A Review of "Essay on the Restoration of Property"; Hilaire Belloc

[obscurus]

http://tradreviews.blogspot.com/2006/08/essay-on-restoration-of-property.html

[HailGilbert]

Via the Distributism Yahoo Group I am privileged to moderate, here is the response from the Neo-Conservative Capitalists in the "RomanCatholics" Yahoo Group {hereafter known as RCYG}.

From poster Sean Romer:

"I haven't read that particular Belloc book -- as a rule I refuse to spend any money on IHS Publications or have anything to do with an entity that names Derek Holland as its Vice President. As I told John Sharpe a few years ago when he and I were still on speaking terms, I would be happy to continue conversations with him provided he distanced himself from the man who authors political soldier tracts and calls for worldwide revolution. My suggestion went unacknowledged."

"I'm obliged, then, to focus on just the review itself. With that narrowed field of view, then, I'll say that I did not think the essay did a good job at presenting distributist arguments. It could be that the book itself was just poorly oragnized, but the review seemed to be a meandering diatribe against corrupt capitalists that lacked focus and coherence. It didn't strike me as a review so much as an instance of grand-standing, perhaps aimed at winning points with the home crowd who already shares the author's views. I'll run through just a sampling."

{NOTE: Heiner's words will be in bold type: Romer's will be in italics}

 *Heiner:* "But so few – I would venture to say none – of the writers of these 'reports' or editors of these websites have ever read one single page of anything ever written in defense of distributism."

*Romer:* I've read distributist books and literature -- e.g. *Economics for Helen, The Crisis of Civilization*. I peer-reviewed an English distributist's essay on Fr. McNabb that was later published. A distributist I spoke with once claimed that Tolkien was a distributist, and that the *Hobbit* and the *Lord of the Rings* were distributist tracts -- books I've read several times each.

*Heiner:* "throwing up my hands, saying that Capitalism is inevitable, participating in its worst excesses in my personal life, and then saying that we have to be 'in the world' and it's not our job to 'change society.'"

*Romer:* Who has said or done this? Any examples? If none, then doesn't that violate St. Thomas' first rule of debate -- to know your enemy? To turn the question around: what capitalist writers has Mr. Heiner read? Is the fact that he does not quote any by name or site actual quotations indicate that he's never read any?

*Heiner:* "to know the enemy you have to read them" followed soon after by "distributists are by definition doers, not talkers" and "it is pointless to sit around and talk about ideas all day long but to note that action is what is necessary."

*Romer:* Logical fallacy. How can one "read his enemy" if his enemy is a doer and not a talker -- or a writer? The essay is replete with logical infidelities like this one.

*Heiner:* "capitalism...was operatively a part of the Protestant Revolt."
 
 *Romer:* Which makes clear that capitalism did not *originate* with Protestantism; capitalism in fact preceded Protestantism by a few centuries (*c.f.*, the Medici bankers of medieval Italy).

 For the record, the printing press was also "operatively" part of the Protestant Revolt -- arguably, the Revolt would have died very early but for the advent of the printing press (and yet it was a Catholic who invented the printing press). If, by distributist logic, capitalism should be eradicated because Protestants championed it, what of the printing press?

 *Heiner:* "These people defend something they cannot even define."

 *Romer:* This is a rather odd statement from a fellow who wrote, "Distributism. It's a bad name..." If distributists can't come up with a satisfactory name for their own system, why should their complaints be heeded when the people they criticize are, according to the badly-named distributists, imprecise?

 For the record, I've provided a definition of capitalism in a previous debate on this forum; in spite of this, the distributist I was dealing with at the time replied that mine was not a definition he was willing to accept. Such was his prerogative, but at least the charge that I had never provided a definition for capitalism could no longer be laid at my feet.

