Lee 1 Helen Lee Senior Thesis Advisor: Dr.

Maureen OConnell 1 May 2011 The Economy of Communion: The Modern Voice of Distributism Introduction

We are faced with a persistent crisis as a consequence of the current economic system, both locally and globally. Since the Industrial Revolution, the Church has not been silent regarding detriments of the system, speaking consistently on the inadequacy of the treatment of laborers, the unacceptable poverty rate, and the spiritual implications of labor and ownership. The current system, which is ultimately dictated by profit rather than humanity, has a few serious problems, as stated in Benedict XVIs encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. First, it lacks guiding principles of morality: Then the conviction that the economy must be autonomous, and that it must be shielded from influences of a moral character, has led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way.1 Benedict claims that because morality has not informed economic activity, the various economic systems trample upon personal and social freedom, and fail to deliver justice.2 Work, as a human experience, is also a spiritual one, and so it requires morality as a guiding force. Second, the system has divorced capital and labor, which Benedict insists is
1 2

Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 34. Ibid.

Lee 2 not ideal, since it results in a scenario where the owner of a process does not feel responsible in the long termfor the life and the results of his company.3 Finally, the system results in work that is impersonal, which conflicts with the theology of work: every worker should have the chance to make his contribution knowing that in some way he is working for himself. With good reason, Paul VI taught that everyone who works is a creator.4 These three problems are evidence of a distorted purpose of economic activity: the goal has become to serve profit rather than serve human needs.

Benedict offers two solutions to the dehumanization of the economic process. First, he says that we must not think the economic sphere is ethically neutral: It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.5 Second, we must focus on those businesses and economic initiatives which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of the equivalents, of profit as an end in itself.6 The temptation is to remedy Capitalism, since Catholic Social Teaching rejects Socialism so unequivocally. This is unnecessary, however, as there is a third option, which stands in contrast to both sides of the forced binary of Socialism and Capitalism: Distributism. Articulated in the early 20th century by such Catholic

Ibid., 40. Ibid., 41. 5 Ibid., 36. 6 Ibid., 38.

3 4

Lee 3 intellectuals as Hilaire Belloc, Distributism is a model rooted in Catholic Social Teaching. In purposing the widest distribution of productive capital as is possible, the Distributive model reinserts morality into the economic sphere, marries labor and capital, and personalizes work. Though reasonably well received at its inception, and even a fundamental principle of the contemporaneous Catholic Worker Movement, Distributism lost momentum and remains largely unengaged by Catholic economic thinkers, for reasons we will explore. Meanwhile, the most compelling modern solution to the contemporary crisis is the Economy of Communion (EOC), a model of business practice endorsed in Caritas in Veritate,7 and the fruit of a Catholic lay movement known as the Focolare. The EOC bases business growth upon relationships of reciprocal giving and receiving,8 and in doing so informs economic activity with principles of fraternity, unity, and sharing, while not excluding the possibility of profit. While Distributism appears to be unengaged and defunct, it has actually found modern articulation in the form of the EOC, which is a ressourcement to that early 20th century movement.

Distributism and the EOC both have a common goal: to rehumanize the economy, or subordinate economic activity to human activity as a whole. Distributism can seem like the early 20th century answer to a 21st century problem, and so is often dismissed before it is even considered. It needs the modern applicability of the EOC, Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 46. Thomas Masters an Amy Uelmen, Focolare: Living a Spirituality of Unity in the United States (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011) 149.
7 8

Lee 4 which details what businesses need to do in order to implement the principles of Catholic Social Teaching in a modern business setting. The romantic ideals of Distributism can seem to be those of a bygone era, and yet many of those ideals are being unknowingly realized in an increasingly expanding movement. However, the EOC is, in practice, only a business model; Distributism is an entire economic theory with a rich intellectual history. A global transformation can occur if the EOC is used as a means to bring about the all-encompassing societal principles of Distributism.

As I proceed, I will explain Distributism as an extensive economic model, while focusing on the unique way in which it treats the relationship of labor and capital, and the importance of private ownership in the model. I will demonstrate the ways in which Distributism typifies Catholic Social Teaching as well as the ways in which Capitalism and Socialism fail to. Ill then engage the ways in which Distributism has been either disregarded or disputed, and the reasons for this. After establishing Distributism as the ideal Catholic alternative to the present system, I will introduce the Economy of Communion as it was born out of the Focolare movement, considering also the ways in which the Focolare movement itself evokes the social principles championed by Distributists. I will detail the business model of the EOC and special characteristics of businesses adhering to the EOC, and describe the ways in which the EOC is a ressourcement to Distributism. After establishing the

Lee 5 compatibility of the two movements and the mutual need between them, I will engage the potential challenges going forward.

