When 'sharing' isn't sharing

May 16, 2022. My reflection from late last year, worth re-visiting. A key excerpt:

Sharing has two distinct meanings. Today, in the ‘sharing’ economy, the media uses the word to describe people sharing their homes or their cars, with terms like ‘ride sharing.’ Contrast that with the more traditional use of the word to connote a form of charity, where the ‘sharer’ gives a portion of his or her own resources to another. When you ‘share’ your sandwich with another person, you are giving up a portion of your ‘wealth,’ usually at no cost to the person receiving the benefit. This is the basic concept of charity.

At Mass Sunday, one of the prayers of the faithful was for a "more equal sharing of the world's wealth," the layperson's concept of the Catholic notion of "universal destination." Here is one rather thoughtful summary of the "universal destination of goods."

The Universal Destination of Goods

One of the critical principles of the common good derives directly from the fact that all persons, not just a few, are intended to participate in man’s dominion over nature. This principle is called “the universal destination of goods”. All of creation is given not just to man, but to all men, so that each might exercise a creative and conserving dominion, completing and perfecting creation for God’s glory. This universal destination of goods implies a universal right to use the goods of the earth, a right of which no person may be completely or even largely deprived without grave injustice (except as necessary to prevent attacks on the common good itself).

Note that the universal destination of goods does not militate against personal ownership or private property. To the contrary, ownership is essential to free and full participation in the universal destination of goods. It is the ordinary means by which we exercise dominion, provide for ourselves and others, act as good stewards, creatively develop resources, and so participate more effectively in God’s plan. But at the same time, we can see that because the destination of goods is universal, ownership and private property are not absolute values in themselves. They have a larger social function, and the proper exercise of that larger function is essential to the common good.

In this way, the universal destination of goods speaks to the matter at hand on two levels. First, at the private level, we are called to exercise our own personal dominion over creation in such a way that provides for our own needs and benefits others. To do this we must recognize that the benefits of work are not ordered to private gain but to the good of all concerned: the customer, the worker, his employees and dependents, and the good of society as a whole. Second, at the public level, the universal destination of goods reminds us to promote political or governmental policies which attempt to secure the right and ability of all persons to similarly participate in the dominion over created things that God has entrusted not to a few, but to all.

It should be immediately obvious how Catholicism “transcends the dialectic” of left and right in these matters, as in so many others. For the theory of capitalism makes a god of ownership by holding that the purpose of business (or economic activity) is to make a profit, when in fact the purpose of all work is service. To put it more fully, work receives its special dignity because it is an imitation of and cooperation with the Creator, an exercise of dominion ordered to a service of love. Hence work must always proceed with a full appreciation of the common good, including the universal destination of goods. Unfortunately, we find no relief from error on the other side of the “dialectic”. The theory of socialism makes a god of state manipulation by holding that the common good depends on the absence of ownership. To the contrary, however, it is precisely through ownership that people can most fully participate in the universal destination of goods, cooperating with God by exercising their dominion for the good of all. Catholics who reflexively fall into the economic battles of conservative versus liberal need to school themselves in the Church’s social teachings. Too often we fail to realize how different we are, how wise are our theories, how high is our calling.

Thoughtful as this Princeton Ph.D in intellectual history can be, he can not come to a simple reconciliation of critical terms in this concept, especially "sharing," "wealth," "goods," and "charity."

• Is sharing "charity"?

• Are "wealth" and "goods" comparable or even synonymous terms? [Clearly, they are not!]

• Is taxation for wealth transfers, income subsidies and positive rights "sharing" or is it "theft"?

• Can the equilibrium condition of "universal destination" ever truly be reached and, if it were, how long could it stand?

• How unequal can the distribution be and have it still satisfy claims for "universal destination"?

Just don't get me started on reparations....you either have to be very rich or willing to demand others to pay them.