An Error of Distributism?: Property is necessary for human liberty and personal perfection
According to Mr. John Sharpe, editor of IHS publications, in his intervue with Stephen Heiner, Charles Stanton Devas, in the old Catholic Encyclopedia did "quite a nice job of hinting at exactly what Distributists are aiming for" in saying that,
“the proper unfolding of human liberty and personality is historically bound up with, and cannot develop where each person is only a sharer in a compulsory partnership, or, on the other hand, where property is confined to a privileged few. Suitably, therefore, the same Pope who had defended the true dignity and true liberty of man urged the diffusion of property as the mean between Socialism and Individualism, and that where possible each citizen should dwell secure in a homestead which, however humble, was his own.”
Mr. Sharpe offers this quote to defend Distributism from its critics. But the quote does the opposite, because it contains a profound error, namely that the holding of personal property is necessary for the unfolding of human liberty and personality and for the development of the same.
This means that all those Saints, who renounced property, such as St. Francis of Assisi, and all Catholic religious, never had the unfolding of their human liberty and personality develope. And hence were stunted and not perfect. Which is tantamount to saying that the evangelical counsel of Christ to give away all ones possessions for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, leads to the imperfection man.
This is blasphemous, if Devas meant it simply speaking, as applying to all men at all times.
It is also just plain stupid, because human liberty is not founded upon the relations of the individual to property, but of the relation of the human will to the excercise of virtue; and since every moral virtue can be practiced without property, it follows that holding property is not essentially necessary, neither in itself nor as an occasion, to the practice of virtue.
It is also somewhat remarkable that Devas posits this error as the explanation for Papal teaching, since it is so philosophically unsound as not even to be worthy of a laugh in a class of philosophy. It is a sort of anti-marxist error, bound up with some sort of desire to reject the marxists concept that the private ownership of property is in itself the cause of civil unrest and injustice.
It is thus, not a very good quote to defend Distributism with, and since Mr. Sharp, I trust is an expert in what Distributism teaches, it follows that it too holds this error.
As I mentioned a few years a back in "What does it profit a man ?", where I rebutted the theoretical error of Capitalism:
Likewise, "profit" in the economic sense does not pertain formally to the moral good of the human individual or of the human race as a whole, since formally speaking, the moral good of a man or of men consists in the possession of supernatural charity in the will. Considered in itself, that is considered by itself and in the notion of its own essence, the moral good of a man does not consist in the possession of created goods, but rather in the possession of God, wherein supernatural charity reaches its ultimate and supreme state.
It is a fundamental error of Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and seemingly now Distributism to confound the economic order with the moral order, so as to say that the question of ownership of property, in itself, is a moral question, such that one manner of holding property is morally good and another is bad, or that one political order is good or bad on the basis of the kinds of property ownership it allows, and nother bad or good on the basis of the same.
"Property" has different significations: either it is a thing, which is possessed, or the right of possessing that thing. But as a right it is not only relative as to that which it is ordered, that is in relation to the thing possesed, but relative in itself, inasmuch as God the Creator is the only Being which holds essentially the right of possession of any created thing. Man's right of ownership is thus either defacto, or in some manner a civil recognition or custom of law. And as such it does not pertain to the moral order, but is an instrumental relation of the individual to the right of use of certain things.
As such a wage earner who owns nothing, and rents everything, or buys all services, and sells only his services, including the right to consume consumables, is no more or less a good person.
And thus if Distributism advocates the return to the land for Catholics because it considers this a moral good, it errs, because no relation to property in itself, is good or evil, but property rights are only good or evil if they somehow allow what is morally good or evil. And hence property in itself never evil, since all things are good according to their being; but all property can have a morally good, neutral or evil end to which the user or owner orders it, whether by use or by right of ownership or dominion or use.
Thus, there is nothing more worthy about advocating a return to the land, or a more equitable distribution of property, according to the moral order, in itself, but only insofar as this may diminish the occasions of immoral behavior or the proclivities of such behavior.
But even in this Distributism would fall into materialism, like Communism and Socialism and Capitalism, because holiness or human perfection consists not in human relations to material goods, but to spiritual and eternal goods. And holiness is just a possible with property as without.
