LIBERTY UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF DIVINITY
Assignment Title: PRINCIPLES OF THE CHURCH'S SOCIAL DOCTRINE
Course: CHMN 699 - Internship
Student: Kristine Sage
Date: January 29, 2022
Professor: Dr. Joel Breidenbaugh
I. MEANING AND UNITY
160. The permanent principles of the Church's social doctrine [ 341] constitute the very heart of
Catholic social teaching. These are the principles of: the dignity of the human person, which has already
been dealt with in the preceding chapter, and which is the foundation of all the other principles and
content of the Church's social doctrine; [342] the common good; subsidiarity; and solidarity. These
principles, the expression of the whole truth about man known by reason and faith, are born of “the
encounter of the Gospel message and of its demands summarized in the supreme commandment of
love of God and neighbour in justice with the problems emanating from the life of society”.[343] In the
course of history and with the light of the Spirit, the Church has wisely reflected within her own tradition
of faith and has been able to provide an ever more accurate foundation and shape to these principles,
progressively explaining them in the attempt to respond coherently to the demands of the times and to
the continuous developments of social life.
161. These are principles of a general and fundamental character, since they concern the reality of
society in its entirety: from close and immediate relationships to those mediated by politics, economics
and law; from relationships among communities and groups to relations between
peoples and nations. Because of their permanence in time and their universality of meaning, the Church
presents them as the primary and fundamental perameters of reference for interpreting and evaluating
social phenomena, which is the necessary source for working out the criteria for the discernment and
orientation of social interactions in every area.
162. The principles of the Church's social doctrine must be appreciated in their unity,
interrelatedness and articulation. This requirement is rooted in the meaning that the Church herself
attributes to her social doctrine, as a unified doctrinal corpus that interprets modern social realities in a
systematic manner.[344] Examining each of these principles individually must not lead to using them
only in part or in an erroneous manner, which would be the case if they were to be invoked in a
disjointed and unconnected way with respect to each of the others. A deep theoretical understanding
and the actual application of even just one of these social principles clearly shows the reciprocity,
complementarities and interconnectedness that is part of their structure. These fundamental principles
of the Church's social doctrine, moreover, represent much more than a permanent legacy of reflection,
which is also an essential part of the Christian message, since they indicate the paths possible for
building a good, authentic and renewed social life.[345]
163. The principles of the social doctrine, in their entirety, constitute that primary articulation of the
truth of society by which every conscience is challenged and invited to interact with every other
conscience in truth, in responsibility shared fully with all people and also regarding all people. In fact,
man cannot avoid the question of freedom and of the meaning of life in society, since society is a reality
that is neither external nor foreign to his being.
These principles have a profoundly moral significance because they refer to the ultimate and
organizational foundations of life in society. To understand them completely it is necessary to act in
accordance with them, following the path of development that they indicate for a life worthy of man.
The ethical requirement inherent in these pre-eminent social principles concerns both the personal
behaviour of individuals — in that they are the first and indispensable responsible subjects of social life
at every level — and at the same time institutions represented by laws, customary norms and civil
constructs, because of their capacity to influence and condition the choices of many people over a long
period of time. In fact, these principles remind us that the origins of a society existing in history are
found in the interconnectedness of the freedoms of all the persons who interact within it, contributing
by means of their choices either to build it up or to impoverish it.
II. THE PRINCIPLE OF THE COMMON GOOD
a. Meaning and primary implications
164. The principle of the common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to
attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its
primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions
which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfilment more fully and more
easily”.[346]
The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a
social entity. Belonging to everyone and to each person, it is and remains “common”, because it is
indivisible and because only together is it possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness,
with regard also to the future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing what
is good, so too the actions of a society attain their full stature when they bring about the common good.
The common good, in fact, can be understood as the social and community dimension of the moral
good.
165. A society that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level is a
society that has the common good — the good of all people and of the whole person [347] — as its
primary goal. The human person cannot find fulfilment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he
exists “with” others and “for” others. This truth does not simply require that he live with others at
various levels of social life, but that he seek unceasingly — in actual practice and not merely at the level
of ideas — the good, that is, the meaning and truth, found in existing forms of social life. No expression
of social life — from the family to intermediate social groups, associations, enterprises of an economic
nature, cities, regions, States, up to the community of peoples and nations — can escape the issue of its
own common good, in that this is a constitutive element of its significance and the authentic reason for
its very existence[348].
b. Responsibility of everyone for the common good
166. The demands of the common good are dependent on the social conditions of each historical
period and are strictly connected to respect for and the integral promotion of the person and his
fundamental rights[349]. These demands concern above all the commitment to peace, the organization
of the State's powers, a sound juridical system, the protection of the environment, and the provision of
essential services to all, some of which are at the same time human rights: food, housing, work,
education and access to culture, transportation, basic health care, the freedom of communication and
expression, and the protection of religious freedom[350]. Nor must one forget the contribution that
every nation is required in duty to make towards a true worldwide cooperation for the common good of
the whole of humanity and for future generations also[351].