Distributism: A Background

The Distributist movement was born in the early 20th century, when it was articulated by the Catholic intellectuals Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, and Vincent McNabb, inspired largely by Leo XIIIs encyclical letter, Rerum Novarum.9 In the decades leading up to Rerum Novarum, the conditions associated with industrial Capitalism were inspiring revolutions across Europe, not to mention the release of Karl Marxs Manifesto of the Communist Party.10 In 1848, the detriments of Capitalism motivated Wilhelm Emmanuel von Ketteler to start a movement known as Social Catholicism.11 Ketteler, a priest, condemned unfettered competition, cold individualism, and the growing gap between the rich and the poor. He identified the absence of moral guiding principles in the economic sphere: Separated from God, men regard themselves as the exclusive masters of their possessions and look upon them only as a means of satisfying their ever-increasing love of pleasure.12 Kettelers work with the Social Catholicism movement was highly influential for Leo Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847 (Irish Jesuit Province, 1944) 15. 10 , Marvin L Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2000) 5. 11 Ibid., 6. 12 Mainz Sermons, quoted in Marvin L. Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, CT: Twenty Third Publications, 2000) 7.
9

Lee 6 XVIII, who called him our great predecessor.13 By extension, the ideals of the Social Catholicslike private property and the necessity of a corporatively organized societywould influence the ideals of Distributists writing after Rerum Novarum. The encyclical was further influenced by the Fribourg Union, the writings of Matteo Liberatore, among other movements and figures.14 In writing Rerum Novarum, Leo was motivated by his belief that the Church should be instrumental in the solution to the detriments of system, which were being articulated by various concerned voices in the Church.

In Rerum Novarum, Leo laments the suffering of laborers: We clearly see, and on this there is general agreement, that some opportune remedy must be found quickly for the misery and wretchedness pressing so unjustly on the majority of the working class.15 He also identifies a problem with Capitalism which will be the fundamental complaint of the Distributist: To this must be added that the hiring of labor and the conduct of trade are concentrated in the hands of comparatively few; so that a small number of very rich men have been able to lay upon the teeming masses of the laboring poor a yoke little better than that of slavery itself.16As he treats this issue, he chooses to focus on the importance of private property, the role of the state, and the necessity of collaboration between classes, among other things. Leo immediately Marvin L Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, CT: Twenty-Third Publications, 2000) 7. 14 Ibid., 11. 15 Leo XIII. Encylical Letter, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor, 1891, Section 3. 16 Ibid.
13

Lee 7 identifies and condemns the Socialist response to the established social ills, which he says are against justice.17 He further warns against intrusion by the State into the household.18

In Servile State, Belloc coins the term and presents Distributism as a remedy to the dreadful moral anarchy against which all moral effort is not turned and which goes by the name of Capitalism.19 He identifies the Servile State as the societal model where most people are forced to work for the advantage of few people, to the degree that community disintegrates.20 In contrast, he defines the Distributive State as an agglomeration of families of varying wealth but by far the greater number owners of the means of production.21 Chesterton defines the problem: The point about Capitalism and Commercialism, as conducted of late, is that they have really preached the extension of business rather than the preservation of belongings; and have at best tried to disguise the pickpocket with some of the virtues of the pirate. The point about Communism is that it only reforms the pickpocket by forbidding pockets.22 Chesterton triumphs his ideal of a system of small properties, as opposed to the oligarchy he sees in the system of his day. Regarding the insertion of ethics into the economic sphere, he says: Ibid., 6. Ibid., 14. 19 Servile State, quoted in Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847 (Irish Jesuit Province, 1944) 12. 20 Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847 (Irish Jesuit Province, 1944) 11. 21 Servile State, quoted in Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847 (Irish Jesuit Province, 1944) 11. 22 G.K. Chesterton, Outline of Sanity (Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008) 25.
17 18

Lee 8 When there is once established widely scattered ownership, there is a public opinion that is stronger than any lawIt may be very difficult for modern people to imagine a world in which men are not generally admired for covetousness and crushing their neighbors; but I assure them that such strange patches of an earthly paradise do really remain on earth.23 McNabb praises the Ownership System, which he says is promoted by Leo XVIII in Rerum Novarum.24 He distinguishes between that and what he terms the Wage System. He points to Leos proposal that ownership be spread to as many as possible, and uses this to assert that it may or may not be possible for everyone to be owners of productive capital.25 The end goal, according to McNabb, should be to increase the number of owners so that the number of people dependent on a wage will decrease.

