Must one be a distributist to be Catholic?

[ThomasLLL]

Title captures most of it. I see a lot written recently by enthusiastic distributists which seems to suggest their description of economics and political coordination is not merely a prudential judgment, but an explicit teaching of the Church requiring assent.

Personally, I have at least two hesitations on this score. The first is that distributism is novel: while some of its Natural Law references are old, distributism as a system pretty much begins with the Progressive-era, not more than 150 years ago. The second is that many [all?] of the distributist arguments I have heard (some even quoting encyclicals) seem to have a very poor grasp of the economic systems they are critiquing.

Mind you, I am not saying the critique is always wrong in its conclusion. A lot of it I find spot on. But like in math, it isn’t OK to get the right answer by the wrong reasoning… and, again, much of what I have read is expounding their reasoning as much as their conclusions.

This has caused me some unease, as certainly I want to listen to what the Church has to say, but having to acknowledge the intrinsic and incontestable justice of “buy local” ** in order to be a true Catholic does not seem consistent with Scripture or Tradition to me.

So, am I wrong?

** I admit that is a gross over-simplification of distributist positions. If a distributist would like to chime in…

 

[Bookcat]

Here is the Compendium of the Social Teachings of the Catholic Church:

This is what a Catholic would inform their conscience with among other things.

The Church does not require a particular movement…

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

 

[ThomasLLL]

I am aware of the Compendium and Catholic Social Doctrine. Distributism (or at least the modern distributists I have heard) claim to be the authentic expression of that doctrine, requiring assent. That is either true or false.

As you do reference the Compendium, a much more general question is whether Social Doctrine (or how much of it) is infallible. I had not thought to ask that question, but it is a legitimate one.

 

[Bookcat]

I am aware of the Compendium and Catholic Social Doctrine. Distributism (or at least the modern distributists I have heard) claim to be the authentic expression of that doctrine. That is either true or false.

As you do reference the Compendium, a much more general question is whether Social Doctrine is infallible. I had not thought to ask that question, but it is a legitimate one.

The compendium addresses the nature of Social Doctrine in the beginning pages.

 

[St_Francis]

I would say that one does not have to be a Distributist to be a good Catholic. Distributism was developed by laymen using Rerum Novarum, and thus contains many good ideas, but this is in the area of prudential judgement rather than Church teaching.

 

[ThomasLLL]

The compendium addresses the nature of Social Doctrine in the beginning pages.

My bad, it is quite clear on its pastoral [aka, fallible] scope. Now, pastoral should by no means be taken as “ignorable” but it does not mean the same thing as “infallible” either.

EDIT I should clarify, I am in profound agreement with what I thought Social Doctrine was (pastoral or not). Confronted by the claims of distributists as to it meant, that understanding was called into question though.

 

[Bookcat]

Claims are…well claims.

Yes there are various “kinds” of Teachings within Social Doctrine.

 

[thewanderer]

The reason thy claim that is because thy are convinced that it is the only way to establish true social justice as outlined by the Church. Thing is, they are adding their own reasoning in to get to the claim that it is the only acceptable way of doing things, I you disagree that distributes is the only way to accomplish this then you are clearly entitled to hold your position and disagree with them. If they claim otherwise they are setting up their own reasoning as infallible which is an unbelievably proud, and clearly false, assumption to make. So no, you do not have to agree with them.

 

[chipeto]

Thing is, they are adding their own reasoning in to get to the claim that it is the only acceptable way of doing things, I you disagree that distributes is the only way to accomplish this then you are clearly entitled to hold your position and disagree with them. If they claim otherwise they are setting up their own reasoning as infallible which is an unbelievably proud, and clearly false, assumption to make.

No, they are just reasoning, rightly or wrongly; arguing from premises to conclusion. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

 

[chipeto]

The first is that distributism is novel: while some of its Natural Law references are old, distributism as a system pretty much begins with the Progressive-era, not more than 150 years ago.