167. The common good therefore involves all members of society, no one is exempt from
cooperating, according to each one's possibilities, in attaining it and developing it[352]. The common
good must be served in its fullness, not according to reductionist visions that are subordinated by
certain people to their advantages; own rather it is to be based on a logic that leads to the assumption
of greater responsibility. The common good corresponds to the highest of human instincts[353], but it is
a good that is very difficult to attain because it requires the constant ability and effort to seek the good
of others as though it were one's own good.
Everyone also has the right to enjoy the conditions of social life that are brought about by the quest
for the common good. The teaching of Pope Pius XI is still relevant: “the distribution of created goods,
which, as every discerning person knows, is labouring today under the gravest evils due to the huge
disparity between the few exceedingly rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called
back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice”[354].
c. Tasks of the political community
168. The responsibility for attaining the common good, besides falling to individual persons, belongs
also to the State, since the common good is the reason that the political authority exists[355]. The State,
in fact, must guarantee the coherency, unity and organization of the civil society of which it is an
expression[356], in order that the common good may be attained with the contribution of every citizen.
The individual person, the family or intermediate groups are not able to achieve their full development
by themselves for living a truly human life. Hence the necessity of political institutions, the purpose of
which is to make available to persons the necessary material, cultural, moral and spiritual goods. The
goal of life in society is in fact the historically attainable common good[357].
169. To ensure the common good, the government of each country has the specific duty to
harmonize the different sectoral interests with the requirements of justice[358]. The proper reconciling
of the particular goods of groups and those of individuals is, in fact, one of the most delicate tasks of
public authority. Moreover, it must not be forgotten that in the democratic State, where decisions are
usually made by the majority of representatives elected by the people, those responsible for
government are required to interpret the common good of their country not only according to the
guidelines of the majority but also according to the effective good of all the members of the community,
including the minority.
170. The common good of society is not an end in itself; it has value only in reference to attaining
the ultimate ends of the person and the universal common good of the whole of creation. God is the
ultimate end of his creatures and for no reason may the common good be deprived of its transcendent
dimension, which moves beyond the historical dimension while at the same time fulfilling it[359]. This
perspective reaches its fullness by virtue of faith in Jesus' Passover, which sheds clear light on the
attainment of humanity's true common good. Our history — the personal and collective effort to elevate
the human condition — begins and ends in Jesus: thanks to him, by means of him and in light of him
every reality, including human society, can be brought to its Supreme Good, to its fulfilment. A purely
historical and materialistic vision would end up transforming the common good into a simple socio-
economic well-being, without any transcendental goal, that is, without its most intimate reason for
existing.
III. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS
a. Origin and meaning
171. Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by
the principle of the universal destination of goods: “God destined the earth and all it contains for all men
and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of
justice tempered by charity”[360]. This principle is based on the fact that “the original source of all that
is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so
that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen 1:28-29). God gave the earth to
the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone.
This is the foundation of the universal destination of the earth's goods. The earth, by reason of its
fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God's first gift for the sustenance of human
life”[361]. The human person cannot do without the material goods that correspond to his primary
needs and constitute the basic conditions for his existence; these goods are absolutely indispensable if
he is to feed himself, grow, communicate, associate with others, and attain the highest purposes to
which he is called[362].
172. The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal
destination of goods. Each person must have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full
development. The right to the common use of goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical and social
order” [363] and “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine”[364]. For this reason the
Church feels bound in duty to specify the nature and characteristics of this principle. It is first of all a
natural right, inscribed in human nature and not merely a positive right connected with changing
historical circumstances; moreover it is an “inherent” [365] right. It is innate in individual persons, in
every person, and has priority with regard to any human intervention concerning goods, to any legal
system concerning the same, to any economic or social system or method: “All other rights, whatever
they are, including property rights and the right of free trade must be subordinated to this norm [the
universal destination of goods]; they must not hinder it, but must rather expedite its application. It must
be considered a serious and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original purpose”[366].
173. Putting the principal of the universal destination of goods into concrete practice, according to
the different cultural and social contexts, means that methods, limits and objects must be precisely
defined. Universal destination and utilization of goods do not mean that everything is at the disposal of
each person or of all people, or that the same object may be useful or belong to each person or all
people. If it is true that everyone is born with the right to use the goods of the earth, it is likewise true
that, in order to ensure that this right is exercised in an equitable and orderly fashion, regulated
interventions are necessary, interventions that are the result of national and international agreements,
and a juridical order that adjudicates and specifies the exercise of this right.
174. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an invitation to develop an economic
vision inspired by moral values that permit people not to lose sight of the origin or purpose of these
goods, so as to bring about a world of fairness and solidarity, in which the creation of wealth can take on
a positive function. Wealth, in effect, presents this possibility in the many different forms in which it can
find expression as the result of a process of production that works with the available technological and
economic resources, both natural and derived. This result is guided by resourcefulness, planning and
labour, and used as a means for promoting the well-being of all men and all peoples and for preventing
their exclusion and exploitation.