A Model of Distributism

According to Belloc, Chesterton, and McNabb, Distributism was not new at all but was an ancient and traditional model of economics.26 Belloc defines the Distributive

Ibid., 35. Vincent McNabb, Church and the Land (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 80. 25 Ibid., 81. 26 Aiden Mackey, A Distributist Remembers, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Idea. (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 4.
23 24

Lee 9 state as one in which the families composing it are, in a determining number, owners of the land and the means of production as well as themselves the human agents of production.27 Such a system is one in which the ownership of the means of production is as widely distributed as possible, with the majority of citizens individually owning productive property. The Distributive state is defined by decentralized, small units that are corporatively organized from the bottom up: We need the freedom of lots and lots of small, autonomous units, and, at the same time, the orderliness of large-scale, possibly global, unity and coordination.28 The citizens of a Distributive state subsist by either producing their own wealth or participating in an employee owned business or worker cooperative. Though the marriage of capital and labor is fundamental to Distributism, the systems ideals reach into all areas of public life. The Distributist State is fundamentally a local one. McNabb promoted the idea that goods should be consumed by those who produced them as well as the members of the surrounding community.29 Crucial also is the principle of subsidiarity, defined well by Pius XI: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do.30 Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen (Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008) 102. E.F. Schumacher, Small is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered (New York: Harper and Row, 1973) 61. 29 Tobias J. Lanz, Economics Begins at Home, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 55. 30 Pius XI. Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931, 79
27 28

Lee 10

In the Distributive State, matters are handled by the smallest competent organs of society, beginning with the home: if an economic function can be performed at the level of the house-hold, it should be. And it is only if it cannot be done there, that higher levels of institutional complexityshould be called upon to perform the task.31 This principle of subsidiarity includes consideration of guilds, which would organize people based on common trade, regardless of class lines, so that they might mutually ensure their own wellbeing. Leo praises such guilds in Rerum Novarum.32

The Distributive state stands in contrast to the Capitalist and Socialist states, both of which divorce work and ownership. Pius XI defines the Capitalist state as that economic system, wherein, generally, some provide capital while others provide labor for a joint economic activity.33 Capitalism, then, is a system in which some own productive capital, and some perform labor for a wage, but in which those who own productive capital normally dont provide labor. A clear line of division and conflict emerges between the owners of capitaland those who sell their labor in exchange for wages.34 Chesterton argues that Capitalism might better be called Proletarianism, since the point of it is not that some people have capital, but that

Tobias J. Lanz, Economics Begins at Home, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 56. 32 Leo XIII. Encylical Letter, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor, 1891, Section 49. 33 Ibid., 100. 34 James Fulcher, Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 15.
31

Lee 11 most people only have wages because they do not have capital.35 In the Capitalist state, the market is in theory free, and therefore citizens are free. However, in practice, a minority of citizens own productive capital, and a majority of citizens own no productive capital and provide labor for those citizens who do, and who ultimately profit from that labor. Because ownership and work are thus divorced, the capitalist and the worker no longer have a shared goal, since they are not the same person. The goal of human economic activity is no longer to create particular products and fulfill certain needs. Rather, the goal of human economic activity is the goal of the capitalist: to accumulate more wealth, or more ownership: It is typical of a capitalist society that virtually all economic activities that go on within it are driven by the opportunity to make profit out of capital invested in them.36

In the Socialist state, the means of production are collectively owned: The proletariat seizes the public power, and by means of this transforms the socialized means of production, slipping from the hands of the bourgeoisie, into public property.37 In such a scenario the State owns the means of production on behalf of the public. The Socialist state therefore also divorces work and ownership, but does so by removing the private ownership of productive capital all together, placing that power in the hands of the State. Chesterton defines the Socialist state as a system

G. K. Chesterton, Outline of Sanity (Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008) 68. James Fulcher, Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004) 14. 37 Frederick Engels, Socialism: Utopian or Scientific (London, 1892) 92.
35 36

Lee 12 which makes the corporate unity of society responsible for all its economic processes, or all those affecting life and essential living.38 In such a system, the State owns all of the means of production, with citizens providing the labor. Citizens in the Socialist state may be given a portion of whatever wealth is produced by the state, but cannot generate any wealth on their own.39 The Socialist state is thus only nominally different from the Capitalist state. As in the Capitalist state, ownership and labor is divorced, but instead of productive capital being in the hands of a minority of capitalists, it is in the hands of a sole capitalist: the State. The result of the Socialist state is the same as that of the Capitalist state: the majority of citizens are non-owning workers, and are thus subject to a type of servitude. The Socialist state and the Capitalist state both underestimate the value of property: they view it as useful solely for its ability to generate wealth, which the Capitalist sees as beneficial for people and the Socialist sees as detrimental. The Capitalist response is to make the accumulation of private property unlimited, and the Socialist response is to make the accumulation of private property impossible.

Though Distributism calls for private ownership of productive capital, it simultaneously calls for limitationsin different ways and for different reasons than Socialism does. Distributism calls for limits precisely because of the degree to which it values private property beyond its propensity for wealth generation.
38 39

Ibid., 28. Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen (Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008) 107.

