The Economy of Communion: The Modern Voice of Distributism

8/3/2019 The Economy of Communion: The Modern Voice of Distributism

1/33

Lee 1

Helen Lee

Senior Thesis

Advisor: Dr.Maureen OConnell1 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 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 34.2Ibid.


2/33

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

3Ibid., 40.

4Ibid., 41.5Ibid., 36.6Ibid., 38.


3/33

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,7and

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 21stcentury problem, and so is often

dismissed before it is even considered. It needs the modern applicability of the EOC,

7 Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 46.8 Thomas Masters an Amy Uelmen, Focolare: Living a Spirituality of Unity in the

United States (Hyde Park, NY: New City Press, 2011) 149.


4/33

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


5/33

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.9In 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

9Edward 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) 5.11Ibid., 6.12Mainz Sermons, quoted in Marvin L. Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and

Movements(Mystic, CT: Twenty Third Publications, 2000) 7.


6/33

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 ofthe 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

13 Marvin L Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movements (Mystic, CT:

Twenty-Third Publications, 2000) 7.14Ibid., 11.15 Leo XIII. Encylical Letter, Rerum Novarum: On Capital and Labor, 1891, Section 3.16

Ibid.


7/33

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.20In 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 aboutCommunism 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:

17Ibid., 6.18Ibid., 14.19Servile State, quoted in Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72,

No. 847 (Irish Jesuit Province, 1944) 12.20Edward Collins, Distributism, The Irish Monthly, Vol. 72, No. 847 (Irish Jesuit

Province, 1944) 11.21Servile 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.


8/33

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 formodern 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.24He 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

23Ibid., 35.24

Vincent McNabb, Church and the Land (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 80.25Ibid., 81.26Aiden Mackey, A Distributist Remembers, Beyond Capitalism & Socialism: A New

Statement of an Old Idea. (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 4.


9/33

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

27 Hilaire Belloc, Economics for Helen(Norfolk: IHS Press, 2008) 102.28

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


10/33

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

31Tobias 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 49.33Ibid., 100.34

James Fulcher, Capitalism: A Very Short Introduction. (Oxford: Oxford University

Press, 2004) 15.


11/33


12/33

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.

38Ibid., 28.39

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


13/33

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 preventthis 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

40 G.K. ChestertonWhats Wrong With The World(New York: Sheed and Ward,

1956) 36.41Ibid., 35.42Ibid., 36.43

,Hilaire Belloc Economics for Helen (Norfolk: HIS Press, 2008) 103.


14/33

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

44Thomas 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.


15/33

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 notmerely 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.

47Ibid., 6

48Ibid., 47.


16/33

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:

49Ibid., 5.50

Ibid., 3.51Ibid., 47.52 Pius XI. Encyclical Letter, Quadragesimo Anno: On Reconstruction of the Social

Order, 1931, Section 50.


17/33

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 ofhis 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

53 John Paul II. Encyclical Letter, Laborem excercens, 1981, Section 1.54

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.


18/33

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 bymeans 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

57 Michael Novak, The Catholic Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism(New York: The

Free Press, 1993) 60.58

Ibid. p 59-60.


19/33

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 courtin 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

59Pius 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.


20/33

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 theysaid: 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 21stcentury. 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.

63Joseph 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/dorothyday64

Benedict XVI. Encyclical Letter, Caritas in Veritate, 2009, Section 32.65Ibid.66Ibid., 41.


21/33

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

67Dorothy Day Articles on Distributism 2, The Catholic Worker, July-August

1948. Dorothy Day Library on the Web:http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayMay 1, 2011.68

Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion(Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 14.69Chiara Lubich, quoted in Amelia Uelmen. Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich:

Human Development from the Vantage Point of Unity, (Theological Studies, 2010)37.70Uelmen, Amelia. Caritas in Veritate and Chiara Lubich: Human Development from

the Vantage Point of Unity, (Theological Studies, 2010) 32.
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday


22/33

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 thepossibility of living a dignified life while looking for work or through

offering them work in the business itself. Finally, a third part would beused 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,

71Luigino Bruni, The Economy of Communion(Hyde Park: New City Press, 2002) 15.

72Lorna 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.


23/33

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 firmssustain 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 nationalconvention, 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 &

74Ibid., 21.75The 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) 150.77Ibid.


24/33

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.78The 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 haveeven 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: May 1st,

201179

Ibid.80Thomas 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.
http://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.htmlhttp://www.mundellassociates.com/gallery.html


25/33

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

82Amelia 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.


26/33

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 economicsystem to deliver welfare to the people within the communityTraditional

85 Lorna Gold, The Sharing Economy. (Burlington: Ashgate Publishing Company,

2004) 89.86Ibid., 32.87Ibid., 144.88

Ibid., 39.


27/33

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 EOCwhich does not set out to replicate state welfarewithin the EOC theredistribution 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

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

2004) 81.


28/33

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


29/33

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


30/33

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.


31/33

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.
http://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothydayhttp://www.catholicworker.org/dorothyday


32/33

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: Twenty-

Third 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.


33/33

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.

Documents

The Economy of Communion: The Modern Voice of Distributism