[Footnote 1: Comm. on Matt. xix. 9.]
[Footnote 2: Contra Ad., xx. 2.]
[Footnote 3: De Mor. Eccl. Cath., i. 35.]
[Footnote 4: Epist., lxiii. 92.]
[Footnote 5: Revue Archéologique, 1880, p. 321.]
The more one studies the Fathers the more one becomes convinced that property was regarded by them as one of the normal and legitimate institutions of human society. Benigni's conclusion, as the result of his exceptionally thorough researches, is that according to the early Fathers, 'property is lawful and ought scrupulously to be respected. But property is subject to the high duties of human fellowship which sprang from the equality and brotherhood of man. Collectivism is absurd and immoral.'[1] Janet arrived at the same conclusion: 'In spite of the words of the Fathers, in spite of the advice given by Christ to the rich man to sell all his goods and give to the poor, in spite of the communism of the Apostles, can one say that Christianity condemned property? Certainly not. Christianity considered it a counsel of perfection for a man to deprive himself of his goods; it did not abrogate the right of anybody.'[2] The same conclusion is reached by the Abbé Calippe in an excellent article published in La Semaine Sociale de France, 1909. 'The right of property and of the property owner are assumed.'[3] 'It is only prejudiced or superficial minds which could make the writers of the fourth century the precursors of modern communists or collectivists.'[4]
[Footnote 1: L'Economia Sociale Christiana avanti Costantino (Genoa, 1897).]
[Footnote 2: Histoire de la Science politique, vol. i. p. 319.]
[Footnote 3: P. 114.]
[Footnote 4: P. 121.]