110 – Plagiarism? Manipulation? Prestidigitation? Francis’ peculiar concept of private property (I)

One of the aspects in which Francis has caused most perplexity – especially in the western world – is his blatant aversion to capitalism, shown by criticizing the free market whenever he gets a chance, by his unconcealed partiality for a motley assortment of communist leaders, as well as by the transmission of messages of dubious content, which – if one has the heart to get to the bottom of them – contain unpleasant surprises.

One of the members of the Denzinger-Bergoglio network, a passionate theologian of the Social Doctrine of the Church just finished a study showing some surprising aspects of the Encyclical Laudato Si’ regarding private property. In observing the conclusions reached, at first we thought that he might be exaggerating, perhaps stimulated by a motivation far removed from the objectives of this page. However, in calmly examining his point of departure, basis, analysis and conclusions, we could not help but admire it, for our reader had pinpointed everything very well indeed… better than Francis himself in his controversial encyclical. So let’s get right to the matter at hand, part by part…


Laborem exercens, source of inspiration (with nuances) for Francis

Francis begins Chapter 4 of the Laudato si’ with an eloquent subtitle; ‘The Common destination of goods’ and he further wrote in number 93:

The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods, and thus the right of everyone to their use, is a ‘golden rule’ of social conduct and ‘the first principle of the whole ethical and social order’ (John Paul II. Encyclical Laborem excercens, no. 19, September 14, 1981). (Laudato Si, 93)

In this paragraph, Francis cites the encyclical Laborem excercens of Pope John Paul II twice. Yes, that’s right, twice. Because the first reference: ‘The principle of the subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods’ corresponds to a paraphrase of number 14, a fact that is not mentioned. The second reference, as is indicated in the text, has been cited from number 19.

Now, these two references, having been extracted and juxtaposed outside of their original context used by Pope John Paul II, transmit imprecise ideas to most people, and they may even provide a basis for sophisms. Let us examine one of them, which is a serious matter.

If on one hand it may be affirmed that private property is subordinate to a universal right – that is, to the right of all men to make use of goods; and if, on the other hand, it is also affirmed that this right is a ‘golden rule of social conduct’ and ‘the first principle of the whole ethical and social order’, then, one could say that private property, being ‘subordinate’ to this ‘universal right’, should not necessarily be for individual use. Therefore, private property, in conceding its ‘private character’, in order to become ‘communitarian’ or ‘collective’, would fulfill more entirely its ‘universal destination’. Is it not due to this collectivization that it would be possible to alleviate its poorer brothers who have no possessions? This all sounds very well, doesn’t it?. But it is a mere sophism… as we shall see.

This gains strength when we read the second paraphrase that Francis subsequently presents. In it, once again the source of inspiration is omitted (Laborem excercens, no. 14) and besides, the doctrinal principle presented by its author, Pope John Paul II, is overlooked:

The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property’ (Laudato Si’ 93).

The reading of these three references obtained from the Laborem excercens, a direct citation from number 19, the two paraphrases of number 14 (moreover, from the same paragraph), together with the omission in indicating the author of the ideas [Note 1 – below] and the doctrinal context in which they are presented, oblige us to enter into an extensive clarification of the principles that Pope John Paul II taught, based on the Social Doctrine of the Church.

In light of these ‘lapses’ – let us denominate them in this manner….– a first point to clarify would be: In what doctrinal context did Pope John Paul II write these three references of the Laborem excercens, which are used within the Laudato si’ with such a surprising interpretation? What did this Pontiff teach regarding the right to private property in the referred number 14 of his encyclical Laborem excercens?

Reading the Laborem exercens in its context…

For the purpose of this analysis, the doctrinal aspects that Pope John Paul II recalled in number 14 of his encyclical Laborem exercens regarding the right to private property, may be synthesized in five points.

  1. The Holy Father presented a summary of the motives that brought Pope Leo XIII to publish his encyclical regarding the ‘Social Question’: Rerum Novarum. With this intent, a specific aspect referred to the contract verified between “those who do the work without being the owners of the means of production, and on the other side those [entre] who act as entrepreneurs and who own these means or represent the owners” (Laborem exercens, no. 14)
  2. Regarding this specific aspect, Pope John Paul II emphasized that the encyclical Rerum novarum, recalled and confirmed the doctrine of the Church regarding property and the right to private property, even when it treated of the means of production. Pope John Paul II drew attention to the fact that the same doctrine was taught by Pope John XXIII in his encyclical Mater et Magistra.
  3. In this regard Pope John Paul II affirmed: “The above principle, [the doctrine of the Church regarding private property], as it was then stated and as it is still taught by the Church, diverges radically from the programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the decades following the time of Leo XIII’s Encyclical.”
  4. Pope John Paul II also emphasized that: “At the same time it differs from the programme of capitalism practiced by liberalism and by the political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood” (Laborem exercens, no. 14). Let us understand this point well. It is well known that the process of social changes generated by the Industrial Revolution from the second half of the 19th century onwards brought, as a consequence, unemployment and poverty to multitudes who, in emigrating from the countryside to the city were subjected to conditions lacking the most basic elements of hygiene, health and dignity. In this process, the ideologists, economists, and industrialists of the liberal schools, such as for example, that of Manchester, unscrupulously favored the accumulation of great capitals, based on the payment of an ‘unjust salary’. In the first item of his encyclical Rerum Novarum, Pope Leo XIII firmly protested against this sin, which violates the seventh commandment of the law of God, and harms workers and their families.
  5. Having described the rejection that the Church manifested for Marxist collectivism and the program of capitalism practiced by liberalism, Pope John Paul II added the words that Francis utilized to compose the two paraphrases mentioned above. The first, which alludes to the ‘subordination of private property to the universal destination of goods’; and the second that emphasizes the ‘non absolute’ and ‘inviolable’ character of private property.