Lee 13 Chesterton proposes that unlimited ownership of property ultimately thwarts ownership of property in general, saying: One would think, to hear people talk, that the Rothschilds and the Rockefellers were on the side of property. But obviously they are the enemies of property; because they are the enemies of their own limitations. They do not want their own land; but other peoples.40 Chesterton praises property as the art of democracy and draws a parallel between the shaping of property and Creation itself.41 Limitations on accumulation of property, therefore, are not attempts to limit property ownershipas in Socialismbut rather to foster it: It is the negation of property that the Duke of Sutherland should have all the farms in one estate just as it would be the negation of marriage if he had all our wives in one harem.42 Distributism, then, does what Capitalism seeks to do in demanding a right to private ownership of productive capital, and likewise does what Socialism seeks to do in demanding a more egalitarian society.

Belloc allows for the fact that some members of a given community might be more industrious, leading to an accumulation of the property of their neighbors, and remarks, nothing will prevent this but a set of laws backed by a strong public opinion.43 Ultimately, citizens must desire the freedoms and widespread ownership of a Distributist state to such an extent that they are willing to collectively decide to G.K. Chesterton Whats Wrong With The World (New York: Sheed and Ward, 1956) 36. 41 Ibid., 35. 42 Ibid., 36. 43 ,Hilaire Belloc Economics for Helen (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 103.
40

Lee 14 enforce such limitations on a local level. Any such limitations on human activity should be born out of a local economy, rather than out of a distant, centralized authority. However Storck proposes that, to a certain degree, these limits will come about organically when work and ownership are not divorced: The separation between work and the ownership of productive propertytends to liberate the appetite for amassing wealth from the natural limits attached to it when that wealth is acquired by an individual with his own labor applied to his own productive property.44 The relationship between work and ownership in the Distributist state results in a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and property, without the interference of the State or the limitless free market, both of which are impersonal and therefore unjustaffairs concerning the lives of people must be personal.

For the Church, work is a fundamentally theological issue. Work is not only essential to survival; it is a grace. In working, we participate with God in the act of Creation: Each and every individual, to the proper extent and in an incalculable number of ways, takes part in the giant process whereby man subdues the earth through his work.45 Catholic Social Teaching is explicit in its support of private property as a right for allas opposed to a minority.46 In Rerum Novarum, Leo XIII identifies

Thomas Storck, Capitalism and Distributism: Two Systems at War, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 68. 45 John Paul II. Encyclical Letter, Laborem excercens, 1981, Section 4. 46 Leo XIII. Encylical Letter, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor, 1891, Section 46.
44

Lee 15 reason as that distinguishing characteristic which entitles us to a right to private property: On this very accountthat man alone among the animal creation is endowed with reasonit must be within his right to possess things not merely for temporary and momentary use, as other living things do, but to have and to hold them in stable and permanent possession; he must have not only things that perish in the use, but those also which, though they have been reduced into use, continue for further use in after time.47 The worker, then, is entitled not only to a wage, which perishes in use, but also to productive capital, which is held in stable and permanent possession. Ownership, furthermore, contributes to the graces of work: Men always work harder and more readily when they work on which belongs to themthat such a spirit of willing labor would add to the produce of the earth and to the wealth of the community is self evident.48 The graces associated with work are distinctly tied to the graces associated with the privilege of ownership, insofar as both of those things further human dignity. We cannot shape in our image that which does not belong to us. Thus when the vast majority of citizens are non-owning workers, the vast majority are deprived of the full graces of work and ownership. The Capitalists, too, since they normally do not have the opportunity to work onor shapethat which they own, are deprived of the full graces of work and ownership.

47 48

Ibid., 6 Ibid., 47.

Lee 16 Leo condemns Socialism as depriving the worker of all hope and possibility of increasing his resources and of bettering his condition in life.49 He warns that nature demands that the reach of the State should be limited to that which protects the rights of the people. 50 This warning extends to excessive taxation. The right to own productive capital does not originate from the State, and so the State cannot tax as if it is somehow entitled to the wealth accumulated by citizens. The State is not entitled to anythingits purpose is to serve the interests of the people.51 This is not, however, an endorsement of the limitlessness of the Capitalist state. In Quadragesimo Anno, Pius XI warns that income which [one] does not need to sustain life fittingly and with dignity, is not left wholly to his own free determination.52 Pius appeals to Scriptures and the writings of the Fathers of the Church, in which the rich are told explicitly to share their superfluous income with the poor. Though measures seeking to undermine the right to private ownership of productive capital are immoral, so too are attempts to accumulate levels of wealth inordinately beyond that required for comfortable subsistence.

