Perspectives of a Wanderer

One of the advantages of where I live is that we have not one, but two Catholic Radio stations.  One of them, Ave Maria Radio, produces a number of programs that are heard nationally on EWTN Radio.  However, I work or am busy with other obligations when many of the shows are on during the week.  Fortunately, one of the shows, Kresta in the Afternoon, rebroadcasts some of his shows on the weekends.

I heard one such broadcast today and the person, Dr. Edward Sri, was discussing his new book, The Bible Compass: A Catholic’s Guide to Navigating the Scriptures, which is to be published next month.  The book was not of interest to me, it was his life story.  Like myself, he was (I still am) out in the business world for a number of years before he went back to study theology and started teaching and writing (his book is on my “to buy” list).

This is something that I have been thinking of doing in some capacity for a number of years.  Being single, and having no desire to get married, the options for me are much broader than for him.  I have contemplated everything from the Priesthood (Religious Order mainly), to the Diaconate, to teaching and/or writing.  I have ruled out the first two for a number of reasons, but am still thinking of the third option.

On teaching and/or writing, I would love to get a degree in Theology concentrating in Moral Theology and Catholic Social Teachings.  I feel that is where there is a void, especially on the laity side, in the teaching ranks today and it is an area that I am very interested.  However, my desired goal is not to stop there and just teach Moral Theology and/or Catholic Social Teaching.  I would love to apply that to some aspect of life.   This is where my second area of interest would come in.

As you can probably tell from other entries on my blog, I am interested in three Catholic movements: Catholic Workers Movement, Catholic Land Movement, and Distributism.  It is these three that I think I can combine with the Catholic Moral and Social teaching to create a framework to apply them to aspects of everyday life.  I already have a business degree in Computers with a minor in Finance.  However, to apply it the way I want to, I have a feeling I would need to look into one other area of business and that is Economics.

With a greater knowledge of Economics, I could really apply the Catholic Social and Moral teaching to develop and or enhance the Catholic movements mentioned above.  This is especially true for Distributism.  Up to now, Distributism has been mainly, with a few minor practical applications, a theoretical economic mode.  With knowledge of both Economics and Catholic Theology, I would be better able to combine the both into a practical and coherent economic model that could be more readily implemented.

I will be studying my options in both in the next couple of months.  I know I can get both at the Masters level where I now live.  Beyond that, I may have to explore outside the area for, at least, one of the degrees.  At this point, I have no desire to move out of this area, but that is far enough down the line that I do not have to consider that at this time.

This path that I have set for myself is challenging.  The thing is, can I balance work, school and other activity without burning out or going crazy.  That is another thing I will need to consider as I go along.

In discussing Healthcare in a forum I belong to, the subject of cooperatives (or co-ops) came up as a possible alternative to the proposed government, or socialized, solution.  This has gotten me to wonder if co-ops may be part of the solution to the development, implementation, and success of a Distributist type economic model.

For those who are unfamiliar with cooperatives, they are:

An autonomous association of persons united voluntarily to meet their common economic, social, and cultural needs and aspirations through a jointly-owned and democratically-controlled enterprise. It is a business organization owned and operated by a group of individuals for their mutual benefit.

A couple of the more familiar types of cooperatives are credit unions and agricultural co-ops.

Now I know that under some types of co-op systems, one is not independent but worker-owners of the cooperative.  The best  known example of this type of cooperative is the Mondragón Cooperative Corporation.

This, however, is not the type of cooperative that I am looking at.   The Utility cooperatives, Agricultural cooperatives, Cooperative banking, and Business and employment co-operative can best describe the types of cooperatives I am looking at.  In these types of cooperatives, individuals pull their resources to either provide goods or services to the members (i.e. energy or banking) or allow individual business to group together to market their goods and obtain raw materials needed at better prices that they would of gotten by working independently.  In addition, these type of cooperatives can also supply new and/or start-up businesses with needed capital and resources.  In the case of the latter, they could be considered associations as well as cooperatives.

What I am saying is co-operatives would allow like minded people to come together, pool their resources, and gain a level of buying and/or selling power while essentially keeping their independence in true Distributist fashion.  Essentially, gaining the power of larger businesses while staying as small or family businesses.

Yes, I know it is a weird question but, I am thinking if really does.

It has been said (and from the evidence I have gathered), that Socialism (especially in it most extreme forms of Marxist, Fascist, and Nazi forms) stifles innovation and creativity. There is essentially no incentive to be creative since the person is, in varying degrees, property of the state thus their ideas are property of the state. Yes, the state can reward those who do show some creativity with “perks”, but the true satisfaction is not really there. This is especially true in the former, and current, Marxist states where they have trouble with innovation and usually have to procure any ideas from others (theft and spying).

The same could be said for Global Capitalism. Even though people are not “property” of the of the company, in many cases, their ideas are even if they think of them on their own time. Yes, the company can provide the same type of “rewards” as the Socialist state does for those who show some creativity that provides revenue to the company however, just like the Socialist state, the satisfaction is not there either.

This lack on creativity and innovation can be seen in the products Global Capitalism produced. Their “cookie cutter” mindset makes many of the products look the same no matter who produces it. Cars, trucks, and SUV’s, with minor variances, look essentially alike. And, it does not stop there. Everything is “standardized” from the homes of the major builders down to the processed food we buy.

