Isn't distibutism not exactly a system though, or is it? I learned that the term was taken from I sentence in Rerum novarum put forth by Leo XIII.

Isn't distibutism not exactly a system though, or is it? I learned that the term was taken from I sentence in Rerum novarum put forth by Leo XIII.

Yes, it is a system, although Hilaire Belloc admitted the term "distributism" was misleading. He gives an excellent definition of this economic system though in his various works dealing with Catholic Social Teaching.

Well, I think it best to stick to Rerum Novarum and be very careful about distributism or "third position."

GK Chesterton was a fine writer, but he is not a Catholic authority.

We should recognize, however, that our usury based "capitalist" system is inherently wrong.

At the same time, we must be very wary leftist infiltrators in the Church.

Odd, I was just thinking about Chesterton last night because Eamon quoted him.

I didn't want to be antagonistic but I don't like Chesterton.  I find him smug.  The tone of his writing with its condescending, needling rhythm and incessant twee jokes drives me crazy.  And yes, he was probably a left-wing infiltrator.  He was greatly in favor of the French Revolution -- shouldn't that be cause for automatic excommunication? -- and democracy.  How can you be AGAINST unrestrained capitalism and FOR the left-wing ʝʊdɛօ-Masonic democracies that spawned it?  You see, this is the 20th century for you, lies within lies within lies.

I do not know enough about distributism to comment effectively about it.  From what I understand it is saying that each man should own his own property and it is supposed to be "medieval."  The emphasis on ownership protects Chesterton from being accused of communism, which he sometimes appears to skirt dangerously close to.  But the Middle Ages were feudal.  Yes, lords allowed the peasants to own their land, but there were still lords and still peasants, while Chesterton seems to promote a weird English-romantic agrarian pseudo-Catholic farm with everyone brought down to the same level.  It's like utopianism with convents instead of casual sex.

He is also one of those who tries to make Christ sound like a Che Guevara figure, saying He spoke of the evils of wealth with "savage monotony."  What a nonsensical, pseudo-clever phrase.  It was neither savage nor monotonous -- He simply told a young man of high spiritual virtue that if he wanted to improve himself even further, he should sell his property.  

Chesterton made out the evil of money to be the CENTER of Christ's message.  But it was not.  The CENTER of Christ's message is "Love God with your whole mind and whole heart."  
Saying "Money is the root of all evil" does not mean those who have money will necessarily succuмb to the vices it tends to bring in its train, and history has furnished us with numerous examples of that.  Was not St. Aloysius of a wealthy family, yet the purest of pure youths?  How about St. Louis IX, a detestable monarch, bleargh!  There are many, many less saintly Catholics throughout history, such as in the Austrian royal family, who lived good Catholic lives without being dirt-poor, even if they did not achieve the perfection of St. Louis IX or St. Aloysius.  

Christ said "Blessed are the poor IN SPIRIT."  In spirit, you see, as opposed to fact.  It is especially obnoxious that a rather worldly and gluttonous man like Chesterton would make himself the apostle of poverty.  


What is this absolute rot?

If the French democracy
actually desired every detail of the mediaeval monarchy, they could have
it. I do not think they will or should, but they could. If another
Dauphin were actually crowned at Rheims; if another Joan of Arc actually
bore a miraculous banner before him; if mediaeval swords shook and.
blazed in every gauntlet; if the golden lilies glowed from every tapestry;
if this were really proved to be the will of France and the purpose of
Providence--such a scene would still be the lasting and final
justification of the French Revolution.

For no such scene could conceivably have happened under Louis XVI.

This is again nonsensical, despite the attempt at cleverness so endemic to the English.  

( 1 ) There was no need for a counter-revolutionary battle to restore the monarchy at the time of Louis XVI because he already was a Catholic monarch.

( 2 ) If he's saying the French Revolution will ultimately restore us to greater purity, that's like saying we should thank the Arians because without them Athanasius would never have triumphed, or the Protestants because without them Trent could never have happened.  Except Louis XVI was neither an Arian nor Protestant.  He was just another flawed Catholic king.  Maybe too young to be even called flawed.  How does anyone who calls himself Catholic justify chopping the King's head off and handing over the economy to Freemasons and Jєωs, and the worst, most ambitious and unscrupulous, scuм of society who lick their diseased feet to get ahead?  This resulted in a government of mobsters and we have been living in it for hundreds of years now.

Hie thee hither from my sight, Chesterton.  You have not endeared yourself to Raoul76.

Spouse, I just read your link about Belloc who also was a great promoter of the French Revolution.  Coincidence?  I think not.

As a Catholic I am trying not to call people names, but I called Chesterton worldly and gluttonous because of this, from his autobiography:

GLUTTONY:

I have never been anything so re-
fined as a gourmet; so I am happy to say that I am still
quite capable of being a glutton.

THEN WORLDLINESS:

My ignorance of cookery
is such that I can even eat the food in the most fashionable
and expensive hotels in London. Sometimes, in those lux-
urious halls, inhabited by the heroes and heroines of Oppen-
heim and Edgar Wallace, the food is just a shade too bad
even for me.

Why is he in the most fashionable and expensive hotels in London?  And why is his tubby frame always encased in the nattiest outfits?

Anyone with even a dim perception of human nature can tell he was worldly, but I wouldn't say it as a fact or judgment except for quotes like these.  Likewise, I wouldn't make fun of someone's appearance if they couldn't help it, but I will make fun if they take such obvious pride in their vices and think it makes them cute, while at the same time burbling with joy over the French Revolution and posing as the champion of the downtrodden.  YUCK.  I think there is ample proof that he was an armchair Fabian socialist with a Catholic veneer.

Chesterton:


Mr. Creosote:


Raoul76, taking down your heroes one by one... Sorry about that.  But Jєωs do control the media and have for a long time now.  The true heroes were the many priests and bishops behind the Iron Curtain sold out by the Church and by the democracies, or those who fought against Modernism in the Church, or the Cristeros.  

I'm not saying there are no heroes or no saints.  Just that the real saints in this life tend to be invisible, except for those who God allows to become famous to serve as an example, while whenever someone gets as high-profile in the Jєωιѕн-spoon-fed public consciousness as Chesterton, there is almost always a rat to be smelled.  Wells, C.S. Lewis, Belloc, Chesterton, are all problematic, at the very least.  

Don't tell me that he spoke against Jєωs either.  That is the oldest trick in the book and even Jєωs speak against Jєωs; it's sort of a way of releasing pressure occasionally, so that you think you have the "freedom" to speak about it, while they continue turning society into a simulacrum of hell itself.

My favorite joke is when people act as if Mel Gibson beat the system.  The dude is totally 100% controlled by Freemasons and does some of their most vile propaganda.  Do you see that when you stack up his American patriotic garbage with his Christ film it gives the mistaken impression that Christ is somehow behind our "freedom" which is a lie?  Do you think Christ approves of the separation of Church and state?

Steam coming out of ears.  Must have a glass of water.