-
8. The Principle of Detachment from Private Property in Basil of Caesarea’s Homily 6 and Its Context
- The Catholic University of America Press
- Chapter
- Additional Information
161 Brian Matz 8. The Principle of Detachment from Private Property in Basil of Caesarea’s Homily 6 and Its Context I have two sons. The older of my boys, now age four, enjoys building elaborate sets with his wooden train tracks. The younger of my boys, now age one, enjoys “playing” with his older brother by tearing apart the train set as it is being built. The four-year-old is understandably upset, and some sort of physical behavior is displayed to retrieve the tracks from his younger brother. What is a parent to do in this situation? I suggest the problem is not simple. The older boy has applied his time, energy, and talents into constructing something new from which he now draws some sense of personal dignity. He has put his labor to good use to fashion some sort of property, and he believes he has earned the right to enjoy what he has made. The younger boy believes that this new property should not be treated as private, but should be for all to share and to play. As a parent, I would like to find some middle ground between asking the older boy to share his property and trying to occupy the younger boy with some other activity. Yet, if pressed on the matter, ought I to lean towards protecting the right to private property or towards ensuring all property is made common ? In addition, how much does the application of a child’s own labor in the production of property figure into the calculation? These types of questions have long been a part of Christian ethical reflection on the merits of private property. This includes studies of the ear- 162 Brian Matz ly Church’s teachings with respect to private property. In fact, a debate over whether or not the early Church was proto-communist in its views of property dominated scholarly discussion from the mid-nineteenth to the mid-twentieth century, and continues even today in some quarters.1 More recently, scholarship turned its attention to the socio-cultural and economic backdrop of late antiquity in order to better understand the context to which the Fathers addressed their concerns about property.2 Most recently, questions about early 1. The tendency within this body of literature is to conclude that they were, although it is understood that early Christians shared their goods voluntarily. L.William Countryman, The Rich Christian in the Church of the Early Empire: Contradictions and Accomodations, Texts and Studies in Religion 7 (New York: Edwin Mellen Press, 1980), 1–18, rather capably summarized this body of literature up to the mid-1970s insisting, at the end, that contemporary political questions are ultimately unhelpful when approaching early Christian texts. Countryman suggested limiting the scope of any inquiry to the few Christian texts that can be reliably dated and whose authorship is in little doubt. For his part, he focused on Clement of Alexandria’s Quis dives salvetur? and related texts from Clement that shed light on his understanding of private property. For an earlier summary of the debate, see Franz Meffert, Der “Kommunismus ” Jesu und der Kirchenväter (München-Gladbach: Volksvereinverlag, 1922). The secondary literature affirming the voluntary nature of early Christian poverty and wealthsharing includes, among many others, Ephrem Baumgartner, “Der Kommunismus im Urchristentum,” Zeitschrift für katholische Theologie 33 (1909): 625–45; Etienne Chastel, Études historiques sur l’influence de la charité durant les premiers siècles chrétiens, et considérations sur son rôle dans les sociétés modernes (Paris: Capelle, 1853); Eng. trans. George-Auguste Matile, The charity of the primitive churches: Historical studies upon the influence of Christian charity during the first centuries of our era, with some considerations touching its bearings upon modern society (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1857); F.X.Funk, “Über Reichtum und Handel im christlichen Altertum,” Historisch-politische Blätter 130 (1902): 888–99; Stanislas Giet, “La doctrine de l’appropriation des biens chez quelques-uns des Pères,” Recherches de science religieuse 35 (1948): 55–91; Edmond Le Blant, “La richesse et las christianisme a l’age des persécutions,” Revue archéologique, Series 2 (1880): 39: 220–30; Shailer Matthews, The Social Teachings of Jesus: An Essay in Christian Sociology (New York: Macmillan, 1897); Ernst Troeltsch, Die Soziallehren der christlichen Kirchen und Gruppen, Gesammelte Schriften 1 (Tübingen: Mohr [Paul Siebeck], 1912); Eng. trans. Olive Wyon, The Social Teaching of the Christian Churches, 2 vols.(London: Allen and Unwin, 1931...