The great difference between the words of Pope John Paul II and Francis, are found in the following important doctrinal aspect: When Pope John Paul II addressed these topics he referred to the right that all people possess to use the goods created by God. In effect, the earth was given as an inheritance to all humans so that they might live from it. The economic liberalism of the 19th century, in denying workers a ‘just salary’, in practice disallowed them the possibility to form a patrimony for themselves and their family:

Christian tradition has never upheld this right 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’ (John Paul II. Laborem Exercens, no. 14)

Incidentally, exactly this universal right, whether of the large, medium or smaller property owners, to use the goods of the earth, was the favorite target of the persecution of the ‘programme of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism’ and brought about in numerous countries for decades, as Pope John Paul II himself emphasized in the same number 14 of the Laborem exercens, cited above.

That which the Polish pope strove to emphasize, Francis, on his part, by paraphrasing these ideas from the Laborem exercens, disregarding the historical contexts in which they were presented, and omitting a mention of its author and the doctrinal principles to which he alludes, inevitably presents paragraphs outside their original context. To facilitate its analyses, it is worthwhile to cite the second part, once again:

The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property’ (Laudato Si, no. 93).

Francis once again provokes doctrinal confusions, by presenting this paragraph with ideas as though they were of his own authorship, affirming that private property is not an ‘absolute’ or ‘inviolable’ right, and moreover, that a ‘social function’ weighs over it in any of its forms.

Francis and the ‘de-absolutization’ of private property?

What does it mean that this right (to property) was never recognized by ‘Christian tradition’ as absolute or inviolable?

We obtain a response by considering the historic and doctrinal circumstances exposed by Pope John Paul II in the Laborem Excercens, no. 14: ‘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’. However, since in Laudato si’ Francis argues that private property was simply not recognized by ‘Christian tradition’ as an ‘absolute’ and ‘inviolable’ right, inevitably, some doubts arise:

  1. What historic facts or doctrinal teaching might be used to demonstrate that ‘Christian tradition’ never recognized the right to private property ‘as absolute or inviolable’?
  2. Was there at any time, within the context of ‘Christian tradition’, a ‘violation’ or a ‘de-absolutization’ of private property?
  3. Who has the power to ‘de-absolutize’ or ‘violate’ private property?
  4. For what motives may one ‘de-absolutize’ or ‘violate’ private property?

The affirmation presented in Laudato si’, having been written based on a paragraph that was taken out of context, and above all, having silenced the doctrinal foundation presented by its original author, does not offer to the reader a response to these questions.

Nonetheless, taking as a reference some surprising contributions that Francis has made to the Social Doctrine of the Church, which he proudly declares that he follows, some conjectures may be made regarding his innovative doctrine. Let us examine five:


  1. Could it be possible that in Francis’ magisterium, private property could be ‘de-absolutized’ or ‘violated’ by the popular movements, ‘sowers of change’, whose ‘farm workers, laborers, communities and peoples’ want ‘real change, structural change’ since they live in a ‘system by now intolerable’ (Address by Francis to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, July 9, 2015).51d602de8c844
  2. Could it be possible that in Francis’ magisterium private property could be ‘de-absolutized’ or ‘violated’ by the governments of his particular liking, that is, by ‘governments which make it their responsibility to put the economy at the service of peoples’ in order to ‘promote the strengthening, improvement, coordination and expansion of these forms of popular economy and communitarian production’? (Address by Francis to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, July 9, 2015).15_1
  3. Could it be possible that in Francis’ magisterium private property could be ‘de-absolutized’ or ‘violated’ by the popular movements who ‘work tirelessly for the soil and crops of campesinos, for their lands and communities, for a more dignified local economy, for the urbanization of their homes and settlements; […] to build their own homes and develop neighborhood infrastructures and […] any number of community activities aimed at reaffirming so elementary and undeniably necessary a right as that of the three “L’s”: land, lodging and labor’ (Address by Francis to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, July 9, 2015).Nota_4_SDC6957_Alberto_Rodr_guez_San_Luis_Acatl_n
  4. Could it be possible that in Francis’ magisterium private property could be ‘de-absolutized’ or ‘violated’ by the ‘workers united in cooperatives and other forms of community organizations’ that ‘were able to create work where there were only crumbs of an idolatrous economy’, as for example, ‘recuperated businesses, local fairs and cooperatives of paper collectors’, testimonies ‘of that popular economy which is born of exclusion and which, slowly, patiently and resolutely adopts solidarity forms which dignify it? (Address by Francis to the Second World Meeting of Popular Movements, Santa Cruz de la Sierra, Bolivia, July 9, 2015).
  5. So, it seems that Francis’ magisterium of private property really can be ‘violated’ or ‘de-absolutized’ by the ‘Agrarian Reform’ that he vehemently incited to put into practice by the groups of Marxist orientation who attended his address at the I World Meeting of Popular Movements. (Address at the First World Meeting of Popular Movements, Rome, October 28, 2014)

These are questions that don’t seem so farfetched, when we start putting together this confusing puzzle. But along with these concerns, there is another, just as perplexing:

The ‘social purpose of property’ according to Francis…

What are we to understand when Francis affirms that: ‘The Christian tradition (…) has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property’ (Laudato si’, no. 93)?

Since according to Laudato si’, private property is a right which ‘Christian tradition has never recognized (…) as absolute or inviolable’, how are we to understand this ‘social purpose’? Would this ‘social purpose’ consist of a redistribution of the goods from those who have possessions with those who do not? If so, how would this redistribution be carried out if the owners do not wish to share their goods, since they are ‘standing up to an idolatrous system which excludes, debases and kills’? Should they be ‘liberated’ by ‘violating’ and ‘de-absolutizing’ their property by means of demonstrations or agitating the masses as is normally done by certain ‘popular movements’, directed by close friends of Francis, such as Juan Grabois of the ‘Workers Confederation of Popular Economy’ in Argentina and João Pedro Stédile of the ‘Landless Workers Movement’ in Brazil?

Juan Grabois – agitator with communist affiliations, promoter of the manifestations in the peripheries and industrial districts of Buenos Aires – great friend of Francis.

Joao Pedro Stedile, head of the ‘Landless workers movement’ (Movimento sem terra – MST), in Brazil.

