The Myth of Sacred Property Versus the Actuality of Bios: The Apocalyptic Antagonism Between Written Language and Biology (part 1)

“private ownership must be held sacred and inviolable”

Rerum Novarum

Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII "On Capital and Labor"

1891

In an argument against socialism, and its goal of abolishing private property, the Pope declared private property sacred.

This was, and remains, a major statement and position of the Catholic Church. Politically, it has provided a religious foundation of anti-Communism, and remains a central tenet/dogma of governments everywhere, particularly the USA, whose Constitution makes “property” its central organizing principle. 

(We thank Republican candidate for President in 2012, Mitt Romney [pictured above], for "progressing" beyond the Pope by promising to defend—against Democrats—the sacredness not just of property, but of money itself; for without money property cannot be made "liquid" and exchanged thereby.)

The Pope provided a theology of property that insists a deity created property when it created humans, and this makes sense within the context of biblical religion, for:

Gen. 1:28

God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

> the deity commands humans to subdue the earth, and makes it "ruler" of life on earth

and:

Gen 13

So Abram went up from Egypt to the Negev, with his wife and everything he had, and Lot went with him. 2 Abram had become very wealthy in livestock and in silver and gold.

3 From the Negev he went from place to place until he came to Bethel, to the place between Bethel and Ai where his tent had been earlier 4 and where he had first built an altar. There Abram called on the name of the Lord.

5 Now Lot, who was moving about with Abram, also had flocks and herds and tents. 6 But the land could not support them while they stayed together, for their possessions were so great that they were not able to stay together. 7 And quarreling arose between Abram’s herders and Lot’s. The Canaanites and Perizzites were also living in the land at that time.

8 So Abram said to Lot, “Let’s not have any quarreling between you and me, or between your herders and mine, for we are close relatives. 9 Is not the whole land before you? Let’s part company. If you go to the left, I’ll go to the right; if you go to the right, I’ll go to the left.”

10 Lot looked around and saw that the whole plain of the Jordan toward Zoar was well watered, like the garden of the Lord, like the land of Egypt. (This was before the Lord destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.) 11 So Lot chose for himself the whole plain of the Jordan and set out toward the east. The two men parted company: 12 Abram lived in the land of Canaan, while Lot lived among the cities of the plain and pitched his tents near Sodom. 13 Now the people of Sodom were wicked and were sinning greatly against the Lord.

14 The Lord said to Abram after Lot had parted from him, “Look around from where you are, to the north and south, to the east and west. 15 All the land that you see I will give to you and your offspring forever. 16 I will make your offspring like the dust of the earth, so that if anyone could count the dust, then your offspring could be counted. 17 Go, walk through the length and breadth of the land, for I am giving it to you.”

18 So Abram went to live near the great trees of Mamre at Hebron, where he pitched his tents. There he built an altar to the Lord.

> the deity divides the earth, and creates "real estate"—the private property that Pope Leo deems "sacred"

In keeping with the theology of Thomas Aquinas, who averred that since the deity created the cosmos the cosmos obeys the deity’s law, the Pope extends his theology with a science-y Lockean-liberal argument:

“For, every man has by nature the right to possess property as his own. This is one of the chief points of distinction between man and the animal creation, for the brute has no power of self direction, but is governed by two main instincts, which keep his powers on the alert, impel him to develop them in a fitting manner, and stimulate and determine him to action without any power of choice. One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species.” 

The Pope appealed to people to apply the Jesusian ethos of brotherly love, warning the wealthy to not forget if they expected to get into heaven, they must do unto others as they would have others do unto them. 

Unfortunately, as Weber points out in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, the Torah myth of Solomon counters that Jesusian ethic, because it claims the deity shows his greatest love for the rich, who are rewarded with property, and least love for the poor, who are denied it. Poverty is proof the deity doesn’t like you.

Re: 2 Chronicles 1:11-12

11 And God said to Solomon, Because this was in thine heart, and thou hast not asked riches, wealth, or honour, nor the life of thine enemies, neither yet hast asked long life; but hast asked wisdom and knowledge for thyself, that thou mayest judge my people, over whom I have made thee king:

12 Wisdom and knowledge is granted unto thee; and I will give thee riches, and wealth, and honour, such as none of the kings have had that have been before thee, neither shall there any after thee have the like.

So, in the same way liberals and conservatives, and fascists, agree with the Pope that property is sacred and inviolable, so do Catholics and Protestants. Catholics are told to have the Jesusian ethic and Protestants prefer the Solomonian ethic. 

It is obvious that the Pope’s effort to instill the Jesusian ethic is a failure, for the Solomonian ethic today prevails ubiquitously. Its prevailing coincides with the rise of fascism. 

Before we conclude this short contemplation of the “property as sacred” let us note that the Pope defined as “animal” and not human “instincts”: “One of these instincts is self preservation, the other the propagation of the species.” He was attacking Darwinism, the theory of evolution by natural selection, here. He was also stating the ethos of nationalism, which in its purest form is the ethos of fascism: ie, ZIonism and MAGAism.

In conclusion, by sacralizing property, and criticizing socialism, Solomonism and Darwinism, the Pope attempted to sway mass populations to adhere to the Jesusian ethic of sharing bread and taking care of each other. He failed because property is a written language concept (not a biological actuality) and his bifurcation of human and animal is biologically false. COVID proved and bird flu proves this, obviously.