Dorothy Day and Private Property

Status
Not open for further replies.
T

TheWryWren

New member
Last night my friend and I were, as most 20-year-olds do, talking about Liberation Theology and Dorothy Day. The conversation created questions that I am not sure how to answer.

Day was not unfamiliar with Communism before or after her conversion. It seems that even decades after her conversion she still did not believe that property was a universal right given to all by God. Below is a quote I pulled from Wikipedia.
In regard to Fidel Castro’s Cuba, she [Day] wrote in July 1961: “We are on the side of the revolution. We believe there must be new concepts of property, which is proper to man, and that the new concept is not so new. There is a Christian communism and a Christian capitalism… We believe in farming communes and cooperatives and will be happy to see how they work out in Cuba… God bless Castro and all those who are seeing Christ in the poor. God bless all those who are seeking the brotherhood of man because in loving their brothers they love God even though they deny Him.”
Click to expand...
However, the Church has condemned the idea that private property is not a right (or that it could be taken away). First in 1891 with the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum, and then later in 1931 with Quadragesimo Anno. Both Encyclicals would likely have been known by Day. Rerum Novarum insists that private property is a good, while Quadragesimo Anno states that private property is a right (paragraph 45).

I did additional research on what weight an Encyclical has, and it seems that they are very authoritative and should be followed by all Catholics.

I know Day is only a Servant of God, which recognizes that she was a pious figure, but how should she be viewed when it seems like she acted contrary to formal church teaching?
 
Last edited:
TheWryWren said:
However, the Church has condemned the idea that private property is not a right. First in 1891 with the Papal Encyclical Rerum Novarum , and then later in 1931 with Quadragesimo Anno . Both Encyclicals would likely have been known by Day. Rerum Novarum insists that private property is a good, while Quadragesimo Anno states that private property is a right (paragraph 45).
Click to expand...
Did either define private property as an absolute right? Inviolable under any circumstances?

From the very beginning, there are Christian groups who have chosen to live in community. Your local Franciscians to the birth of the Church in the book of Acts:
chapter 2

They devoted themselves to the teaching of the apostles and to the communal life, to the breaking of the bread and to the prayers.
Awe came upon everyone, and many wonders and signs were done through the apostles.
All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need.
Every day they devoted themselves to meeting together in the temple area and to breaking bread in their homes. They ate their meals with exultation and sincerity of heart, praising God and enjoying favor with all the people. And every day the Lord added to their number those who were being saved.

This is described again in chapter 4.

The line, IMHO, is when people freely choose to live in community VS what we modern people call “communism” which is in fact living in a dictatorship.
 
Thank you for the link, I will be sure to read it over when I have the chance!
I agree that St. Thomas does not say property is “an absolute,” but he does say that private property is both beneficial for the individual and the community as a whole.

Additionally, the Church does teach that the abolition of private property is wrong.
Venerable Brethren and Beloved Children, you know that Our Predecessor of happy memory strongly defended the right of property against the tenets of the Socialists of his time by showing that its abolition would result, not to the advantage of the working class, but to their extreme harm.
Click to expand...
I am not trying to argue that the Church believes in a 100% private property State, but that Day supported Castro, who did abolish private property in favor of State ownership.
 
TheWryWren said:
I am not trying to argue that the Church believes in a 100% private property State, but that Day supported Castro, who did abolish private property in favor of State ownership.
Click to expand...
I love Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day, but I will agree that at times they were a bit naive and in the case of the latter too ready to believe good of others. But perhaps that’s just my cynicism, which I don’t believe is conducive to becoming a saint.
 
No, I definitely understand where you are coming from! I really enjoyed Day’s autobiography “The Long Loneliness.” I was only curious what others thought about her support of Castro in relation to past encyclicals.
 
Yeah, I agree that people can freely choose to live in community, but Castro did not really allow for much dissension when it came to private property.

I have no idea if Day ever re-examined her stance on Cuba and Castro whenever things become more restricted.
 
I think a person has to be conversant with land reform issues in pre-Castro Cuba to assess Dorothy Day’s remarks. Me, I am not.
 
Nor am I! What little I do know is that before Castro, Cuba was lead by Batista and has been called a right-wing dictatorship. Apparently, right-wing dictatorships allowed more free markets, religion, and private property, at the expense of increased military presence, and some other stuff.