Or could it be that the social purpose of property consists in it passing from its individual condition to a communitarian state through the governmental action of those leaders who have manifested a special ‘understanding’ toward Francis and vice versa, such as Evo Morales, Nicolás Maduro, Rafael Correa, Raúl Castro and other such representatives of socialism?mandatarios

This ‘social purpose’ in Laudato si’ is also not explained by Francis. Nonetheless, those who wish to examine the innovative vision contributed to the Magisterium of the Church with regard to private property, can read the addresses that he made to the Popular Movements (Rome, October 28, 2014/ Santa Cruz de la Sierra, July 9, 2015), which were the object of analysis of the Denzinger-Bergoglio (here and here). Let each one draw his own conclusions…

Having attempted to clarify these preliminary doctrinal aspects taught by Pope John Paul II regarding the right to Private Property, we invite you to the study of the other sections, which are no less important, regarding the reference that Francis made to his illustrious predecessor when he spoke of the “the common destination of goods”. Don’t miss the other parts of this series, for they bring many surprises…


In the first part of this study, undertaken by our specialist in Social Doctrine, we examined the “peculiar” use that Francis made of some references from John Paul II’s Encyclical Laborem exercens. One of the points that still remains to be dealt with is regarding an affirmation of the Polish Pontiff: “the right to private property is subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone” – a fact that was brought up and taken advantage of by the current Bishop of Rome in his controversial Encyclical Laudato Si’.
Why did John Paul II indicate this as ‘the first principle of the whole ethical and social order’? The answers to this question is found in number 19 of the Laborem excercens. The doctrine presented by Pope John Paul II may be summarized in three points:


  • The Pope explained that the ‘the principle of the common use of goods’ is established on the basis of ‘the fundamental relationships between capital and labor’, that is, in ‘wages’. In effect, he emphasized that the ‘remuneration for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both the goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become accessible to the worker through the wage which he receives as remuneration for his work’.
  • For this reason Pope John Paul II added: “Hence, in every case, a just wage is the concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and, in a sense, the key means.”
  • This ‘key means’ of verifying justice, analyzed from the perspective of the Social Doctrine of the Church, is of great transcendence. In effect, as Pope John Paul II himself affirmed: ‘This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly maintaining a family and for providing security for its future.’

The splendid continuity of the Social Doctrine of the Church…until Francis arrived

León XIIIThere is actually something that had been affirmed previously in the great social encyclicals (a quick perusal of Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum or of John XXIII’s Mater et Magistra suffices to observe this), and opportunely recalled by John Paul II, in harmonic continuity with his predecessors. Therefore, it is clearly affirmed, according to the Social Doctrine of the Church, that denying the relation between ‘capital and work’ – whose foundation is established on a ‘wage’ – is the same as denying every worker his right to acquire property; whether goods of nature created by God, or those manufactured by man. This right is what permits the worker, as the years go by, to form a patrimony for his own well-being, and that of his wife and children. It is exactly this patrimony that would constitute the family inheritance in the future.materetmagistra

At the same time, in light of these considerations it becomes clear that this right to acquire private property, fruit of a ‘just wage’ is ‘the first principle of the whole ethical and social order.’ In effect, it was precisely because of the attempt to destroy this ‘first principle’, that all of the Popes – with the exception of Francis – have consistently condemned and censured the collectivism promoted by communism and socialism. (see here, here, here, and here)

Francis – after having omitted that ‘work’ and ‘wage’ are the foundation of private property, and the key to understanding the concept of ‘the common destination of goods’ – once again cites Pope John Paul II, outside of the doctrinal context. The latter, on the contrary, recalled this doctrine with great emphasis, saying that ‘God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone’ (John Paul II. Encyclical Centesimus annus). Seeking to reinforce his argument, Francis did not utilize another citation out of context, but rather preferred to use rhetoric. By an adjectivization he attempts to touch the sentiments of his readers, declaring that the references that he had just cited from Centesimus annus, no. 31, are ‘strong words’.

The Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private property’. Saint John Paul II forcefully reaffirmed this teaching, stating that ‘God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone” (Encyclical Centesimus Annus , 31). These are strong words (Laudato Si’, 93).

‘Strong words’: John Paul II in favor of class struggle?

GPaolo_II_RNAg2Why does Francis affirm that the words of Pope Paul II are “strong”? Could it be because they speak of “excluded” and “favoring”? That is, of owners and non-owners? Of the rich and the poor? Is this the dimension that John Paul II refers to? What teaching did he present in number 31 of his Encyclical Centesimus annus, published in 1991, precisely to pay homage to Leo XIII for the 100 years of his magisterial Encyclical Rerum novarum?

As we can see, by de-contextualizing of the words of the Encyclical Centesimus annus, once again Francis passes over the same and important principle of the Social Doctrine of the Church, affirmed above: ‘private property’ and the ‘common destiny of goods’ have as their foundation man’s labor.

In effect, in number 31 of the Encyclical Centesimus annus, Pope John Paul II – having made a list of the teachings of the Church regarding the right to private property and the common destiny of goods, right from Leo XIII in 1891 to the year of 1991 – moves on to analyze: ‘the question concerning the origin of the material goods which sustain human life, satisfying people’s needs and are an object of their rights’. The important teachings of the Pope regarding this particular aspect may be summarized in three points:

  • Pope John Paul II affirmed 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).
  • After having presented this principle element of the Social Doctrine of the Church, Pope John Paul II added the words cited by Francis: ‘God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone’.
  • Next, Pope John Paul II concludes with this significant clarification: ‘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’.

When we consider the words of Pope John Paul II in their doctrinal context: What do they contain that may be labeled as “strong”? Is it not a basic point of justice that all who labor have the right to obtain private property for themselves and family members? Was it not private property itself – of large, medium or small land owners we insist once again – that became a favorite target of Marxist collectivism, which literally annihilated it with blood and fire? Consequently, it is not unusual that due to this fateful, undeniable historic reality, that Pope John Paul II has expressed quite a critical estimation of Karl Marx and his ideology, as is clear in various pronouncements of his pontificate.