Equally concerning to the Church is the human cost of labor and the significance of labor over capital. John Paul II asserts that the cost of labor runs deep:

Ibid., 5. Ibid., 3. 51 Ibid., 47. 52 Pius XI. Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931, Section 50.
49 50

Lee 17 While it is true that man eats the bread produced by the work of his handsit is also a perennial truth that he eats this bread by the sweat of his face, that is to say, not only be personal effort and toil but also in the midst of many tensions, conflicts and crises, which, in relationship with the reality of work, disturb the life of the individual societies and also of all humanity.53 Because labor has such enormous human consequences, it must necessarily be valued considerably more than capital. The right to own capital, therefore, must indeed be protected, but only secondarily to the just protection of human dignity, which must take precedence. Insofar as Capitalism makes accumulation of wealth its primary aimas opposed to the fulfillment of human needsit is unjust, regardless of how free the market might be. Capitalism does violate right order when capital hiresthe non-owning working class, with a view to and under such terms that it directs business and even the whole economic system according to its own will and advantage, scorning the human dignity of the workers.54 Most importantly, the economy must be tempered by social and distributive justice.55 As Benedict XVI says in Caritas in Veritate, the market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong subdue the weak.56

Silence and the Case Against Distributism

John Paul II. Encyclical Letter, Laborem excercens, 1981, Section 1. Pius XI. Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931, 101. 55 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 35. 56 Ibid. 36.
53 54

Lee 18 The Distributist state is characterized by the spirit of Catholic Social Teachingit embraces the grace of work and ownership and demands justice for those striving to make a livingand yet it is largely unengaged by Catholic Social Thought, likely because the name evokes Socialism, and perhaps because it seems anachronistic and incompatible with modern business and technology. This is admittedly understandable as Belloc, Chesterton, and McNabb, though not products of the Middle Ages, persistently hold the Middle Ages as the ideal and as evidence of the viability of Distributism. Still, there is no reason that this fact alone should preclude Distributism from being applicable in a modern economy.

Instead of engaging Distributism, some have concerned themselves with fixing Capitalism, interpreting Catholic Social Teaching as explicitly condemning Socialism, and merely harshly criticizing Capitalism.57 For Michael Novak, Capitalism is the only viable solution to poverty, and is inherently Catholic. The Capitalist state urges competition and therefore innovation: The dynamic agency at the heart of capitalism is the creative capacity of the human mind. A capitalist order nourishes this innate capacity by means of a distinctive set of institutions, such as universal education, patent and copyright laws, easy access to legal incorporation, tax policies favorable to research and development, and associations for raising venture capital.58

Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism (New York: The Free Press, 1993) 60. 58 Ibid. p 59-60.
57

Lee 19 Access to for-profit legal incorporation, however, is not a right articulated by Catholic Social Teaching, which is wary of incorporation.59 Regarding ease of patent and copyright acquisition, in Caritas in Veritate, Benedict XVI actually challenges the merits of what he calls an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property.60 Novak fails to engage any Distributism claims. Richard Neuhaus, in Doing Well & Doing Good, seems to embrace the idea that an anti-Socialist must be a Capitalist, praising Novak for being both.61 He cautions against making Capitalism the target of frustrations dealing with greed and selfishness, as the more appropriate target of those frustrations is human nature itself. The Distributist might well agree with that claim, and yet Neuhaus goes on to flatly dismiss Distributism as an utter rejection of modernity: With a few exceptions, Christian leadership denied the moral legitimacy of democratic capitalism. Of course, there were significant disagreements among such Christians. The chief differences, however, were over whether to favor the hard or soft versions of socialismor, in the case of many Catholics, whether to reject modernity tout court in favor of sundry traditionalist, anarchist, syndicalist, or distributist schemes (cf. Hilaire Belloc, G.K. Chesterton, Dorothy Day, and, it must be acknowledged, some papal pronouncements). 62 The Distributists of the early 20th century certainly idealized and retrieved the principles of the local economies and guild systems of the Middle Ages, yet its likely

Pius XI. Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931, p 95. 60 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 22. 61 Richard John Neuhaus Doing Well & Doing Good (New York: Doubleday Dell, 1992) 49. 62 Ibid., p 50.
59

Lee 20 they would resent Neuhauss characterization. Joseph Nolan responds to just such a criticism from his time: Too long has idle talk made out of Distributism as something medieval and myopic, as if four modern popes were somehow talking nonsense when they said: the law should favor widespread ownershipwages should enable a man to purchase landthe family is most perfect when rooted in its own holding.63

In response to the current economic crisis, our own modern pope Benedict XVI has continued the line of thought of the four popes Nolan mentions. He laments a morally unacceptable disparity of wealth,64 insists on protection for the rights of workers,65and asserts, Every worker should have the chance to make his contribution knowing that in some way he is working for himself.66

