One accusation that is often made against distributists is that we claim distributism is the official economic system of the Catholic Church. This is because we frequently cite official Catholic teaching in support of our positions, and also because of the undeniable fact that Distributism started as a primarily Catholic movement, with a primarily Catholic leadership, in response to papal teaching. Distributism is, after all, the attempt to apply philosophical principles of ethics and morals to the economic and political spheres in a way that is specifically consistent with Catholic teaching. So, does that mean we claim it is the official economic system of the Catholic Church? In this article, I dare to give an authoritative answer to that question.
“For the Church does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and provided that she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her ministry in the world.”[1]+ St. John Paul II
There is currently some dispute between Catholics who are capitalists and those who are distributists. Among the capitalist camp, there are those who claim that capitalism has been all but officially endorsed by the Church, particularly by St. John Paul II. in Centesimus Annus. This is a false claim that has been thoroughly addressed by several distributist writers, including Thomas Storck.[2] The main point here is that, while the Church does not outright condemn capitalism, there are practices that capitalism continues to embrace which are not consistent with Church teaching, and others, like usury, that have been condemned. Because of this, distributists have to admit, even if it might pain us to do so, that capitalism is redeemable, if only the capitalists would be willing to redeem it.
The only economic system about which the Church has made a consistent and definitive position is socialism. While the Church appreciates that it tries to address the injustices practiced by capitalism, the proposals of the socialists are a case of “the cure being worse than the disease.” This is because all of the different forms of socialism share one fatal characteristic; they invert the relationship between families and the larger society. Because of this, socialism has the distinction of being declared as incompatible with Catholicism, a declaration that has been repeated by many popes for more than a century.
“If Socialism, like all errors, contains some truth (which, moreover, the Supreme Pontiffs have never denied), it is based nevertheless on a theory of human society peculiar to itself and irreconcilable with true Christianity. Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.”[3]
+ Pius XI
Some in the capitalist camp falsely assert that distributists claim that distributism is the Catholic system. What distributists have actually claimed is that distributism, as a named economic system, has striven to be consistent with the Catholic Faith. This is hardly equivalent to claiming that the Church has actually endorsed it, let alone it being the official economic system of the Church. As quoted above, the Church does not propose economic systems. What she does is present moral issues raised by economic questions and practices in light of how Christians should act. Distributism specifically attempts to address those issues,[4] and capitalism does not. Additionally, there are other religious traditions that hold the same views on these issues as the Catholic Church, so distributism is something many of them could embrace, at least for the most part. This has been pointed out by authors who are referenced by distributists, like E. F. Schumacher who wrote on the economic positions of other cultures and religions, like Buddhism.[5]
There is also support for distributism among the Orthodox.[6]
Notes:
[1] St. John Paul II. Sollicitudo Rei Socialis. 1988. §41
[2] See Mr. Storck’s article on Centesimus Annus at https://practicaldistributism.com/2010/09/21/catholic-social-doctrine-st-john-paul-ii-centesimus-annus-part-one/
[3] Pius XI. Quadragesimo Anno. 1931. §120
[4] See Is Distributism Catholic at
https://practicaldistributism.com/2011/05/22/is-distributism-catholic/
[5] E. F. Schumacher. Small is Beautiful. Harper Perennial, 2010.
[6] David Holden. “Distributism: a Primer for Orthodox Christians.” In Communion, 24 Nov. 2010.
https://incommunion.org/2010/11/24/distributism-a-primer-for-orthodox-christians/
Practical Distributism 
Can you please explain something to me? I'm a big fan of distributism, but I can't adequately explain to critics the difference between Distributism and socialism as far as this is concerned: “workers having ownership in the means of production;” I realize that for socialists, the state actually owns the means of production “in the name of” the workers, but when this is listed as one of the “planks” of distributism also, it does sound rather socialist. So if you could please explain how this doesn't mean the same thing in distributism and socialism, I'd be very grateful. Thank you.
Connie,I understand the confusion, but we have to move beyond the “similarities” in expression and get to what is actually meant by them. What problem is “worker ownership” trying to solve from both perspectives? It is because the end goals of distributism and socialism are not only different, but incompatible, that we are different. From the typical, traditional, socialist perspective, worker ownership is an issue of class warfare. A goal of socialism is to eliminate the social classes, and private property is believed by them to be how the social classes are established. Therefore, for socialism, “worker ownership” effectively means the end of private property; ownership is essentially the collective.From the distributist perspective, we do not seek to eliminate the social classes. There will still be different social classes in a distributist society. For us, worker ownership is an issue of personal and family independence. Worker ownership means you own your job independently. If you are part of a cooperative, then only the members of the cooperative have ownership of that cooperative. The social collective does not have ownership or control over your job. Worker ownership means you have more personal control over your livelihood than you actually have as an employee. An important factor in this is the decentralization of government authority.This leads to the next difficulty: Distributism is based on an overall idea of society, so focusing on just one aspect of that idea, like worker ownership, won't be convincing. If we achieved 100% private worker ownership, but actually failed to decentralize government authority, it would not be distributism. (I give this as an example. I actually believe that the process of achieving private worker ownership, as we understand it, cannot be accomplished without also decentralizing government authority.) Therefore, you need to convince others that they need to look at the overall picture to see the difference. Distributism opposes strong centralized government authority, which means that understanding subsidiarity is essential to understanding why worker ownership means something completely different to distributists than it does to socialists – at least those who actually understand socialism. Understand, as you progress with this, that you are not only fighting an uphill battle, but the hill is very steep. This is not meant as a discouragement. It is only by acknowledging this that you can avoid being discouraged. We are trying to introduce a way of looking at society that significantly different than either capitalism or socialism.
Thank you very much. This is extremely helpful.
Also, we cannot ignore what Pius XI says, namely that the economic proposals of moderate socialists “at times come very near those that Christian reformers of society justly insist upon”(Quadragesimo Anno, no. 113). So the fact that there is a certain overlap between what distributists want and what moderate socialists want should be no cause for concern. The difference is that socialism has a fundamentally materialist philosophy underlying its proposals, while distributism does not. This is essentially the same thing as David said here, I think.Thomas Storck
Precisely!