But in a particular way, the criticisms that the Pope presented in this same Encyclical Centesimus annus, were consigned in number 41. What reaction would these censures proffered by Pope Woytila regarding Karl Marx’s ideology have received if read at the World Meeting of Popular Movements? What would Evo Morales or other important organizers of these two events, have declared? Would they have described them as strong words? Detestable expressions? Or unfortunate ones?

Marxism criticized capitalist bourgeois societies, blaming them for the commercialization and alienation of human existence. This rebuke is of course based on a mistaken and inadequate idea of alienation, derived solely from the sphere of relationships of production and ownership, that is, giving them a materialistic foundation and moreover denying the legitimacy and positive value of market relationships even in their own sphere. Marxism thus ends up by affirming that only in a collective society can alienation be eliminated. However, the historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.” (John Paul II. Encyclical Centesimus Annus, no. 41, May 1, 1991)marx_engels_lenin_stalin_1933evo-castro-maduro

At the same time, it is suggestive that in the same number 31 of the Encyclical Centesimus annus, cited by Francis, Pope John Paul II taught the same doctrine regarding private property that had been exposed almost 10 years before in the Laborem excercens, no.19. What is this doctrine? It may seem repetitive, however, it deals with the foundation of private property and the common destiny of goods, and is precisely the key doctrinal point omitted by Francis in Laudato si’.

The earth was given by God to all men so that they dominate it: it does not yield its fruits without a response from man: his own work

  • Pope John Paul II taught in the Centesimus annus, n. 31 that ‘the earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to God’s gift, that is to say, without work.’ In effect, ‘it is through work that man, using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in dominating the earth and making 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.’
  • In an attempt to create a just balance, the Pope adds: “Obviously, he also has the responsibility not to hinder others from having their own part of God’s gift; indeed, he must cooperate with others so that together all can dominate the earth.”
  • At the same time, in introducing number 32 of the Centesimus annus, he declares that ‘there exists another form of ownership which is becoming no less important than land: the possession of know-how, technology and skill. The wealth of the industrialized nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural resources’.

These teachings of Pope John Paul II permit us to determine the existence of natural inequalities that are become evident in man’s work, such as varying levels of intelligence, talent and knowledge, as well as working capacity and the quality of production. As such, it is basic justice that those who work harder, or are more talented and capable, obtain greater profit, benefitting themselves and their family, in the first place, their wife and children. This particular aspect concerning the distributive justice that the harder working and more dedicated men and women deserve, can never be sufficiently emphasized in these times of confusing ideas, demagogy and populism.

Not even a potpourri of references to social encyclicals, taken out of context and magically woven together can convince us of this:


I am sure that I haven’t said anything more than what is contained in the Church’s social teaching. (Francis, in-flight press conference from Santiago de Cuba to Washington D.C., September 22, 2015)



We have already analyzed four (distorted) references of Pope John Paul II made by Francis in the text Laudato si’.

Now we will examine a different text of the Polish pontiff, this time extracted from the Encyclical Solicitudo rei socialis, no. 33, which figures, once again, in the famous number 93 of Laudato Si’:

[Saint John Paul II] forcefully reaffirmed this teaching, stating that ‘a type of development which did not respect and promote human rights – personal and social, economic and political, including the rights of nations and of peoples – would not be really worthy of man’ (Encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 33). (Laudato Si’, 93)

This citation has served as a basis for another three references that allude to Private Property; specifically, regarding the cultivation of the earth as a gift of God in benefit for all men. Once again, here we observe the importance of reading the documents that are cited within their historic context; above all when it is a magisterial work presented with the character of an encyclical. In this particular case, the words that Pope John Paul II directed to the indigenous and country people of Cuilápam de Guerrero, Oaxaca, during his first trip to Mexico in 1979:

He [Saint John Paul II] clearly explained that ‘the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them’ (Address to Indigenous and Rural People, Cuilapán, Mexico, 29 January 1979, 6). (Laudato Si´, 93)

In this paragraph two basic points of the Social Doctrine of the Church, and a third of socio-politico order, are emphasized. The latter is deduced from the historical context in which these words were pronounced. First of all we will analyze two basic points.

The legitimacy of the right of property and the ‘social mortgage’ that weighs over it

In this passage, Pope John Paul II has emphasized with precision that ‘the Church defends’ ‘private property clearly’ since it is a ‘legitimate right’. This is an important aspect to emphasize, for, as a ‘legitimate right’, private property is made accessible to all men through work, inheritance or donation as the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches.

At the same time, Pope John Paul II emphasizes that upon this legitimate right, weighs a ‘social mortgage’. What does this mean?

  1. The duty of justice of the property owners in relation to the workers

To adequately respond it is necessary to clarify an elemental aspect: What is a mortgage? As the economics manuals explain, mortgage is the right that weighs upon certain assets so as to guarantee the payment of a debt or the fulfillment of an obligation. In this way the owner of the asset that was mortgaged does not lose the right to its use. Therefore, when Pope John Paul II made use of this concept of ‘social mortgage’, as he himself explained, he wanted to emphasize this fundamental principle of the social Doctrine of the Church that assets should serve ‘the general purpose that God gave them’.

sollicitudoIn effect, the Pope repeated this doctrine when, in his Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 42, he reflected about the ‘social responsibilities’ and ‘use of goods.’ In this number 42 he explains that this ‘social mortgage’ is based in the fact that private property ‘has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods.’ And then he added this important observation: ‘In this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

The words of Pope John Paul II recalled the teachings imparted in the Rerum novarum by Pope Leo XIII and years later summarized by Pope Saint Pius X. In this summary composed of seven points, the obligations of justice that property owners of the goods of production should employ in relation to their workers, are indicated. (Pope Pius X, Motu proprio Fin dalla prima (“social Sillabus”), December 18, 1903).