Heck, the lack of innovation and creativity has even crept into entertainment that is essentially controlled by big production companies like Sony and Disney. Why do you think so many remakes of old films and movie series are made? They cannot think of new ideas.

To see real creativity and innovation you have to look at those who do not fall into slaves of the state or wage slaves of the corporation. Whether it be the independent architect in the case of homes down to the independent filmmaker, the products, when you get outside the large corporation, are much more defined and refined than those from the corporation. The reason? Satisfaction in what they create and produce.

It behooves ourselves to move away from the “cookie cutter” and “mass produced” mentality to look at and but products from alternative sources in order to keep innovation and creativity alive.

It also fits in with the philosophy of those of us who believes a Distributist economy/society is essential for the redemption of society and to ensure it does not implode from the plagues of Socialism, Global Capitalism, Materialism, Liberalism, and Relativism.

I have been talking a lot about Distributism and setting  up a separate, but within the current, society.  For me, I consider it the best way to help civilization to survive.
A couple of weeks ago, this appeared in Real Clear Politics:

America’s 10 Freest and Least Free States

From indelibly American quotations like “Give me liberty or give me death” to the iconic pairing of “liberty and justice” in the Pledge of Allegiance, there’s no shortage of examples demonstrating that Americans have historically placed a high value on the concept of freedom.

While the concept of freedom may be in the eye of the beholder, there’s no question that each state has done their best to codify what actions they do and do not leave up to their residents’ choice. But which states give their citizens the most leeway, and which have them on the tightest leash? A study entitled “Freedom In the 50 States: An Index of Personal And Economic Freedom,” published by the Mercatus Center of George Mason University, sets out to answer this question. Click through to see which states rank the highest and lowest by their metrics.

It also linked to the source of this article:

Freedom in the 50 States

This report got me to thinking:

Where would be the best place to set up this society?

Is the US, Canada or Europe the best right now? I am not too sure. For me, they are either a little to materialistic, too hostile to the model, or have geographic (i.e. Weather) constraints.  In addition, the ever increasing Socialist nature of the governments and their incestuous relationship with Global Capitalism, also makes it too hostile to the Distributist Model.

For years, I have been researching way “south of the border” as a possible place to move (especially after I retire) . Why?  They are many but, it manly to get away from the over-Materialist and Relativistic nature of society in the United States.  For me, it is causing a real threat to the total implosion of society here.  As for Europe, it is far worse and Canada is not that far behind.

Although there are pluses and minuses to all of them, there are a few I would consider.  Now if I could get my Distubutist brethren interested, we might be able to make a go of it.  Even without them, I would consider moving if I were to find the right place.

I have been reading The Catholic Worker Movement by Mark and Louise Zwick and just completed the chapter “The Common Good vs Individualism”.  In the chapter, this passage stood out:

Peter and Dorothy especially quoted Tawney’s Religion and the Rise of Modern Capitalism, which shows the dramatic changes in concepts away from the common good. Tawney contended that what happened in the historical process generated by the Reformation was the movement of the focus of exchange from the social solidarity group (common good) to the individual. He argued that the social character of wealth that had been the essence of medieval doctrine was lost through the unexpected development of economic individualism that sprang to a large extent from the notion of private interpretation of Sacred Scripture. In their eagerness to rid the world of the corruption of the Catholic Church at the time, the reformers replaced the church teaching of solidarity with the teaching of individual salvation without good works. As Tawney put it, “Individualism in religion led insensibly, if not quite logically, to an individualist morality, and an individualist morality to a disparagement of the significance of the social fabric as compared with personal character.”

In England and in the young United States, with time and pressure from merchants, Puritanism (the outgrowth of Calvinism) added a “halo of ethical sanctification to the appeal of economic expediency, and offered a moral creed in which the duties of religion and the calls of business ended their long estrangement in an unanticipated reconciliation.” Gradually, the Reformation idea that individual conscience decides led to the practical conclusion that might be thought of as whatever works, whatever is comfortable, whatever makes a profit. Those in trade argued that “business affairs should be left to be settled by businessmen, unhampered by the intrusions of an antiquated morality or by misconceived arguments of public policy.” Economics became separated from ethics. The contrast with earlier Christian teaching on the sin of avarice is striking. The church had always taught that greed, the implementation of the desire to gain more and more wealth, was one of the capital sins, and the idea of acquiring wealth was limited by a body of moral rules imposed under the sanction of religious authority. (pg 141-142)

I would tend to agree in the above assessment.  Protestantism has fragmented Christianity to the point where, in some cases, it is completely detached from its roots.  This allows for the the individual to interpret what Christianity is to fit with what they want, not what  it is.  This individualism is what has given root to the social ills of Relativism and Materialism (via Capitalism).

Furthermore, earlier in the chapter, Peter Maurin (one of the founders of the Catholic Workers Movement with Dorothy Day) believed that “socialism would not have existed if not for the excesses of capitalism (pg 135).  I would tend to agree with this premise also since tends to be a backlash when there are excesses in any system.

With Socialism and Global Capitalism combining forces these day with their incestuous relationship, I think we may be starting to see  a backlash to both systems.  What replaces it will depend on who presents the best alternative.   I believe by combining aspects of the Distributism, Catholic Workers, and Catholic Land movements (along with some others which I have not researched yet), I think we Catholics could provide a viable alternatives to both Socialism and Capitalism.