The Distributist movement lost momentum as a post-World War II economic boom and flourishing middle class temporarily concealed the very concerns Distributism sought to address. As the movements leadersChesterton, Belloc, et. aleach died, Distributism lost a lens through which to address the monumental technological advances that have led us into the 21st century. It is worth noting, though, that the Distributists did not seek to reject the technological advancements of their own day. As Dorothy Day said, Distributism does not mean that we throw out the machine. Joseph T. Nolan, quoted in Dorothy Day Articles on Distributism 2, The Catholic Worker, July-August 1948. Dorothy Day Library on the Web: http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday 64 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 32. 65 Ibid. 66 Ibid., 41.
63

Lee 21 The machine, Peter Maurin used to say, should be the extension of the hand of man. If we could do away with the assembly line, the slavery of the machine, and the useless and harmful and destructive machines, we would be doing well.67

Focolare and the Economy of Communion

The Focolare movement was founded in 1949 by Chiara Lubich. The movement is characterized by a spirituality of unity and a culture of giving, rather than having.68 The mission of the movement is one of solidarity, community, and love: Nothing we do is of value if there is not the feeling of love for our brothers in it.69 The title, meaning hearth in Italian, evokes the same emphasis on the local community heralded by the Distributist movement. One might say that receptivity to Gods own desire to help humanity in its journey to unity is the core of the lifes work of Chiara Lubich and the movement she founded.70

In response to increasing poverty in Brazil, where the movement had a significant presence, the Focolare sought to develop a business practice that would enable Dorothy Day Articles on Distributism 2, The Catholic Worker, July-August 1948. Dorothy Day Library on the Web: http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday May 1, 2011. 68 Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 14. 69 Chiara Lubich, quoted in Amelia Uelmen. Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Development from the Vantage Point of Unity, (Theological Studies, 2010) 37. 70 Uelmen, Amelia. Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Development from the Vantage Point of Unity, (Theological Studies, 2010) 32.
67

Lee 22 members to better serve the community by way of accumulating profit, since they were finding it difficult to serve otherwise: One part of these profits would be used to help the business grow; a second part would be used to help those who are in need, giving them the possibility of living a dignified life while looking for work or through offering them work in the business itself. Finally, a third part would be used to develop education structures for the formation of men and women motivated by a culture of giving: new people, since without new people it is not possible to build a new society.71 Though poverty is certainly a large concern of the model, Its focusis not on poverty alleviation per se but on building relationships based on mutual care and solidarity, which also involves addressing financial poverty.72 Like its parent movement, the EOC seeks to bridge the divide between the religious life and the professional and social lives by promoting fraternity and solidarity. It seeks to insert morality back into the economic sphere, as Benedict encouraged in Caritas in Veritate.

Characteristics of the EOC include a desire to live a consistent lifestyle, an attempt to promote selfless giving within those businesses in which it is normal to seek profit, a sense of global belonging, a view that those helped by profits are actual participants in the project, and an emphasis on sharing rather than philanthropy.73 The aim of economic activity is human development, which is understood as the capability to exercise three essential possibilities: a long and healthy life, education, Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 15. Lorna Gold, "The 'Economy of Communion': A Case Study of Business and Civil Society in Partnership for Change." (Development in Practice 14.5, 2004) 636. 73 Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 15.
71 72

Lee 23 and access to the necessary resources to reach and maintain a dignified life.74 At the core of the EOC is the belief that the sharing economy is more inherent to human nature than a profit-motivated system: Every person, despite his or her weaknesses, finds it natural to adopt a culture that emphasizes giving rather than having, since each person is called to love other people.75

In terms of application, EOC businesses include endeavors in varying industries, and support one anothers growth and development. Masters and Uelmen describe the EOC culture in North America: In the United States, EOC businesses include an environmental engineering firm, a violin atelier, a language school, a tutoring service, a law office, an organic farm, and various consulting businesses. North American EOC firms sustain their vision through contact with local Focolare communities and their business to business network with other EOC firms throughout the continent and the world. Quarterly conference calls, an annual national convention, and occasional international meetings provide opportunities to sustain their commitment to the project and refine their ideas.76

Masters and Uelmen describe some of the businesses, which commit themselves to infusing all their relationshipswith values of love and respect.77 The businesses they mention tend to view competitors as coworkers in their field, and have even helped others start competing companies in the spirit of sharing. Mundell & Ibid., 21. The Experience of the Economy of Communion: A Proposal of Economic Action from the Spirituality of Unity, quoted in Luigino Bruni. The Economy of Communion (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 14. 76 Thomas Masters an Amy Uelmen, Focolare: Living a Spirituality of Unity in the United States (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011) 150. 77 Ibid.
74 75

Lee 24 Associates, an environmental consulting firm, is one such company, run by John Mundell in Indianapolis. Mundells company has the mission of the EOC displayed on its website as part of its Social Mission.78 The company lives out a culture of giving by bringing environmental justice to the underprivileged in Indiana, helping develop better environmental laws, and helping develop natural resource protection.79 Masters and Uelmen quote John on the EOC: We compete only by the quality of our product and our service. We have even helped people in our area to start similar companies, sharing with them how we started, how to avoid the mistakes that we made, and sending along resumes of good people when they dont serve our own employment needs.
80

Mundell and other EOC business owners are taking to heart Benedicts declaration that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human person in his or her integrity,81 and their business is benefiting from it.