I can’t quite agree with you there. I think the ideas are very old, in fact, I think that they are the ideas that morally healthy men with common sense have always had. But in recent centuries common sense has been all but destroyed, and so for the first time, it has been necessary to make these ideas explicit, which is what makes them seem novel.

The second is that many [all?] of the distributist arguments I have heard (some even quoting encyclicals) seem to have a very poor grasp of the economic systems they are critiquing.

I don’t know what arguments you’ve heard, so I can’t respond to that. Personally, I’ve never known Chesterton to have a poor grasp of anything. One difficulty is with the definitions of terms, for example, when Chesterton says capitalism he doesn’t mean exactly the same thing as most people today mean by that word. Now, as anyone who spent any amount of time thinking knows, understanding the meaning of terms is of critical importance when evaluating a position or making an argument. Indeed, Chesterton goes to lengths to define what he means by capitalism. But very few people will read his or others’ thoughts on Distributism with a sympathetic eye. It is one topic in which you will see a lot of knee-jerk reactions.

But no, one certainly doesn’t need to be a Distributist in order to be a good Catholic. One can be mistaken in good conscience.

 

[thewanderer]

No, they are just reasoning, rightly or wrongly; arguing from premises to conclusion. There is nothing extraordinary about that.

You missed my point. Of course there is nothing wrong with them reasoning and coming to a conclusion. The problem comes in if they refuse to recognize that other people have that same right. In other words, if they start to claim that you can’t be a good catholic unless you hold distributism as the only good order of society. At that point they have crossed the line into claiming that if you disagree with them, you are not a good Catholic. In other words, if you do not agree with their reasoning, you are not a good CAtholic. That kind of claim is putting their reasoning on an infallible level. So long as they are willing to recognize that others can legitimately differ in opinion from them then they are fine.

 

[ThomasLLL]

But no, one certainly doesn’t need to be a Distributist in order to be a good Catholic. One can be mistaken in good conscience.

FTW.

I admire Chesterton immensely. A titan, and one of my favorite authors of all time. However, I think while his criticisms of capitalism are [mostly] spot on, his remedies are somewhat less so.

Thomas Carlyle would be somewhat similar in this regard. Read ‘Past and Present’, if you have not, and see if you are nodding along with his criticisms, but wagging at his solutions.

I appreciate the answers I have received so much, that I hesitate to respond as to what I think the distributists [that I have heard] fail to grasp, because I do not want to start an unnecessary controversy.

However, as a specific recommendation to chipeto, you may be interested in the book Robust Political Economy by Mark Pennington. The first half** of the book is a critique of Rawls, Dworkin, and Young. While none of those philosophers of social justice espouse Catholic Social Teaching, they have tended to overlook the same kinds of things in their pursuit that I have seen overlooked in this sphere. Actual Ethics by James Otteson is also worth a look, as a purely philosophical critique of systems of that are stirred more strongly by concerns for “macrojustice” (to coin the term) than “microjustice” (to coin that one too) and their tendency towards utilitarianism. Both lean toward a certain humility when appraising man’s ability to understand all the relevant interactions in the systems he imagines he can design.

Again, in the interests of harmony, I’d rather leave it at that than go into too great a detail though.

** Amusingly the second half of Pennington’s book is recommendations, and most of those fall flat too!

 

[ThomasLLL]

I admire Chesterton immensely.

I might also say that I wasn’t thinking of GKC at all when I asked my question. I cannot recall him ever making a claim as to the necessity of embracing his socioeconomic views to be in conformity with Catholic doctrine or dogma.

 

[IronMIke]

Does this means to be collectivism?

 

[chipeto]

Does this means to be collectivism?

No.

