What do you mean by the universal destiny of the resources and goods of the

earth?

Reality check leads us to a sad conclusion that a humongous percentage of the goods
of the earth is owned by a tiny percentage of the population (the rich) and the remaining
tiny percentage of the goods of the earth is subdivided among the remaining population
(the poor), while the poorest among the poor owns absolutely nothing.

In the epicenter of our debate is a fundamental basis for socially responsible decision
and business practice. This fundamental principle, the universal destination of the
earthly goods, remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires
respect for the right to private property and its exercise. 

The universal destination of goods means that all the material goods of the earth are not
meant to be owned and used by a powerful few individuals but, on the contrary, that all
residents of this planet can equally own and use these goods in accordance with God’s
original plan.

The universal destination of goods ay isa sa mga tinuturo ng simbahan. Na ang pinag kukuhanan
natin dito sa mundong kinakatayuan natin ay para " sa ating lahat"
dito sinabi lang sa introduction na, hindi na pantay pantay ang hatian ng mga resources kasi
inaangkin o nasa mga mayayaman halos ang mga ari arian o resources. O sia lang ang mas
nakikinabang sa mga nakukuha sa mundo. dahil sila ay mayaman at kayang bilhin ito gamit ang
pera. Sa kasamaang palad ang mahihirap ay hindi afford pakipag kompetensya sa mayayaman
dahil sa kakulangan nila sa pera kaya mayayaman nalang ang nakikinabang at yung mahihirap wala
makuha.

-bali sa may universal destiny of the resources and goods of the earth, ang pino-point out niya
lang dapat lahat ng resources ng earth ay equally distributed, hindi lang puro rich people. dapat
yung mga resources na meron sa earth ay hindi limited sa mga powerful individual
example is yung sa property since ayun naman ang main topic ng report. since privately owned
siya ng individual or group, dapat yung owner is hindi lang for business yung reason ng pag-
private niya, dapat meant din to give service or serviceable dapat para at least yung resources ng
property ay distributed sa mga tao
Is the world is given to all?

A rich man's gift to the poor, in the first place, does not belong to the rich. The gift is
actually the poor’s property. This is what the venerable leader of the third century was
saying. 
St. Ambrose of Milan issued a stern warning for the powerful few in their accumulation
of wealth and in their disregard for the needs of the poor majority by saying: 
“You are handing over to him what is his. For what has been given in common for the
use of all, you have arrogated to yourself. The world is given to all and not only to the
rich” (Ambrosius, 395, cited in Vatican Council II, 1965).

-Since private property has a social character with corresponding social

obligations, it goes without saying that we have a conditional and limited right
over all goods, stocks and commodities that we legitimately and legally own.
Therefore, by virtue of the principle of the universal destination of the earth's
goods, corporate citizenship argues that private property does not constitute an
absolute and unconditional right for anyone.
-kapag daw tumulong o nag regalo ang isang mayaman na tao sa mahirap na tao. Hindi daw regalo
iyun kundi ibinabalik lang nya yung dapat sakanya.
halimbawa may isang puno ng manga. Kinuha ko lahat. Tas inangkin. IPinangregalo ko yung iba
sayo. Hindi daw masasabing regalo yun dahil, para sa lahat yung manga na yun
para ko lang binalik yung dapat na iyo bigyan kita numbers. may 10 na manga tig 5 tayo. Tas kinuha
ko 10. tapos niregalo ko sau ang 5 na manga. HIndi masasabing regalo yun kasi sayo talga yun
ibinalik ko lang yun ang sinasabi ni ambrose gets?
bigyan kita numbers. may 10 na manga tig 5 tayo. Tas kinuha ko 10. tapos…
sa madaling salita hindi maituturing na regalo kasi nga para sa lahat yung manga hindi lang para
sakin
-sa may is the world given to all naman, ang pino-point out lang niya ay hindi pagma-may-ari ng rich
ang mga ibinibigay nila or natatanggap ng mga poor mula sa kanila. kasi di ba ang resources ng earth
ay para sa lahat, so meaning yung mga right ng poor na matanggap yung bagay na kanya naman.
naka-quote kasi na "you are handling over to him what is his", nagwarning si milan sa mga
mayayaman na pagdi-disregard ng mga needs ng poor na dapat ibigay sa poor yung bagay na kanya
naman. hindi absolute at unconditional right ang private property, meaning hindi siya free from
limitation. conditional right siya kasi may limitation at may corresponding social obligation ang
pagkakaroon or pag-possess ng property