The first and most important of these obligations was regarding the payment of a ‘just wage’ agreed upon with the worker. Pope Leo XIII strongly insisted upon this point (cf. Rerum novarum, no. 3.15, 32-33), since “to defraud any one of wages that are his due is a great crime which cries to the avenging anger of Heaven. ‘Behold, the hire of the laborers…which by fraud has been kept back by you, crieth; and the cry of them hath entered into the ears of the Lord of Sabaoth’ (Jas 5:4) (Rerum novarum, no. 20).”

With regard to the rest of the obligations it is necessary to emphasize that more than 130 years after the publication of the Rerum novarum, they were all introduced in the labor legislations of western nations. Naturally, we refer to the nations that were not, or are currently not subjugated by socialist and communist regimes. In effect, within the regimes of Marxist orientation the legislation blocked, and continues to critically reduce, the ‘just wage’, ‘private property’ and other elemental rights of the workers.

Jesús R. Mercader Uguina

A perfect example of such injustice is Cuba. In this Caribbean nation, as Jesús R. Mercader Uguina, Chaired Professor of Labor and Social Security Law of the University Carlos III of Madrid demonstrated, the recent reforms to the Cuban Labor Code continue violating numerous principles and international norms with respect to labor rights in an inflexible manner (See: ‘The Latest Labor Reforms in Cuba, (2009-2014)’ – in Spanish only, especially pages. 27-28).

English DzB addition: Similar studies are also available in English on the same site. for example, “Cubans still do not anticipate any positive changes to their situation in the near future. […] Cubans remain preoccupied by economic concerns, and many have trouble meeting basic, daily needs”   (See the study: Real change for Cuba: how citizens view their country’s future, especially the Conclusions on p. 30).

These appear to be the same type of violation to human rights which Pope John Paul II pointed out in the cited passage of number 42 of his Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis. In effect, we recall that the Pope denounced the ‘special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative’ (Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, no. 42).

As such, the recent Apostolic journey of Francis to Cuba could not help but awaken new perplexities among millions of Catholics. His silence with respect to the grave violations of human rights committed by the Castro brothers during almost half a century became notorious. This Apostolic journey constituted a paradigmatic testimony to the constant omissions that the Bishop of Rome Jorge Mario Bergoglio incurs in historic, philosophical and theological dimensions, according to the teachings of the Magisterium of the Church. It is most remarkable how these lamentable omissions always end up favoring all of those who have never hidden their hostility and rejection toward the Holy Roman Catholic Church.


  1. The duty of charity of those who possess material goods and most especially the goods of the spirit

389_001A second aspect related to the ‘social function’ and the ‘social mortgage’ of those who possess more material goods, refers to the obligation to help the brothers and sisters in need. This obligation has its foundation in the virtue of Christian charity practiced by the Church for two thousand years. With respect to this dimension, Pope Leo XIII observed a balanced criteria: “True, no one is commanded to distribute to others that which is required for his own needs and those of his household; nor even to give away what is reasonably required to keep up becomingly his condition in life, ‘for no one ought to live other than becomingly’ (S. Th. II-II, q.32 a.6). But, when what necessity demands has been supplied, and one’s standing fairly taken thought for, it becomes a duty to give to the indigent out of what remains over. ‘Of that which remaineth, give alms’” (Lk 11:41), (Rerum Novarum, no. 22).

The same Pope Leo XIII explained these duties as not belonging to the ambit of justice, and therefore except in cases of extreme necessity, they may not be demanded by law:

“But the laws and judgments of men must yield place to the laws and judgments of Christ the true God, who in many ways urges on His followers the practice of almsgiving – ‘It is more blessed to give than to receive’;(Acts 20:35) and who will count a kindness done or refused to the poor as done or refused to Himself – ‘As long as you did it to one of My least brethren you did it to Me’ (Mt 25:40). To sum up, then, what has been said: Whoever has received from divine bounty a large share of temporal blessings, whether they be external and material, or gifts of the mind, has received them for the purpose of using them for the perfecting of his own nature, and, at the same time, that he may employ them, as the steward of God’s providence, for the benefit of others. ‘He that hath a talent,’ said St. Gregory the Great, ‘let him see that he hide it not; he that hath abundance, let him quicken himself to mercy and generosity; he that hath art and skill, let him do his best to share the use and the utility hereof with his neighbor” (Saint Gregory. Homily on the Gospels, 9, no. 7), (Rerum novarum, no.22).

In this section we have attempted to clarify the intricate concepts related to the ‘social function’ and the ‘social mortgage’ that binds private property. We consider it important to emphasize the argument presented by Pope Leo XIII with respect to spiritual goods. In this respect, may we speak of a ‘social function’ and of a ‘social mortgage’ that weighs over the ‘spiritual goods’? Without a doubt, the response is affirmative, however with a certain clarification to be emphasized. Since spiritual goods are of a superior character than strictly material goods, such as private property, they demand greater obligations of those who possess them, in favor of their brothers and sisters in need. Hence the importance of insisting with respect to the spiritual works of mercy: ‘Instructing, advising, consoling, comforting, forgiving and bearing wrongs patiently’ (Catechism of the Catholic Church, no. 2447).

Returning to the presentation of the topic, ‘private property’, presented by Francis in the Laudato si’, we now pass on to a third, important topic which the cited discourse of Pope John Paul II directed to the farm workers and indigenous Mexicans in 1979, permit us to analyze.

Mexico 1979: The agrarian reality of the indigenous peoples and farm workers

mexicoreformaIn order to profoundly understand the words of Pope John Paul II, carefully extracted and woven together in the Laudato si’, it is worthwhile to situate them within their historical context. What was the socio-political scenario in which this discourse of Pope John Paul II took place? Who were the governors of Mexico in the year 1979? Did the Mexican state, promoter of a process of Agrarian Reform that had already been in effect for 54 years, grant its benefactors (farm workers and indigenous) the right to private property of the lands for their cultivation? What was the situation of agriculture and the life of the Mexican indigenous peoples and country people at this point in history? We shall now analyze some unquestionable historical facts.