And thus advocacy of any of these -sims is a grave error which threatens all of Christendom and the Social Reign of Jesus Christ.
I also believe that as a politcal agenda, the Return to the Land is insufficient. Because it is not the ownership of the means of production that guarentees Christian liberty, but supernatural grace. And because, from the natural order's perspective, Catholics should concern themselves no more with the ownership of agricultural land, than they do with the ownership of factories, officebuildings, rental property, etc.. The Masons would love that we all fled to the fields, so as to economically corner and subject us all the more.
What is necessary is not a return to the land, but a return to a social order centered on Christ and His Church, with a perfect acceptance of the Faith and Hope, and an earnest striving for the perfection Charity, which consits in supernatural immaterial goods.
-----------
Finally in passing, Mr. Hiener says: "Truly, no Catholic ever wishes for war."
This is badly said. Because was not the Pope who called the Crusades God's Will (Deus vult!) and Peter the Hermit and St. Bernard of Clarivaux who preached them, Catholic. And Bl. Mark of Aviano, OFM Cap, who worked 1,000's of miracles and called for the continuation of hostilities against the Turks, so as to free Catholics, was he not also catholic either. Better to have said, no catholic prefers war in itself, but justice requires us to prefer it to some sorts of injustice.
I had hoped reading Stephen's Interview to find a more solidly catholic rationale, but I am much disappointed. Mr. Sharpe seems to hold some views incompatible with the Faith.
“the proper unfolding of human liberty and personality is historically bound up with, and cannot develop where each person is only a sharer in a compulsory partnership, or, on the other hand, where property is confined to a privileged few. Suitably, therefore, the same Pope who had defended the true dignity and true liberty of man urged the diffusion of property as the mean between Socialism and Individualism, and that where possible each citizen should dwell secure in a homestead which, however humble, was his own.”
Mr. Sharpe offers this quote to defend Distributism from its critics. But the quote does the opposite, because it contains a profound error, namely that the holding of personal property is necessary for the unfolding of human liberty and personality and for the development of the same.
This means that all those Saints, who renounced property, such as St. Francis of Assisi, and all Catholic religious, never had the unfolding of their human liberty and personality develope. And hence were stunted and not perfect. Which is tantamount to saying that the evangelical counsel of Christ to give away all ones possessions for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven, leads to the imperfection man.
This is blasphemous, if Devas meant it simply speaking, as applying to all men at all times.
It is also just plain stupid, because human liberty is not founded upon the relations of the individual to property, but of the relation of the human will to the excercise of virtue; and since every moral virtue can be practiced without property, it follows that holding property is not essentially necessary, neither in itself nor as an occasion, to the practice of virtue.
It is also somewhat remarkable that Devas posits this error as the explanation for Papal teaching, since it is so philosophically unsound as not even to be worthy of a laugh in a class of philosophy. It is a sort of anti-marxist error, bound up with some sort of desire to reject the marxists concept that the private ownership of property is in itself the cause of civil unrest and injustice.
It is thus, not a very good quote to defend Distributism with, and since Mr. Sharp, I trust is an expert in what Distributism teaches, it follows that it too holds this error.
As I mentioned a few years a back in "What does it profit a man ?", where I rebutted the theoretical error of Capitalism:
Likewise, "profit" in the economic sense does not pertain formally to the moral good of the human individual or of the human race as a whole, since formally speaking, the moral good of a man or of men consists in the possession of supernatural charity in the will. Considered in itself, that is considered by itself and in the notion of its own essence, the moral good of a man does not consist in the possession of created goods, but rather in the possession of God, wherein supernatural charity reaches its ultimate and supreme state.
It is a fundamental error of Communism, Socialism, Capitalism, and seemingly now Distributism to confound the economic order with the moral order, so as to say that the question of ownership of property, in itself, is a moral question, such that one manner of holding property is morally good and another is bad, or that one political order is good or bad on the basis of the kinds of property ownership it allows, and nother bad or good on the basis of the same.
"Property" has different significations: either it is a thing, which is possessed, or the right of possessing that thing. But as a right it is not only relative as to that which it is ordered, that is in relation to the thing possesed, but relative in itself, inasmuch as God the Creator is the only Being which holds essentially the right of possession of any created thing. Man's right of ownership is thus either defacto, or in some manner a civil recognition or custom of law. And as such it does not pertain to the moral order, but is an instrumental relation of the individual to the right of use of certain things.
