of knowing God and being known by him” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 9). …
“Liberation that in the framework of the Church’s proper mission is not reduced to the simple and narrow economic, political, social or cultural dimension, and is not sacrificed to the demands of any strategy, practice or short-term solution (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 33).”
“To safeguard the originality of Christian liberation and the energies that it is capable of releasing, one must at all costs avoid any form of curtailment or ambiguity, as Pope Paul VI asked: “The Church would lose her fundamental meaning. Her message of liberation would no longer have any originality and would easily be open to monopolization and manipulation by ideological systems and political parties” (Evangelii Nuntiandi, 32). There are many signs that help to distinguish when the liberation in question is Christian and when on the other hand it is based rather on ideologies that rob it of consistency with an evangelical view of man, of things and of events (cf. Evangelii Nuntiandi, 35).”
The Scope of the Message
With all this said and weighed, it is appropriate to ask what impact John Paul II’s message will have on the future of Brazil, the Latin American continent, and, consequently, the world.
In this regard, fairness dictates that we avoid two peremptory statements: it had enormous reach because it cut off communism, and it had no reach because it left the gates open to communism.
In fact, in the face of communism, the message neither closed the door entirely (which would have been highly necessary) nor left it entirely open. As I said, it closed one leaf of the door (which is still of some use).
Ultimately, what matters most in this case is that the bishops who gathered at Puebla received the papal message almost unanimously. In light of that reaction, what attitude will John Paul II adopt toward the document of more than two hundred pages that the prelates approved on the final day of the meeting and submitted to his sovereign judgment?
The bishops will follow this document as their roadmap. Given the message as it stands, the roadmap will chart the course for the future.
It is not impossible that the bishops’ document will be published with Rome’s approval even before this series is complete. In any case, I propose to comment on it for our dear Folha readers.
With fewer details than in this series, of course, as the teachings of a pontiff merit a degree of attention, analytical rigor, and breadth of commentary unmatched by any other documents written by human hands—even when the grace of God aids those hands.
Summary
All things considered, weighed and counted, what is the reach of John Paul II’s message for Brazil’s future, Latin America’s future, and the world’s future?
Justice dictates that we avoid two peremptory statements: it had an enormous impact because it stopped communism in its tracks, or it had no effect because it left one leaf of the door open to communism.
In fact, in the face of communism, the message neither closed the door entirely (and it would have been so necessary to do so) nor left it entirely open. It closed one of the doorposts (which is still somewhat helpful).