The political revolutionary forces have always boasted that the first Socialist Agrarian Reform of History (1915) was implanted in Mexico. With the objective of consolidating this bloody revolutionary process, and at the same time attempting to regroup all of the political forces that encouraged them, The Institutional Revolutionary Party (PRI) was founded in 1929. The directors of this group, from that time until the year 2000, exercised the political power of the Mexican nation without interruption. During these decades they continued carrying out the process of socialist Agrarian Reform, culminating only in 1992.


warmanArthur Warman Gryj, anthropologist and ex-Minister of the Agrarian Reform in Mexico, affirmed that during a period of 77 years (1915-1992) 100 million hectares was granted to 3.5 million farm workers, that is to say, the equivalent of more than half of the actual Mexican territory and approximately two thirds of the total rural property of the country. Naturally the directors of the Revolutionary Institutional Party gave all governmental support to this Agrarian Reform; however, it was never able to achieve the goals of economic and social well-being promised. The concrete facts indicate that as the years went by, the farm workers fell into the most extreme poverty. And what is worse and most dramatic in this situation is that neither they nor their descendents were property owners of the lands granted by the Mexican government for their cultivation! (FAO, La reforma agraria mexicana: una visión de largo plazo [The Mexican agrarian reform: a long-term visualization] by Arturo Warman in ‘Land Reform, Land Settlement and Cooperatives’)

Note: The ownership of the land, according to the process of Mexican Agrarian Reform, was communitarian. As Arturo Warman Gryj explains: ‘The lands that had been granted in usufruct remained as a property of the nation for concession to a civil corporation: the ejido or the community. […] The parcels that were granted for personal use to the ejido- title-holder were subject to restrictive conditions: the land should be personally cultivated by the owner, it could not be maintained inactive, sold, leased nor used as a guarantee; it was inalienable but could be inherited by a successor chosen by the titular as long as it had not been fragmented. The fulfillment of these conditions implied sanctions that annulled without compensation the rights of use of the parcel and the ownership of the ejido’.

Observing this historic and socio-political background, it can be observed that the agrarian ejidosystem based on the ejido [which translates loosely as ‘common land’ or ‘cooperative’] — and fully active in Mexico during the year of Pope John Paul II’s visit — was clearly socialist. In the first place, the Mexican State had confiscated an immense agrarian patrimony from legitimate property owners, violating the 7th and 10th commandments of the Law of God. In the second place, through this expropriation, the Mexican State became the greatest landowner of the nation; and having subdivided this agricultural capital into ejidos in order to destine them to farm workers and indigenous peoples, it committed a second injustice. In effect, as the ejidatario was not the owner of the land, and therefore prohibited to sell, lease or use it as a guarantee, he was obliged to unite to a cooperative subsidized by the State. Therefore, the Mexican ejidatario, obliged to work the earth and depend on a State cooperative, was nothing other than a simple worker of the State. In other words, the farm workers and indigenous ejidatarios lived imprisoned within a clearly socialist agricultural regime.

Private property according to the Social Doctrine of the Church

On the contrary, as the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches, , the earth was given by God to be dominated by all men through their work. In other words, the earth was not granted by the Creator so that a political organization would confiscate, control and administer it in an absolute manner through a absolute leader and the followers of a faction or single political party. The earth was also not given to men so that a clique of associates, unconditional devotees of Marx, Lenin, Fidel, Mao, Ché Guevara and Chávez, as well as other politicians and ideologists, self-proclaimed owners and lords of a territory within a nation, would thus restrict its use relegating its dominion to particular individuals, either through excessive taxes or arbitrary confiscation.



As Pope John Paul II emphasized, the “Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property” because it is in accord with justice and natural right. In effect, as the Social Doctrine of the Church teaches, since man is owner and lord of his own acts, he shall be the owner and lord of his work. Once the fruit of this work is accumulated, it becomes his own private property, for the personal benefit of the worker, as well as that of his family. Teaching this principle, Pope Leo XIII affirmed with great wisdom that assets are the same “wages [of the worker] under another form.” Therefore, the private property acquired by the worker should be of his dominion in the same way as the wages earned with his work (Encyclical Rerum Novarum, no. 5).

Here is an important paragraph of the same encyclical:

It is surely undeniable that, when a man engages in remunerative labor, the impelling reason and motive of his work is to obtain property, and thereafter to hold it as his very own. If one man hires out to another his strength or skill, he does so for the purpose of receiving in return what is necessary for the satisfaction of his needs; he therefore expressly intends to acquire a right full and real, not only to the remuneration, but also to the disposal of such remuneration, just as he pleases. Thus, if he lives sparingly, saves money, and, for greater security, invests his savings in land, the land, in such case, is only his wages under another form; and, consequently, a working man’s little estate thus purchased should be as completely at his full disposal as are the wages he receives for his labor. But it is precisely in such power of disposal that ownership obtains, whether the property consist of land or chattels. Socialists, therefore, by endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individuals to the community at large, strike at the interests of every wage-earner, since they would deprive him of the liberty of disposing of his wages, and thereby of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life. (Encyclical Rerum Novarum, no. 5 ).

100 years after the failure of the Mexican Agrarian Reform: a message for Francis

Consequently, the remembrance of the first centenary in 2014 of the first Agrarian Reform in History — the failed Mexican Agrarian Reform— categorically confirms the perspicacity of all of the Popes from Leo XIII to Benedict XVI, who affirmed that economic ruin, misery and oppression are the typical fruits of communism and socialism. (see: here).

Thus, the words that Francis pronounced during his discourse at the I World Meeting of Popular Movements, in Rome on October 28 2014, encouraging in a surprising manner the promoter of Agrarian Reform, brought up some serious questions (see: here):

Francisco saluda a Evo Morales durante el I Encuentro de Movimientos Populares. Roma, 28 octubre de 2014

Francisco saluda a Stedile, líder del “Movimiento de los sin Tierra” del Brasil, durante el I Encuentro de Movimientos Populares. Roma, octubre de 2014

  • Is this Agrarian Reform promoted by Francis conformed to the Social Doctrine of the Church?
  • What are the countries that Francis mentioned in a generic way and which of these, according to his criteria, should be submitted to Agrarian Reform?
  • Consequently, what is the successful model of Agrarian Reform that Francis can propose for its application within such countries?
  • Do these successful models of Agrarian Reform really exist?
  • Are there foundations for conjecture that the model would be that of the Cuban Agrarian Reform initiated by Fidel Castro in 1959, and recycled in 1993, since it has been maintained until the present day?