 Incidentally, as distributists have authored an idiosyncratic definition of capitalism, it strains the bounds of credulity for them to protest that the defenders of capitalism don't have a valid definition when it disagrees with theirs. Belloc, at least, did not insist on his personal definition: he said only it was the one he happened to prefer, but allowed that a reasonable case could be made for other ones. My experience has been that today's distributists won't even suffer me this much latitude: unless I accept their definition (which, I've pointed out, isn't a definition but a critique), my mind has not been sufficiently Catholicized (which, I've pointed out, is intellectually abusive).

*Heiner:* "These blind defenders of capitalism are almost always Americanists."
 
 *Romer:* Examples? None. Another sweeping *ad hominem* condemnation.

 Americanism, for the record, is a condemned heresy. Distributists, in my experience, allow an American to declare his love of country only as a platitude, never with conviction. An American who violates this code is often labeled an "Americanist" by distributists.

 To say, "America is the greatest country ever" is arguably Americanist. To say (as I have on many occasions), "America is the greatest country ever -- and if you don't feel the same way about your country, why not?" is thoroughly Catholic. The idea to utter such a statement, incidentally, is one I got from reading Chesterton.

TO BE CONTINUED

[HailGilbert]

MR. ROMER'S REPLY CONTINUED

*Heiner:* "voting Republican will stop abortion, won't it?"
 
 *Romer:* *Non sequitur*: making a valid point regarding an unrelated topic does not mean the original point is any better supported. The person who argues this way counts on his audience not being able to keep up with the rapid change of topics. This tactic is one way to get someone to surrender his judgment to the author's implied wisdom when the reader in fact just can't follow all the shifts in the argument.

*Heiner:* "What is distributism? Living of 'your own' whenever possible, avoiding debt at all costs, and living within your means."
 
 *Romer:* The only debt I have is a house note, one that I make good progress on paying down. I own my car, a gas-efficient Honda Civic (which, I'm told, is also a popular car among SSPX priests). I have no revolving debt from credit cards because, though I use them, I pay them off every month. I support my church through my prayers, by in actions, and with my finances. Because of the job I have I am able to travel to visit family and friends, and to make pilgrimages (1-2 a year on average) and retreats (1 every 1-2 years on average). And, as the essay below observes, I'm not a distributist. Neither, as it turns out, am I an unqaulified supporter of the current economic system -- a point I've written a fair amount about previously.

*Heiner:* "private little reports that no one reads anyways..."

*Romer:* I know of one private little report that plenty of people have read, and are continuing to read.

 Four years ago I wrote a private report for my pastor about how men of bad character and dubious politics were using distributism to insert themselves into SSPX chapels. My goal at the time was to seek guidance from my spiritual director, who, I reasoned, would have the experience and wisdom to know if I was seeing more than was really there, or if I'd come across a real problem.

 To my surprise my pastor sent the report to his superior, who directed that it be passed along to the District Superior, who invited one of the Society bishops to help conduct an inquiry into the matter.

 I was both publicly confronted and privately maligned because of my little report. One person named in it also spread the lie that I had never discussed my concerns with him (in fact we had exchanges both on and off this discussion list).

 After this the report went to the Superior General; the S.G., in turn, said he was aware of this "problem" (His Excellency's word), and that it would be dealt with. H.E. also sent me his blessing.

 One of the villains I wrote about in my report was told by his traditional priest (who had been a source for my report) to stop coming to his chapel.

 To this day I still get emails and phone calls from people who only just came across the report, thanking me for writing it, and confirming from their own experience the matters I described.

 Clearly, my private little report is not one that no one reads: it is still being read and referenced by the opponents and victims of con-men and bullies who want to abuse the writings of men like Belloc and Chesterton to normalize a very distorted and non-Catholic view of the world by capitalizing on the frustration and grief that traditional Catholics feel during the current crisis. These charlatans stir up feelings of resentment while promising utopian ideals that they say will, one day in the future (the details are always hard to come across), solve their problems.

 If you're an honest distributist then I say bully for you: live by your creed, and have a good go at it.

