Private property is a hallmark of a capitalistic economy. The counter is a socialist/Marxist/communist position that argues elimination of private property to some degree in favor of a collectivist shared property paradigm. There are clear inequalities from Capitalism as “those who have” have in a abundance and “those who have not” lack the basic necessities of survival. It is a fair proposition to redistribute the assets of society in order to address the injustices of this economic inequality. As the title of the article asks, “Does God want us to have private property?”
The bible is not an economic document. It does not establish an earthly kingdom or “Amen Amen I say to you: Thou Shall do economic system….” Let us be clear that anything is possible through a bible quote taken out of context. I would argue private property is better at respecting the inherent dignity of the human person than no private property. But let’s go through bible passages that suggest the opposite.
Rich Young Man
Jesus said to him, “If you would be perfect, go, sell what you possess and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, follow me.” When the young man heard this he went away sorrowful, for he had great possessions.
And Jesus said to his disciples, “Truly, I say to you, only with difficulty will a rich person enter the kingdom of heaven.
Matthew 19:21-23 ESV
Matthew 19:21-23 discusses the rich man who desired to follow Jesus, but struggled with letting go of material possessions. Whether he followed Jesus’s advice is unclear from the text. This passage is a warning to the wealthy of society. It would be very easy to take this passage and claim a redistribution of wealth is biblical, or at least no one should ever be too wealthy. A valid question is to ask if Jesus was giving a universal teaching or gave a particular advice to the man. A universal application is to have a healthy detachment to private property, but detachment of property is not the same as redistribution of property.
Rich Man and Lazarus
“There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen and who feasted sumptuously every day. And at his gate was laid a poor man named Lazarus, covered with sores, who desired to be fed with what fell from the rich man’s table. Moreover, even the dogs came and licked his sores. The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.’ But Abraham said, ‘Child, remember that you in your lifetime received your good things, and Lazarus in like manner bad things; but now he is comforted here, and you are in anguish. And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.’
Luke 16:19-26 ESV
This passage encourages a redistribution as a benevolent gift. We do not want to be TOO comfortable in this life. Why not surrender our private property in eagerness to avoid the punishments in the next life? There are many Lazarus’s in the world. Wouldn’t giving our wealth to them spare us from punishment both by eliminating excess and elevating our fellow man? All are fair arguments. However, depending on how the redistribution occurs, then it could be Lazarus who is sent to torment. What standard or metric would exist to say, “We cannot give you more wealth because your poverty has been eliminated.” The have nots would become the haves and then would be a target for redistribution in their own turn.
Matthew 25: Final Judgement
Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’ Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’ Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Matthew 25: 41-46 ESV
Matthew 25 inspires the corporal works of mercy and clearly shows how much God identifies with the poor. It is someone’s neglect and inaction that condemns them in this passage. If there is a class of people that have more than enough to survive, then are they guilty of damnation for not doing more for the poor? It wouldn’t be a far leap to suggest redistribution of property is justified by this passage. Can you be insanely wealthy and be right with God? Even if I believe in private property, I must acknowledge the mandate for philanthropy and charity with our wealth.
They held All things in Common
And they devoted themselves to the apostles’ teaching and the fellowship, to the breaking of bread and the prayers. And awe came upon every soul, and many wonders and signs were being done through the apostles. And all who believed were together and had all things in common. And they were selling their possessions and belongings and distributing the proceeds to all, as any had need.
Acts 2:42-45
Now the full number of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one said that any of the things that belonged to him was his own, but they had everything in common. And with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. There was not a needy person among them, for as many as were owners of lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold and laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need.
Acts 4:32-35
The first half of Acts walks through concrete behaviors of the early church. These passages are perhaps the strongest to argue a redistribution of wealth in the bible. It would be asinine to contradict the literal redistribution of wealth that occurs in these bible passages. As such, the defense will focus more on who is redistributing the wealth versus the act itself. The apostles and disciples are “one heart one mind” gathering together for worship and praising the Lord. If this description would describe government agencies or political candidates then maybe I’d be open to a redistribution of wealth.
We see the apostles only spend, but not produce. The apostles receive these gifts in gratitude to perform works of mercy, but the disciples who aren’t a part of the ministry are tasked to producing as a means to support the ministry. Paul acknowledges this dynamic but opts to supply his own income instead. (Acts 18:1-4 & 1 Corinthians 9:8-18) If a plan of redistribution of goods is chosen, then it must have a clear execution on who is producing goods/services prior to the redistribution. Currently, entrepreneurs and business moguls produce the good out of self-interest. In a socialist/Marxist/communist society there would need to be either government coercion to produce the desired goods or a radical altruism instilled into the society. It is a rare breed to work 40+ hour weeks for someone else’s benefit without regard to the self. Such a collectivist attitude may be possible in heaven, but on earth we humans struggle with insecurity and selfishness.
Why Private Property is Good
The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise. CCC 2403
These bible passages above teach us to care for the poor and be willing to let go of our wealth for whom it would better serve. The preferential option for the poor is indispensable to Catholic Social teaching. The universal destination of goods highlight the importance of detachment to possessions. (CCC 2402-2406) Our eternal salvation is at risk if we fail to embody love for our neighbor and God with our wealth.
Yet, Private property still strikes me as the more Christian principle. Regardless of any redistribution of wealth, at some point someone will be chosen to consume the wealth. At some point, some one will be tasked with maintenance and upkeep of the property. At some point, the collective must defer to the individual so that justice can be given to the person with dignity and respect. The most basic justification of private property is to give credence to, “it is wrong for you to take this/keep this away from me.” We don’t want to be accused of being cruel stewards of the property that we possess. (Luke 12:42-48)
I would argue that private property is actually an application of the principle of subsidiarity.
Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” 7
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
The principle of subsidiarity posits that the person closest to the issue should be given the authority and ability to address the problem. To me, this is the purpose of private property. The person who is the most invested in their personal survival and flourishing is ourselves. For better or for worse, Capitalism encourages a self-centered approach in a consumerist society. The beauty of capitalism is people make their way in the world with their intellect and will by striving to supply for the market goods and/or services that are demanded by the customers of society.
As a principle of subsidiarity, private property provides a protection to an individual’s dignity. If there is any injustice of Capitalism, it is that private property is a consequence of skill, knowledge, merit, opportunity, luck, network, and indomitable will. Capitalism is a merciless overseer if a person is not willing to play by the rules. Or the big players sabotage newcomers. Or some people simply need assistance to be a part of the rat race. It truly is imperfect and applying Christian principles whenever possible would help, but the redistribution of goods in a socialist/Marxist/communist regime would arguably be worse. The application of private property in a capitalistic system is much more sustainable and respecting of the dignity of the person.
Greed may be a virtue in capitalism, according to Milton Friedman, but if we selfishly hoard our wealth at the expense of our fellow man, then may God’s Justice be delivered. Government intervention is needed to ensure there’s no gross injustices and altruism ought to be a part of “good business.” Regardless of our class or station, we ought to have a preferential option for the poor and work to lift up our fellow man. We would be better served to empower the individual to rise up than to tear down those on top. Rising tide raises all ships as the maxim in Capitalism goes.
The Average Catholic: More Articles Here! 
Leave a comment