I remember about a year ago this time I was driving home from western PA for work. I was somewhere between Pittsburgh and State College when I tuned into the radio and heard an interview with Senator Bernie Sanders. I distinctly remember it because I was surprised by how viscerally I reacted to his idea of "democratic socialism" and this Senator's unabashed embrace of the term. I don't know where it came from, since I'm actually kind of sympathetic to the ideals of distributism and am not a hard-core unfettered free-market capitalist apologist. It just seemed...wrong.
That being said, political theory and economics are somewhat shaky ground for me, and I'm probably on par with your average Joe when it comes to the subject. My reaction was similar, I think, to that of many Americans when Sanders made his way onto the scene leading up to the election--something akin to revulsion, and a vague feeling that something about this is not right and contrary to the entrepreneurial spirit inherent in our identity as Americans. Sander's call for a "political revolution" was unsettling, and the socialism (democratic or otherwise) he called for was deeply unsettling to me that day in the car.
But Sanders' political ideology goes deeper than just a well-intentioned desire to make our country "more equitable" via redistribution of wealth. I couldn't put my finger on it until I started looking into the role of private property as it relates to the Church and the inalienable natural rights of man.
I had a conversation with a friend recently who asked my views on being both a Christian and a Buddhist. Ten years ago I might have responded with some theological acrobats about shared commonalities and spiritual reconciliation or complementarity. But when I responded to him last week I said simply; They are incompatible. You simply cannot be both a Christian and a Buddhist. You cannot follow two masters. I stand by that.
Likewise, when it comes to conflating Christianity and Socialism, Pope Pius XI wrote in no uncertain terms:
“Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true Socialist.” (Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, May 15, 1931. n. 120)
Natural Law has fallen out of favor in the era of post-modernity, but to ignore it is to attempt to undermine everything about what it means to be human. It can be intimidating to explain or extrapolate on in Thomistic terms, but my friend Leila Miller has a simple and easy to understand article on Natural Law at Catholic Answers. Here's an excerpt:
"Natural law (not to be confused with the laws of nature) is simply another term for the universal moral law, which is inscribed on the heart of every human. Natural law applies to all people and in all eras without exception. In other words, the natural law is not merely “morality for Catholics” or a “religious thing”—it is universal. The Catechism puts it like this: “The natural law expresses the original moral sense which enables man to discern by reason the good and the evil, the truth and the lie” (1954).
Unlike truths we know through divine revelation (such as the nature of the Trinity or the sacraments), natural law can be accessed by the light of human reason alone. That is why atheists and believers alike can understand that things like murder, rape, stealing, lying, disrespecting one’s parents, and even cutting someone in line are unjust or immoral acts.
Now, that doesn’t ensure that individual humans will actually obey the moral law, nor that sin or bad formation will not obscure it, but natural law is knowable nonetheless. Pope Leo XIII describes the natural law:
"The natural law is written and engraved in the soul of each and every man, because it is human reason ordaining him to do good and forbidding him to sin. . . . But this command of human reason would not have the force of law if it were not the voice and interpreter of a higher reason to which our spirit and our freedom must be submitted" (Libertas Praestantissimum).
St. Paul makes reference to this universal moral law in his letter to the Romans:
"For when the Gentiles who do not have the law by nature observe the prescriptions of the law, they are a law for themselves even though they do not have the law. They show that the demands of the law are written in their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even defend them on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge people's hidden works through Christ Jesus." (Rom 2:14-16)
With regards to private property, the teaching of the Church is that:
"The appropriation of property is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge. It should allow for a natural solidarity to develop between men. The right to private property, acquired or received in a just way, does not do away with the original gift of the earth to the whole of mankind. The universal destination of goods remains primordial, even if the promotion of the common good requires respect for the right to private property and its exercise." (CCC 2402, 2403)
That is why theft (the 7th Commandment) is a matter of justice, while balancing with the reality that all things ultimately belong to God, that we are merely stewards of what is given to us:
"In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also, in the sense that they can benefit others as well as himself." The ownership of any property makes its holder a steward of Providence, with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others, first of all his family." (CCC 2404)
My dad used to say, "too much of anything is no good." While private ownership of material goods is in line with the law of Christ, with regards to money and private property, knowing my own weakness and sinfulness, I like to keep in mind the wise words of King Solomon:
"Put falsehood and lying far from me,
give me neither poverty nor riches;
provide me only with the food I need;
Lest, being full, I deny you, saying "Who is the LORD?"
Or, being in want, I steal,
and profane the name of my God."
(Prov 30:9)
I think like support for gay marriage, there is a feel-good but misguided sympathy that goes with the idea of supporting a more extreme systematic government-led redistribution of wealth as Senator Sanders envisions, especially among the young. It is no accident that the Senator targeted his message to Millennials, since he would need the help of the people with the "political revolution."
I get it, but I think there is more at stake than just dollars and cents, or "love is love", since such things undermine the Natural Law and erode liberty as it is understood with respect to the common good of man. We were endowed with the Natural Law for a reason; you cannot work against it and expect human beings to flourish any more than one could expect to travel fifty miles filling the car's gas tank with apple juice.