Distributism: A Ressourcement

Even as summarized, the Economy of Communion business practice bears the marks of a ressourcement to Distributism, though Distributism itself is not engaged in the literature on the EOC. First, the system subordinates economic activity to human life
78

Mundell, Social Mission: <http://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.html> May 1st, 2011 79 Ibid. 80 Thomas Masters an Amy Uelmen, Focolare: Living a Spirituality of Unity in the United States (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011) 151. 81 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 25.

Lee 25 as a whole: everything else in life, including practical projects and the desire to make progress on specific tasks, is completely relativized by the absolute value of love of neighbor.82 Two-thirds of the profits in the EOC are used respectively to support the disenfranchised, and to teach others how to do likewise. A mere third of the profits is meant to help the business growbut this will allow the business to further serve human needs. In the EOC, profit is not made for profits sake: ownership, therefore, was regarded as stewardship rather than as an end in itself.83 There is hardly an opportunity for a business run with such practices to amass the inordinate amounts of wealth warned against in the papal encyclicals.

Second, the EOC elevates the role of labor in the economic process. It seeks to give a higher consideration to workers beginning with the simple acknowledgement of their humanity: We also have to consider the workers, who invest their talents, their creativity, their time and their needs and expect their needs to be satisfied, their self-fulfillment etc.84 The EOC recognizes the spiritual merits of ownership and labor, and so like Distributism, ownership is encouraged to be widespread: Another key principleis the idea that ownership of business should be widespread, giving as many people as possible the chance to participate in the

Amelia Uelmen, Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Development from the Vantage Point of Unity, (Theological Studies, 2010) 37. 83 Lorna Gold, The Sharing Economy. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004) 83. 84 Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion (Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 81.
82

Lee 26 project in some form.85 In the event that widespread ownership is not feasible, Bruni encourages businesses to involve workers in the businesss goals and objectives. This can create a supportive atmosphere in which people do not feel intimidated nor compelled to take advantage of others, but can fulfill their potential and creativity.86 This fosters an involvement in the work that allows it to become personal for the worker. The Economy of Communion is also extremely conducive to smaller businesses: 97% have 50 employees or less, resulting in a less sharp divide between the labor and the capital within businesses.87 Ultimately the practices of the Economy of Communion mark a return to the truest human values capable of directing economic action and a new determination to follow ones conscience, expressed in a new, higher, rationality, exalted by unity between workers and managers, with suppliers and clients, with the public authorities, and above all, those excluded from productive economic activities.88

Finally, the Economy of Communion views the role of the State similarly to Distributism. Catholic Social Thought warns against a State that intrudes on the household, and rejects a system where the State would own the means of production. The Economy of Communion distinguishes itself from egalitarian theories most specifically in how it proposes wealth should be distributed: The EOC emerged as the result of the failure of the modern economic system to deliver welfare to the people within the communityTraditional Lorna Gold, The Sharing Economy. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004) 89. 86 Ibid., 32. 87 Ibid., 144. 88 Ibid., 39.
85

Lee 27 theories place the role of redistribution in the hands of the state through taxation. Whilst the role of the state still has importance for the EOC which does not set out to replicate state welfarewithin the EOC the redistribution of resources is regarded as an integral part of the production process.89 Like Distributism, the Economy of Communion is wary of State involvement mostly because it does not see redistribution of wealth as being a part of the roles of the State. For Distributism, wealth distributes organically as a result of a vibrant local economy characterized by solidarity. For the Economy of Communion, that solidarity is engrained in the business practices of the community. Wealth isnt distributed as an afterthought to satisfy some sense of duty. It is distributed because those who are receiving it are just as important to the business as the business itself. Similarly, in Distributism, the entire community benefits from the widespread ownership of productive capital. The system sustains itself because its elements are mutually beneficial. Only in a Capitalist or Socialist State would active distribution of wealth be required, as both of those systems lack sustainability.