 If you're a revolutionary who wants to replace the current world order through political soldiery, then expect to find me and my friends opposing you. Some of those friends, incidentally, are distributists.

 And if you're an honest distributist, then distance yourself from the men who will use you like pawns and lie to you when it suits them if it means that will help them get closer to their goals. They do not care about you; they care about acquiring and wielding the instruments of power. Do not be fooled.

 My tuppence worth.

 Sean

And thus ends his response.

Here is the link to the post:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/distributism/message/4729

I hope Mr. Heiner will rebut Mr. Romer's response as quickly as possible.

"Con men and bullies", Mr. Romer? Really? On the contrary, sir.

Comments, please and thank you.
         

[dedalus28]

Hail Gilbert

This response was in response to a question Mr. Romer posed to me directly.  It turned out to be a semi-apologia.  Hope it helps.

 Sean
 
 Do you simply want a list of names? Are they now or have they ever
 been a member of the capitalist party?
 
 I read your critique of my review. I don't think it's credible to
 believe I just made up things. I'm reacting to numerous emails (from
 both sides) that I've received regarding both Fr. Smith's interview
 and distributism in general.
 
 If I say I've observed these tendencies, you can count on my articles
 (secret or otherwise) to never blithely "out" people (priests and
 otherwise) as Americanists that I've run into. I don't believe in
 detraction.
 
 So unfortunately, I have no specific examples to give you. Or rather,
 I wish to give you no specific examples. I don't wish to decry people
 in public who may have never wanted their private comments to be
 subject to public scrutiny.
 
 As far as what I've read for capitalism, they are in the citations for
 my 16 page paper college paper on Capitalism (of which less than 1/2
 of a page is about distributism, as I had barely heard about it then).
 But I'll provide them here as well:
 
 Rogge, Benjamin A. Can Capitalism Survive? Indianapolis: Liberty Fund,
 1979.
 
 Hoff, Trygve J. B. Economic Calculation in the Socialist Society
 Liberty Fund
 
 Schumpeter, Joseph A. Capitalism, Socialism, and Democracy. New York:
 Harper and Row, 1962.
 
 Smith, Adam. The Wealth of Nations. New York: Modern Library, 1937.
 
 In addition to these works I've read various articles and essays from
 the Austrian school. Kudos to the people who have read distributist
 work and remain convinced of capitalism as the better system. May I
 just say they are not the norm? Just as painting all distributists as
 crazies is not a fair assessment of the "norm"?
 
 Just like pidgeonholing all "distributists as losers" isn't going to
 win any arguments either. Don't know who came up with that choice
 academic point, but it couldn't have resonated too well with you, who
 self-claim distributist friends.
 
 While I'm responding to you here, I might as well address a couple of
 the other numerous things that have come up this week in this thread.
 
As to whether I need to take a composition class.
 
 I have a large body of work, both on and off the web, so if I got a
 little emotional in an article because of a continuing avalanche of
 attacking hateful personal email (which I do not publish) I apologize.
 I do not pretend to be dispassionate about this topic. Sometimes
 emotion can override clear, incisive prose (which I am wont to write).
 My thought is, if the shoe fits, then wear it, and if it doesn't
 apply to you, then why take offense? "Ad hominem" attacks apply when
 I'm talking about a specific person, not about attitudes that I've
 personally encountered that I encapsulate in generalities.
 
 As to whether this will be a continuing embarrassment to my body of work.
 
 Like most things I write, it can't really be read in isolation. I
 have a cohesive group of things that I speak about on my website so
 sometimes it's hard to read a post in isolation from that.
 
As for why I didn't post this in the Roman Catholic group.
 
 I know the hostility to these ideas here, and I decided to respect
 that. We don't have to agree on everything. What I don't understand
 is that some people need to insist to me (and I have the emails to
 prove it) that it's stupid for me to have a home in the country.
 Whatever happened to tolerance? These people missed the lines in the
 Fr. Smith interview where he discussed the NECESSITY of the city life
 with the country life. The CATHOLIC city and the CATHOLIC
 countryside. We need both. I'm dealing with those who consider the
 country irrelevant.
 