175. The universal destination of goods requires a common effort to obtain for every person and for
all peoples the conditions necessary for integral development, so that everyone can contribute to making
a more humane world, “in which each individual can give and receive, and in which the progress of some
will no longer be an obstacle to the development of others, nor a pretext for their enslavement”[367].
This principle corresponds to the call made unceasingly by the Gospel to people and societies of all
times, tempted as they always are by the desire to possess, temptations which the Lord Jesus chose to
undergo (cf. Mk 1:12-13; Mt 4:1-11; Lk 4:1-13) in order to teach us how to overcome them with his
grace.
b. The universal destination of goods and private property
176. By means of work and making use of the gift of intelligence, people are able to exercise
dominion over the earth and make it a fitting home: “In this way, he makes part of the earth his own,
precisely the part which he has acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property”[368].
Private property and other forms of private ownership of goods “assure a person a highly necessary
sphere for the exercise of his personal and family autonomy and ought to be considered as an extension
of human freedom ... stimulating exercise of responsibility, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil
liberty”[369]. Private property is an essential element of an authentically social and democratic
economic policy, and it is the guarantee of a correct social order. The Church's social doctrine requires
that ownership of goods be equally accessible to all[370], so that all may become, at least in some
measure, owners, and it excludes recourse to forms of “common and promiscuous dominion”[371].
177. Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and
untouchable: “On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the
right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is
subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone”[372]. The
principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God's full and perennial lordship
over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever destined to the
development of the whole person and of all humanity[373]. This principle is not opposed to the right to
private property[374] but indicates the need to regulate it. Private property, in fact, regardless of the
concrete forms of the regulations and juridical norms relative to it, is in its essence only an instrument for
respecting the principle of the universal destination of goods; in the final analysis, therefore, it is not an
end but a means[375].
178. The Church's social teaching moreover calls for recognition of the social function of any form of
private ownership [376] that clearly refers to its necessary relation to the common good[377]. Man
“should regard the external things that he legitimately possesses not only as his own but also as
common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only him but also others”[378]. The
universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their legitimate
owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that this use will
have, rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but also the
common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in their
possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who are
desirous and capable of putting them to use in production.
179. The present historical period has placed at the disposal of society new goods that were
completely unknown until recent times. This calls for a fresh reading of the principle of the universal
destination of the goods of the earth and makes it necessary to extend this principle so that it includes
the latest developments brought about by economic and technological progress. The ownership of these
new goods — the results of knowledge, technology and know-how — becomes ever more decisive,
because “the wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on
natural resources”[379].
New technological and scientific knowledge must be placed at the service of mankind's primary
needs, gradually increasing humanity's common patrimony. Putting the principle of the universal
destination of goods into full effect therefore requires action at the international level and planned
programmes on the part of all countries. “It is necessary to break down the barriers and monopolies
which leave so many countries on the margins of development, and to provide all individuals and
nations with the basic conditions which will enable them to share in development”[380].
180. If forms of property unknown in the past take on significant importance in the process of
economic and social development, nonetheless, traditional forms of property must not be forgotten.
Individual property is not the only legitimate form of ownership. The ancient form of community property
also has a particular importance; though it can be found in economically advanced countries, it is
particularly characteristic of the social structure of many indigenous peoples. This is a form of property
that has such a profound impact on the economic, cultural and political life of those peoples that it
constitutes a fundamental element of their survival and well-being. The defence and appreciation of
community property must not exclude, however, an awareness of the fact that this type of property also
is destined to evolve. If actions were taken only to preserve its present form, there would be the risk of
tying it to the past and in this way compromising it[381].
An equitable distribution of land remains ever critical, especially in developing countries and in
countries that have recently changed from systems based on collectivities or colonization[382]. In rural
areas, the possibility of acquiring land through opportunities offered by labour and credit markets is a
necessary condition for access to other goods and services. Besides constituting an effective means for
safeguarding the environment, this possibility represents a system of social security that can be put in
place also in those countries with a weak administrative structure.
181. To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise ownership of various types
of property accrue a series of objective advantages: better living conditions, security for the future, and a
greater number of options from which to choose. On the other hand, property may also bring a series of
deceptive promises that are a source of temptation. Those people and societies that go so far as to
absolutize the role of property end up experiencing the bitterest type of slavery. In fact, there is no
category of possession that can be considered indifferent with regard to the influence that it may have
both on individuals and on institutions. Owners who heedlessly idolize their goods (cf. Mt 6:24, 19:21-
26; Lk 16:13) become owned and enslaved by them[383]. Only by recognizing that these goods are
dependent on God the Creator and then directing their use to the common good, is it possible to give
material goods their proper function as useful tools for the growth of individuals and peoples.