Conclusion

Lorna Gold, The Sharing Economy. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004) 81.
89

Lee 28

At the core of both Distributism and the Economy of Communion is a subordination of economy activity to human life as a whole. This guiding ethic results in the similar conclusions of an empowered workforce, a limited state, and a strong local community. As a theory, Distributism has enormous potential. A society in which local economies took precedence, people were not slaves to work, and most people had the benefit of owning seems ideal. Though a certain degree of inequality would exist, such inequality would be negligible. Human need would be the aim of economic activity, and so the nominal differences in wealth within a given community would not be a sufficient motivation to amass increasing amounts of wealth, so long as community members were able to subsist. Such a society, locally based, would necessarily provide for its citizens. As it is, most people do not own, and are slaves to the work that theyfor the most parthave no personal investment in. They lose the opportunity to shape their work in their own image to share in creation with God.

The EOC has experienced success since its inception in 1991. By 2001, 761 businessin commerce, production, and other servicesimplemented the business practices of the EOC. Like Distributism, the EOC subordinates economic activity to human activity as a whole. It recognizes the importance of personal investment in work, and so encourages widespread ownership and company-wide involvement

Lee 29 and disclosure. As Benedict encouraged in Caritas in Veritate, the EOC reinserts morality into the economic sphere. The sense of fraternity championed by the EOC allows business owners and participants to benefit themselves spiritually by acting consistently and ethically across different areas of their lives.

Distributism is as of yet only theoretical. Though aspects of Distributismcredit unions, worker cooperatives, health care cooperatives, and locavore movements certainly thrive throughout the world, Distributism itself has not been implemented since the Middle Ages. Unfortunately, it is difficult to get people to see why a practice of the Middle Ages should apply to their lives today, especially since we have been so thoroughly educated to accept the principles of liberal economics. The EOC, however, is evidence that these principles of solidarity, subsidiarity, and widespread ownership are practically applicable today, and that they even cause businesses to thrive. The EOC, though, is characterized by highly ecclesial language, unlike Distributism, which references and is rooted in Catholic Social Thought, but is not steeped in it. Because of this, the likelihood that the EOC will spread outside of the Christian world to any significant degree is slim. The implications of the EOC are such that it would be morally reprehensible to keep it with in the bounds of Christianity. Just as there is a responsibility to spread the gospel, there is a responsibility to spread the good news of the EOC, which is better for people, better for business, and better for the world at large. The EOC could thus benefit

Lee 30 immensely from the palatable language and rich intellectual history of the Distributist movement, while having one thing Distributism lacks: proof of functionality. As of yet, Distributism and the Economy of Communion have not engaged one another, and seem to be unaware of one another. The degree of mutual beneficence that would potentiallyand likelyoccur as a result of an encounter between these two responses to Catholic Social Teaching requires attention and action.

Lee 31 Works Cited

Belloc, Hilaire., Economics for Helen: A Brief Outline of Real Economy. Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008. Online. Benedict XVI., Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009. Online. Bruni, Luigino., The Economy of Communion. Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002. Print. Chesterton, G. K., What's Wrong with the World. New York: New World Chesterton, Sheed and Ward, 1956. Print. Chesterton, G.K., Outline of Sanity. Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008. Online. Collins, Edward. Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847. Irish Jesuit Province, Jan., 1944, p 5-16. Day, Dorothy., Articles on Distributism 2. The Catholic Worker, July-August 1948. Dorothy Day Library on the Web: http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday . May 1, 2011. Engels, Frederick., Socialism: Utopian or Scientific. London: 1892. Online. Fulcher, James., Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. Online. Gold, Lorna., "The 'Economy of Communion': A Case Study of Business and Civil Society in Partnership for Change." Development in Practice 14.5 (2004): 633-44. Online.

Lee 32 Gold, Lorna., The Sharing Economy. Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company, 2004. Print. Himes, Kenneth R., and Lisa Cahill., Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Interpretations. Washington, D.C.: Georgetown UP, 2005. Print. John Paul II., Encyclical Letter, Laborem excercens, 1981. Online. Krier Mich L. Marin, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements. Mystic, CT: TwentyThird Publications, 2000. Print. Lanz, Tobias J., ed., Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New Statement of an Old Ideal . Norfolk, IHS Press, 2008. Online. Leo XIII., Encyclical Letter, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor, 1891. Online. Masters, Thomas, and Amy Uelmen., Focolare: Living a Spirituality of Unity in the United States. Hyde Park, N.Y.: New City Press, 2011. Print McNabb, Vincent., Church and the Land. Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008. Online. Neuhaus, Richard John., Doing Well & Doing Good. New York: Doubleday Dell Publishing Group. 1992. Print. Novak, Michael. The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. New York: The Free Press. 1993. Print. Pius XI., Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social Order, 1931. Online.

Lee 33 Schumacher, E. F. Small Is Beautiful: Economics as If People Mattered. New York: Harper and Row, 1973. Print. Uelman, Amelia J. "Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Development From the Vantage Point of Unity." Theological Studies 71.1 (2010): 29-45. Online.