As to "essential" versus "impractical fantasy"
 
 This was simply an intellectually dishonest dichotomy that neither Fr.
 Smith or I proposed. He said it is essential in the same way that the
 sacraments are essential, but that not everyone could receive them.
 All 7 sacraments are necessary, but women can't receive all 7, and
 only eastern rite priests could conceivably receive all 7. By setting
 up this false dichotomy, of course Fr. Smith would be painted as a
 "crazy." Unfortunately, it just ain't so. Thank goodness the text is
 out there to the Remnant readers and my internet readers.
 
 Just the other day someone wrote me from Nebraska to tell me he'd love
 to talk to me about landscaping my property properly and talking about
 crops and trees that I could grow. He's driving down from there in a
 few weeks. Thankfully not all email is venemous.
 
 I talked to a family member (yes, family disagrees with me - register
 shocked face here) who said that my analogy to homeeschooling with
 distributism was weak, at best. Let me restate it here.
 
 There are capitalists who spend all their time defaming what they
 think distributism is. If it's so bad, then let those people
 (distributists) self destruct. Then you can smugly laugh at them, or
 offer a helping Christian hand.
 
 There are families who prefer to homeschool instead of sending their
 children to Catholic parochial schools. If it's so bad, then their
 kids will turn out rotten.
 
 Let be. If people are attending the Traditional Mass the vivifying
 fountains of grace can help enlighten, but simple intolerance will
 never win souls or change minds.
 
 If people can homeschool, why can't they be distributists? I'm
 couching it as a "choice" analogy for Catholic families.
 
 Stephen Heiner is an outspoken distributist.
 
 Well, as someone who has never claimed this in any single public
 writing, I take it as a compliment that my overall attitude is one
 that seeks to hold property and live by my means.
 
 If you look at my body of work, I'm primarily concerned with the
 Restoration of Christian Culture. Certain times I have covered news
 events, like when I broke the Bishop Fellay Watkins conference in
 February, the Tissier de Mallerais interview in April, and covered
 Ordinations (for the first time ever) in virtual real time, posting
 Bishop Fellay's sermon for worldwide distribution nearly an hour after
 Mass was over, as well as my recent coverage of the Battleship North
 Carolina Mass as well as Mass at St. Thomas Pro-Cathedral.
 
 In these events, my integrity, ability to compose English sentences,
 and desire to be a faithful Catholic are not impugned. But when I
 talk about distributism (an issue which composes less than 5% of my
 online and print-published writings) - then I'm an idiot. I'll let
 people who can read my work decide that for themselves.
 
 Well Sean, there's a rather lengthy reply, no? I'll leave it for now.
 
 As for me and my house, I left the 6 figure income in California to
 move to Kansas and be closer to a full liturgical life in St. Marys.
 I put my money (or left it) where my mouth is. While I can't at the
 moment build my house and live on the land, because my tutoring
 business is necessarily city-based (which Fr. Smith pointed out is a
 NECESSARY part of human existence), I hope to in a couple years, given
 plans hold, which one recent emailer told me is a sure way to make God
 laugh (tell Him your plans).
 
 I have no litany of "accomplishments" that I care to list off, other
 than I encourage people to live around other Catholics, and that's
 best exemplified in my Catholicizing your life series on my website.
 The entire series is based off the the idea of planting your life
 (city or country) near a priory for access to sacraments. I did that
 series back in March, as part of my "embarrassing" body of work.
 
 That's my entire starting point. The Mass and sacraments. If people
 can still call me a naturalist, I would ask them to please give me
 their definition.
 
 In Christ Jesus the Lord
 
 Stephen L.M. Heiner
 TrueRestoration.com
 uncommon Catholic sense for the common Catholic life