As such a wage earner who owns nothing, and rents everything, or buys all services, and sells only his services, including the right to consume consumables, is no more or less a good person.
And thus if Distributism advocates the return to the land for Catholics because it considers this a moral good, it errs, because no relation to property in itself, is good or evil, but property rights are only good or evil if they somehow allow what is morally good or evil. And hence property in itself never evil, since all things are good according to their being; but all property can have a morally good, neutral or evil end to which the user or owner orders it, whether by use or by right of ownership or dominion or use.
Thus, there is nothing more worthy about advocating a return to the land, or a more equitable distribution of property, according to the moral order, in itself, but only insofar as this may diminish the occasions of immoral behavior or the proclivities of such behavior.
But even in this Distributism would fall into materialism, like Communism and Socialism and Capitalism, because holiness or human perfection consists not in human relations to material goods, but to spiritual and eternal goods. And holiness is just a possible with property as without.
And thus advocacy of any of these -sims is a grave error which threatens all of Christendom and the Social Reign of Jesus Christ.
I also believe that as a politcal agenda, the Return to the Land is insufficient. Because it is not the ownership of the means of production that guarentees Christian liberty, but supernatural grace. And because, from the natural order's perspective, Catholics should concern themselves no more with the ownership of agricultural land, than they do with the ownership of factories, officebuildings, rental property, etc.. The Masons would love that we all fled to the fields, so as to economically corner and subject us all the more.
What is necessary is not a return to the land, but a return to a social order centered on Christ and His Church, with a perfect acceptance of the Faith and Hope, and an earnest striving for the perfection Charity, which consits in supernatural immaterial goods.
-----------
Finally in passing, Mr. Hiener says: "Truly, no Catholic ever wishes for war."
This is badly said. Because was not the Pope who called the Crusades God's Will (Deus vult!) and Peter the Hermit and St. Bernard of Clarivaux who preached them, Catholic. And Bl. Mark of Aviano, OFM Cap, who worked 1,000's of miracles and called for the continuation of hostilities against the Turks, so as to free Catholics, was he not also catholic either. Better to have said, no catholic prefers war in itself, but justice requires us to prefer it to some sorts of injustice.
I had hoped reading Stephen's Interview to find a more solidly catholic rationale, but I am much disappointed. Mr. Sharpe seems to hold some views incompatible with the Faith.
posted by Br. Alexis Bugnolo at 8/17/2006 02:03:00 PM
8 Comments:
You remind me very much, especially in this particular posting, of my readings (which said readings have very much formed my knowledge of Catholic social teachings and morality) in two apologetic masters: to wit, Fr. Denis Fahey and the great Frank Sheed. I know you must be familiar with them, are you not?
(No one else on these blogs seems to acknowledge them every time I cite or recommend them. Are they out of sympathy or favour?)
Certainly I donot compare to such men. I have read some of the latter at length, but only a little of the former. They are certainly both worth reading and having in your private libary.
I liked your post and agree with you that John Sharpe is incorrect in saying that you must have property in order to be fulfilled. The only part of your summing up that I have a slight problem with is your equating Communism and Socialism with Capitalism. Capitalism is not imcompatible with Church teaching per se. The other two are. Correct?
Thank you for succinctly describing a profound flaw in that particular distributist's system. To suppose that a man without property is less than a complete human being is very much a parallel to the erroneous modernist notion that a celibate individual is somehow unfulfilled. An anti-clerical, naturalistic, materialistic, and economic vision is not for Catholics; what is needed is a participation in the Church's supernatural work for souls.
A piece filled with uncommon common sense.
So why, Brother, do the Distributists, or Third Way proponents, try to make us feel that we are less than Catholic if we don't sign on to the "Back to the Land" mentality? Sharpe and his cohorts give the impression that Distributism is a doctrine of the Church!
As you know, people will not convert from a life of materialism unless they are propelled by a stronger longing. A supernatural motive, inspired by the love of God and a great desire to gain heaven, has the power to turn people from their pursuit of material goods, to the practice the supernatural virtues of unselfishness, charity, and love of neighbor.