 

[chipeto]

You missed my point. Of course there is nothing wrong with them reasoning and coming to a conclusion. The problem comes in if they refuse to recognize that other people have that same right. In other words, if they start to claim that you can’t be a good catholic unless you hold distributism as the only good order of society. At that point they have crossed the line into claiming that if you disagree with them, you are not a good Catholic. In other words, if you do not agree with their reasoning, you are not a good CAtholic. That kind of claim is putting their reasoning on an infallible level. So long as they are willing to recognize that others can legitimately differ in opinion from them then they are fine.

Forgive me, but I don’t think I’m missing your point. Let’s say that we have two arguments, A and B. They start with the same premises, but each arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the other. Either A is correct, or B is correct, or neither are correct. Whatever the case, they cannot both be correct. If I am a proponent of A, then it is not chauvinistic of me to insist A is correct and B is incorrect, so long as I am giving B a fair hearing.

 

[thewanderer]

Forgive me, but I don’t think I’m missing your point. Let’s say that we have two arguments, A and B. They start with the same premises, but each arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the other. Either A is correct, or B is correct, or neither are correct. Whatever the case, they cannot both be correct. If I am a proponent of A, then it is not chauvinistic of me to insist A is correct and B is incorrect, so long as I am giving B a fair hearing.

You are correct. I agree with you on this point, which is why I keep saying that you are missing my point. I do not at all disagree with this. Given the above scenario it is fine, so long as person A does not insist that Person B is a bad Catholic for following his own reason and coming to a different conclusion. Yes, maybe A is right and A’s path is the best path, all that does is make B wrong, it does not make B a bad Catholic.

 

[bmonk]

To give my own thoughts on the question:

Distributionism seems to impose a rule on property ownership–or at least the means of production: They should be held by all, or by a broad group, not by individuals or by governments.

Catholic teaching is rather different. We allow private ownership–but that ownership is not absolute. Being an owner is more like a steward: we hold things in trust, and are obliged to use them for the good of all, not just for ourselves.

Notice the difference here: the distributionists seek to impose a common ownership, while the Catholic teaching imposes a moral obligation and leaves the individual free to act.

 

[St_Francis]

To give my own thoughts on the question:

Distributionism seems to impose a rule on property ownership–or at least the means of production: They should be held by all, or by a broad group, not by individuals or by governments.

Catholic teaching is rather different. We allow private ownership–but that ownership is not absolute. Being an owner is more like a steward: we hold things in trust, and are obliged to use them for the good of all, not just for ourselves.

Notice the difference here: the distributionists seek to impose a common ownership, while the Catholic teaching imposes a moral obligation and leaves the individual free to act.

Distrbutists do not *at all *advocate that individuals may not own businesses–in fact, this was the early idea. Chesterton said that the problem with capitalism is not that there are too many capitalists but that there are too few. He and Belloc were major advocates of single- or family proprietorships.

The idea of worker-owwned businesses came in later when Mondragon and other enterprises were started (iirc, after WW2). I believe that this too is consistent with distributism, but some distributists who come to these ideas from the left (I suspect) tend to emphsize these types of co-ops, or perhaps it is emphsized to show that large enterprises can continue to exist.

 

[St_Francis]

Forgive me, but I don’t think I’m missing your point. Let’s say that we have two arguments, A and B. They start with the same premises, but each arrives at a conclusion that contradicts the other. Either A is correct, or B is correct, or neither are correct. Whatever the case, they cannot both be correct. If I am a proponent of A, then it is not chauvinistic of me to insist A is correct and B is incorrect, so long as I am giving B a fair hearing.

The thing is, distributism was originally conceived as a pretty loose system. It was not expected that it would be imposed as a system but evolve within a Catholic society. Similar to the way the Church teaches, different societies would have different “flavors” of distributism depending on their situation, because these are prudential matters.

It’s like learning to paint: your teacher may say paint a picture of these flowers, and each student’s painting would look different while following the given parameters.

I just study and learn about Catholic social teaching, and consider how what I think fits in with that. Sometimes I read something and recoil; that I take as a sign that I have to grapple with that issue. It’s not an easy process.*