Regarding this last question: judging by the ‘sentiments of special consideration and respect’, as well as the friendship that Francis manifested toward Fidel Castro in honoring him with a visit to his very residence in Habana, one is inclined to opt for an affirmative response. But could this be possible? Who can respond, if not Francis himself?

Clearly, this apprehension will linger on, just as the other uncertainties and perplexities that Francis never ceases to provoke day after day with his gestures, attitudes and innovations. However, perhaps the most serious consequence consists in the profound disorientation, conflicts and problems of conscience that Francis creates for the faithful in omitting truths and essential principles consistently taught by the Magisterium of the Church. The sad reality of this pontificate…

VIDEO: The cordial meeting…


After having analyzed the references made by Francs in his Encyclical Laudato Si’ regarding the topic of private property (see parts I, II and III of this study) – using for his end certain citations of John Paul II, the meaning of which were deliberately left unclear – perhaps a doubt has arisen for our readers. In light of the facts that these studies have demonstrated, what intention does Francis have with all of this?

We also had this question after analyzing the unusual investigation of our specialist in Social Doctrine. Could it be that it reveals a hidden intention? Perhaps an answer can be found by examining the context of the text used in the encyclical…

In closing the controversial number 93 of Laudato si’, Francis once again weaves two citations of Pope John Paul II together. The first corresponds to a direct reference extracted from a homily that the Pope directed to the farmers in Recife, Brazil (July 7, 1980, no. 4); and the second is an indirect citation from the Message for the World Day of Peace 1990, no. 8:

Consequently, he [John Paul II] maintained, ‘it is not in accord with God’s plan that this gift be used in such a way that its benefits favor only a few’. This calls into serious question the unjust habits of a part of humanity(Laudato si’ 93).

As may be observed, by juxtaposing these words and references of Pope John Paul II, proffered before diverse publics and social contexts, Francis wishes to transmit a message: John Paul II criticizes those who selfishly use their goods for the practice of unjust habits. Consequently, the reading of the paragraph containing these citations brings up a question that remains unanswered: Who are those who practice such unjust habits? Who are these selfish people?

Once again, applying his praxis of combining de-contextualized citations, in number 94 of Laudato si’, Francis insinuates the answer, this time using biblical texts:

The rich and the poor have equal dignity, because ‘the Lord is the maker of them all’ (Prov 22:2); ‘He himself made both small and great’ (Wis 6:7) and ‘he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good’ (Mt 5:45).(Laudato si, 94)

Having added the passage of Matthew, without any connection to the topic at hand, to the citations of the Proverbs and the book of Wisdom, Francis seems to insinuate an answer: These egoists are the ‘rich’, the ‘great’ of society, that is, they are the ‘evil’ ones.

Is this insinuation based on Catholic doctrine? Are all the rich evil and selfish? It is enlightening to ascertain that we have access to true doctrine in the same address of Pope John Paul II cited by Francis, when read in its context. In effect, in illustrating his teachings with respect to the necessity of being generous and practicing works of charity, Pope John Paul II commented upon the parable of the rich man and poor Lazarus:
51c0ef9f09eb3_350x0.pngIn this parable, Christ does not condemn the rich man because he was rich, or because he dressed luxuriously. He severely condemned the rich man who did not take into consideration the situation of Lazarus’ poverty, who merely wished to nourish himself with the crumbs that fell from the banquet table. Christ does not condemn a simple possession of material goods. Rather, his most severe words are directed against those who use their riches in an egoistic manner, without preoccupying with their neighbor who lacks the indispensable” (John Paul II. Homily for the farmers in Recife, Brazil, July 7, 1980).

What a difference! What a contrast! To conclude his teachings regarding private property, Francis then cites a Pastoral letter from the Paraguayan Bishop’s Conference: ‘El campesino paraguayo y la tierra’ [The Paraguayan campesino (farm-worker) and the land, June 12, 1983].

This has practical consequences, such as those pointed out by the bishops of Paraguay: ‘Every campesino has a natural right to possess a reasonable allotment of land where he can establish his home, work for subsistence of his family and a secure life. This right must be guaranteed so that its exercise is not illusory but real. That means that apart from the ownership of property, rural people must have access to means of technical education, credit, insurance, and markets’” (Laudato Si’, 94)

As we see, these words of the Paraguayan bishops had the objective of confirming the right to private property. Moreover, the original text of this Pastoral letter invoked the Constitution of the Republic of Paraguay itself to favor this right, and to support it juridically. The exact version presented by the Paraguayan Bishops, is the following:

This right (established in our same National Constitution) should be guaranteed so that its practice be not illusory but real’ (Paraguayan Episcopal Conference, June 12, 1983).

Francis would have been coherent with his own words, as the defender of ‘the lowly, the exploited, the poor and underprivileged’ (Speech to II World Meeting of Popular Movements, Bolivia, July 9 201)), if, during his recent pastoral journey to Cuba, inspired by the very words of the Paraguayan bishops, he had shown his solidarity with the Cuban people, pronouncing this paraphrased discourse: “Every Cuban campesino and every Cuban has a natural right to possess a reasonable allotment of land where he can establish his home, work for subsistence of his family and a secure life. This right (which is not established in your National Constitution) must be guaranteed so that its exercise is not illusory but real. That means that apart from the ownership of property, rural people must have access to means of technical education, credit, insurance, and markets.” It is a pity that he did not say this….

Why didn’t Francis pronounce a speech in this line of thought, to favor the suffering Cuban people?