The rest is history but to recap: Castro overthrew Batista and implemented a communist left-wing dictatorship.
 
Last edited:
TheWryWren said:
Nor am I! What little I do know is that before Castro, Cuba was lead by Batista and has been called a right-wing dictatorship. Apparently, right-wing dictatorships allowed more free markets, religion, and private property, at the expense of increased military presence, and some other stuff.

The rest is history but to recap: Castro overthrew Batista and implemented a communist left-wing dictatorship.
Click to expand...
The Battista regime was many things, including a kleptocracy. But feudal-like like land ownership in Cuba was one of the causes of the revolution. A system of ‘private property’ can include holding people as sharecroppers.
 
Nepperhan said:
The Battista regime was many things, including a kleptocracy. But feudal-like like land ownership in Cuba was one of the causes of the revolution. A system of ‘private property’ can include holding people as sharecroppers.
Click to expand...
Indeed the Vatican would go on in several documents to address the issue of land ownership, particularly the kind seen in Central and South America.
 
Also the little know principle of Universal Destinsation of Goods speaks to this.

CCC

I. THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION AND THE PRIVATE OWNERSHIP OF GOODS

2402 In the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits.187 The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race. However, the earth is divided up among men to assure the security of their lives, endangered by poverty and threatened by violence. The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men.

2403 The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise.

2404 “In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself.” The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family.

2405 Goods of production - material or immaterial - such as land, factories, practical or artistic skills, oblige their possessors to employ them in ways that will benefit the greatest number. Those who hold goods for use and consumption should use them with moderation, reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor.

2406 Political authority has the right and duty to regulate the legitimate exercise of the right to ownership for the sake of the common good.
 
StudentMI said:
I love Peter Maurin and Dorothy Day, but I will agree that at times they were a bit naive and in the case of the latter too ready to believe good of others. But perhaps that’s just my cynicism, which I don’t believe is conducive to becoming a saint.
Click to expand...
I don’t think Dorothy Day was naive at all. She was certainly well versed in communism having been a card-carrying communist at one point in her life but undoubtedly rejected it. What she did believe in however was people helping each other - pooling their resources, wealth and property for the benefit of the community, very much in the spirit and tradition of the apostles (as @TheLittleLady has already observed). She was certainly well aware of the difficulties that this involved given the way human nature is and experienced those difficulties first hand. What makes her worthy of canonisation (God-willing of course) is her commitment to this ideal despite the difficulties because she believed that this was the means by which we are called to be upbuilders of the kingdom. So in this way, she wasn’t against the idea of private ownership of property but rather she believed in living out the command to love our neighbour since, to those who have been given much, much will be expected.
 
I very much agree; however, isn’t it true to say that Day was unaware of Castro’s original intentions? If she did understand that Castro was trying to abolish private property, then she would be acting contrary to the above-mentioned encyclicals when she showed support for Castro and his revolution.

Or maybe I am putting too much weight into Papal Encyclicals. The best information I could find called them authoritative.
 
Last edited:
Perhaps naive was the wrong word. I agree she should be canonized barring any discoveries in the process. She, as a distributist, was for private property of a sort.
 
People can freely choose to live a communal lifestyle (religious do this all the time)–this is different than a state-enforced confiscation of all property allowing it to exercise total control over man and his destiny.
 
Right… But my question is how should we view Day’s acceptance and agreement with Castro, who did not give people the option to freely join a communal lifestyle, especially when it seems to contradict Church teaching from its social Papal Encyclicals.

Maybe my wording is creating confusion, but I am not arguing for 100% private property and no communal living.
 
Last edited:
Hello poster TheWryWren,

I think the easiest way to view Dorothy Day’s statements about Castro in the quote referenced is just as a mistake. The entire body of her writing makes it clear that her Catholic faith was primary, and her views on property, individualism, and collectivism were intentionally in accord with Church teaching.

In this case she tried to comment on a complicated political matter, relatively early on in Castro’s Cuba without benefit of the hindsight we have and she misread the “revolution.” Being mistaken about current events can happen to any of us.
 
Last edited:
In her real life, DD lived a simple, minimalist lifestyle.
If she promoted it for others, at least she was walking her talk.

I’m very much a fan of hers even though I don’t agree with everything she said.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top