However, distributism offers man nothing more than their "fair share" of property. And once the leaders of this movement realize that rich owners won't part willingly with their property, that's when we will see the ugly faces of socialism and Marxism come to the forefront to solve the problem.
To the First Anonymous [Friday, August 25, 2006 11:13:35 PM]:
"Capitalism" means two different things to most people in the West:
First it means the everyday experience they have of a free market economy. This being an experience is not something good or bad, since it prescinds from moral judgement.
Second, it means, a form of economic order, in which the entire society has as its end the greater monetary profit as its goal in every endeavor. As such it is more than an economic theory, rather it is a moral theory, and as a moral theory, it is not only contrary to right reason, but to the Faith.
It is contrary to right reason, because, the good of man consists ultimately not in material progress, but the attainment of spiritual goods. This is true on the natural and supernatural levels. For the arguments regarding the natural level, see Aristotle's two treatises on Ethics. For the argument on the supernatural level, see the New
Testament.
An example of how Capitalism as a system disorders society can be had on the very basic level of everyday experience in our free market.
Take for example our vegetables: in the USA, they no longer have the taste and smell of normal vegetables. They have been denatured, hybridized.
But why have they been hybridized? Because they are shipped from great distances and need to be grown, not to be eated, but to be shipped and surive shipping. And why all this, because there are certain regions on earth which can produce the same vegetable in vast quantities at a very low cost, so that even when you add the cost of shipping, it is more profitable for the supermarket to sell you those vegetables than natural ones grown elsewhere or nearer.
And so now we have tomatoes that look and feel like tomatoes, but do not taste like tomatoes.
That's capitalism at work.
A more natural economic order would reason differently and order itself differently.
It would see and value the inherent superiority of the tomato as God made it, the importance of the nutritional value in the tomato as God made it, and establish and order the purpose of supermarkets to uphold these values, and laws to uphold these values, and thus would restrict the desire for profit, so that for the same price you could buy a natural tomato.
And thus, we can see how the principles of capitalism are destroying the natural purpose of agriculture, distribution, sales, and marketing, not to mention nutrition and the great traditionals of culinary art, and all the good consequences that come to society, culture, and the family through these.
And what is true about the tomato, is true about nearly every other commodity in our Capitalistic economy.
Another example would be institutions of higher learning: did you know that Harvard has less that 5,000 students, but an endowment of over 50 Billion Dollars. Harvard gives A's to nearly every student, because it no longer has as its end education, but rather promotion of capitalism and profit.
It was quite remarkable a few years ago that Harvad held a conference on poverty in the 3rd world, and recommended that the UN give 35 Billion to help the poor. No mention was made that Harvard has that kind of cash to give away; but it won't, it wan't others to do that.
Needless to say 1billion dollars is more than sufficient to endow a schoool for 5,000 students.
Harvad has become more a bank, than a school.
That is capitalism. Eventually it will transform all institutions into capitalistic ones.
Another example is how the Archdiocese of Boston, in search for cash, is now considering selling the Catholic Hospitals that belong to it; no concern for the moral impact Catholic Hospitals have on society, only a consideration of cash and profit.
The whole scandal more than 20 years ago at the Vatican bank was caused by the same forces. Paul VI wanted to move vast amounts of money out of Italy, and so turned to the Mafia to do this, by giving them control over the Vatican Bank, with the resulting loss of the savings of priests and religious of Rome, Venice and other dioceses.
To bail the Vatican Bank out, when it went bankrupt, it is widely reported that Opus Dei donated 1 Billion dollars; and in return got a fast track no questions asked canonization of their founder.
Capitalism and its fruits.
Dear Grafitto,
You ask "So why, Brother, do the Distributists, or Third Way proponents, try to make us feel that we are less than Catholic if we don't sign on to the "Back to the Land" mentality?"
I respond:
I don't know their motivation. But you must understand, that not everyone intellectually realizes the fundamentally different orientation of the truth Faith to eternal and supernatural goods. And thus they continue to think like carnal men, not Christian men. All these -isms are intellectually founded upon this fundamental spiritual error.
I have responded to the general problem the Back to the Land Movement is addressing at
The Catholic Colony
http://utregnetchristusiesus.blogspot.com/2006/08/catholic-colony.html
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home