Would it be because – as he said in his discourse to the Popular Movements, while defending himself – ‘an explanation [of his words regarding the Social Doctrine of the Church] gave the impression of being a little more ‘leftist’? (Press conference on the plane from Santiago in Cuba to Washington D.C., September 22 2015).

Just because of an explanation? If it were only that! For thousands of Catholics, the doubts and the perplexities that Francis has brought up with ‘his doctrine’ continues in crescendo, despite the fact that he claims that he can pray the Creed to demonstrate his orthodoxy…

So it would be a opportune to recall what true Catholic doctrine has defined regarding private property.


Quote AQuote BQuote CQuote DQuote EQuote FQuote GQuote H

Teachings of the Magisterium

Enter in the various parts of our study

I – Private property according to the Sacred Scripture
II – According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church
III – The Magisterium of the Church teaches the legitimacy of the right to Private property
IV – The denial of the right to Private property: Communist and Socialist objective

I Private property according to the Sacred Scripture

Sacred Scripture

Seventh and tenth commandments: You shall not steal, you shall not covet your neighbors goods
Moses gives testimony that the Decalogue was given by God himself
The book of Leviticus establishes the legitimacy of private property
The earth belongs to God, and still Leviticus establishes the legitimacy of private property and its usufruct
The levitical privileges established with respect to private property
God legitimizes the right to inherit private property
God does not hate the rich
Blessed by the Lord, Isaac became richer and richer all the time
Abraham and Lot: two rich men loved by God
Jacob grew prosperous with his work and talent
Job recompensed by the Lord with great riches
In the parable of the vineyard, the landowner had the perfect right to usufruct his property

II According to the Catechism of the Catholic Church

Catechism of the Catholic Church

The seventh commandment
The tenth commandment
We should banish our desires for whatever does not belong to us

Catechism of Trent


III The Magisterium of the Church teaches the legitimacy of the right to Private property


The Church insist that the right to private property is maintained intact and inviolate
Private property is a natural right and using this right is not only licit but necessary
The right to Private property should be considered as inviolate and the laws should favor that the workers obtain this right as a fruit of their work
Private property is nothing other than wages under another form
As master of his acts and under the power of God, man may legitimately exercise his dominion over the earth and its fruits
The fact that God has given the earth for the use and enjoyment of the whole human race can in no way be a bar to the owning of private property
Private property is pre-eminently in conformity with human nature
To alleviate the condition of the masses, the inviolability of private property is necessary
The right to possess private property is derived from nature

Pius X

The teachings of Leo XIII regarding the social question synthesized by Pope Pius X. In the Motu proprio Fin dalla prima (The ‘social Sillabus’)

Pius XI

The Magisterium of the Church has never put Private property in doubt
Commutative justice demands sacred respect for the division of possessions
The natural right of owning goods privately and of passing them on in inheritance ought always to remain inviolate
The legitimacy of increasing one’s fortune in a just and lawful manner
Neither capital can do without labor, nor labor without capital
Those who declare that a contract of hiring and being hired is unjust of its own nature are in error

Pius XII

By defending private ownership the Church pursues a lofty ethical-social aim
Private property is a natural fruit of labor – a product of man’s activity for own existence and that of his family
Christian conscience cannot admit as right a social order that denies the natural right to ownership
The hope to acquire some personal property is a natural stimulus for hard work
The property owner of the means of production is lord of his economic decisions


The right to private property is a guarantee of the dignity of the human person
The right to private property is a part of the natural order
As Pius XII affirmed, the Church is striving after an important ethical-social end in defending the principle of private ownership
It is strange that the innate character of the right to Private property should ever be called in question

John Paul II

Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It becomes illegitimate when it serves to impede the work of others or incurs illicit exploitation
The obligation to earn one’s bread by the sweat of one’s brow also presumes the right to do so - ownership morally justifies itself in the creation of opportunities for work and human growth for all
The wise equilibrium of Pope John Paul II: The legitimacy of capitalism based on private property and the free market. The illegitimacy of capitalism when it endangers ethical and religious valued
The Church recognizes the positive value of the market and enterprise when oriented towards the common good
The clarity of Leo XIII in defending Private property
A person who is deprived of something he can call ‘his own’, earning a living, has difficulty in recognizing his own dignity as a person

IV The denial of the right to Private property: the communist and socialist objective


The abolition of private property to favor collectivism, goal of socialism
By endeavoring to transfer the possessions of individual, Socialists strike every wage-earner depriving him of his liberty to better his condition
The Socialists, working on the poor man’s envy of the rich, are striving to do away with private property
The community of goods: main tenet of socialism that must be utterly rejected. It injures those whom it would seem meant to benefit and is directly contrary to the natural rights of mankind
Neither justice nor the common good allows any individual to seize upon that which belongs to another or to lay violent hands on other people’s possessions

Pius XI

The abolition of the right to private property would result, not to the advantage of the working class, but to their extreme harm
Communism denies any kind or Private property
Those who conserve the integrity of the teaching of the Church define the nature and limits of property do good; those who seek to destroy it are mistaken and in error
It is an error to affirm that the fruit of labor belongs only to the worker

Pius XII

The hope of personal property is a natural stimulus to hard work
Distributive justice does not demand the co-participation of the workers in the company’s property, nor in the earnings obtained
Social Catholic Doctrine conscientiously defends the right to individual property and rejects the right of co-property of the worker in the capital of the company
Justice does not demand that the workers participate in the co-managements of the company


History and experience testify that in political regimes which do not recognize the rights of private property freedom is suppressed

John Paul II

The principle of Private property explained in the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII diverges radically from the program of collectivism as proclaimed by Marxism
When the early Christians had all in common it did not mean that they rejected private property

Note 1: In accordance with a study presented by the Stanford University of California, plagiarism includes much more than just copying someone’s work. Though it may be unintentional, quoting, paraphrasing or adapting material, and presenting someone else’s idea, opinion, or theory as your own, are all examples of plagiarism.


Print Friendly, PDF & Email

One thought on “110 – Plagiarism? Manipulation? Prestidigitation? Francis’ peculiar concept of private property (I)

Leave a Reply