Sustaining
the Sacramental Commons[1]
The term “common” is used to identify
that which applies equally to all – in general; of all; from all; by all; to
all. Things owned “in common” are owned equally
by all, and the term “commons” refers to the things owned or shared equally by
all. Thus, when we do something for the
“common good,” we do it for the good of all.
A society is something more than a collection of
independent individuals. Societies are
made up of people with shared interests and shared values – of people who have
something “in common.” A society is a
whole – something more than the sum of its parts. The nature of the relationships among people
within a society is as important as the nature of its individual members – and, relationships exist not within but among
people. A root cause of most of the
ecological and social problems confronting humanity today is an inability to
maintain strong positive relationships.
A sustainable society must be
ecologically sound, economically viable, and socially responsible. Lacking any one of these three aspects, a
society quite simply cannot be sustained over time. Ecological sustainability depends upon our
willingness and ability to maintain the integrity of natural ecosystems. The health and regenerative capacity of
natural ecosystems might be referred to as the “commons good[3]”
– the good of the natural commons upon which all of life on earth ultimately
depends. The sustainability of life on
earth is still as dependent upon the health of land as when humans were all
hunters and gathers.
Social sustainability depends on our
willingness and ability to maintain the integrity of human society. Maintaining the health and regenerative
capacity of families, communities, and societies in general may be referred to
as pursuit of the “common good” – the good of all people for all times. The health and regenerative capacity of
future generations will depend in no small part on the cultural values passed
down from generation to generation.
Economic sustainability depends upon our
willingness and ability to maintain personal integrity in our pursuit of
individual self-interest. A healthy,
regenerative economy ultimately depends upon a healthy, regenerative natural
ecosystem and a healthy, regenerative society.
A sustainable economy must accommodate the production of “common goods”
– goods and services to which all, including those of future generations, have
an equal right – as well as private goods for those willing and able to
pay. An economy that encourages and
rewards the extraction and exploitation of the natural and human resources upon
which its productivity ultimately depends, quite simply, is not sustainable.
Government is the primary organizational
structure through which people protect the good of the commons, produce common
goods, and pursue their common good.
Other types of organizations – nonprofit, voluntary, philanthropic,
charity, civic, and religious – also play important roles in promoting socially
responsibility. However, governments
have both the means and the authority to function on behalf of the people who
form them, as a whole rather than as individuals.
Obviously, Americans do
not share a consensus concerning the legitimate role and scope of their
government. Most relationships involved in
living and working together are interpersonal in nature – something to be
worked out among people, one-on-one.
Beyond purely personal relationships, all sorts of civic and religious
organizations provide us with opportunities to work together on matters of
community and local interest. For many
relationships, however – particularly at city, state, and national levels of
society – we must learn to work together through government. Admittedly, a government is capable only of
reflecting the social and moral principles of those governed, but government is
nonetheless a necessary means of taking collective actions for the common good.
“The government that governs least
governs best.” This has been a commonly
held view in the
Earlier
versions of the Declaration had included the phrase “life, liberty, and
possession of private property.”
However, the Founding Fathers apparently concluded, quite wisely, the
opportunity to possess private property was not equivalent to the pursuit of
happiness. The United States Constitution spells out the
fundamental purposes of government: “to establish
justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote
the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our
posterity.” Clearly, this was not a government designed to govern
least, but instead, to govern best. And,
the framers of the Constitution were clearly concerned with the well-being of
those of all generations, not just their own.
People who believe there is no legitimate role for government other than
to protect and promote private well-being are pursuing a philosophy of government
fundamentally different from that envisioned by the Founding Fathers of the
American Democracy.
The fundamental purpose of
government is to ensure social equity and moral justice for all – to promote
the “common good.” All of the necessary
functions of government spelled out in the Constitution stem from this basic
purpose – including national defense, law enforcement, general welfare, and
civil liberties. Assurance of equity and
justice for all is the best means of ensuring the ability of all to acquire and
secure private property and to benefit economically, as well as socially and
spiritually.
Thus, government is a legitimate
and necessary means of pursuing and protecting the “common good.” This does not imply government ownership of
all property or even a significant amount of property. “Common good” does not imply Communism, for
indeed, we have important individual or private needs, as well as common needs,
in pursuing a desirable quality of life.
Private property rights are both necessary and appropriate in those many
cases where our interests are clearly individual or private in nature. But, pursuit of the common good requires
recognition that many societal, ethical, and moral values accrue to the people
in common, and not to just individuals.
Thus, we must pursue the “common good” together.
Our pursuit of the common good must
be rooted in the realization that value arises from our human relationships and
our ethical and moral sense of purpose, as well as our individual
self-interests. The quality of our lives
is affected by the way we treat other people, and the way we feel about
ourselves – not just by the amount of personal property we can acquire and
accumulate. Certainly, the government
must protect private property rights; but it also has equally important roles
in protecting the values that arise from human relationships and from our
common virtue – from our being part of an equitable and just society.
The U.S. Constitution,
by design, allows the
If two people go into a
Wal Mart store, one person with a hundred dollars and
another with only ten, the person with a hundred dollars has the right to buy
ten times as much as the person with ten dollars. Wal Mart is a
legitimate private business where people pursue their individual
interests. However, if the same two
people go into a voting booth, one with a hundred dollars, and the other with
only ten, each person has only one vote.
The voting booth is the place where people make public decisions for the
common good, where all people have equal rights. In a democracy, people vote on matters
affecting the “common good,” and thus, each person has one vote – regardless of
how rich or poor they may be. Each
person has an equal voice in making public decisions because each person has an
equal right to benefit from “common goods” and services.
The commonly held ethical
and moral values of a nation are determined neither by economic power in the
marketplace nor by political power in the voting both. A nation’s ethical and moral values are
written into its constitution. If a
constitution is to be effective in providing the ethical foundation for a
nation, it must reflect a national consensus of the people of the nation. A consensus doesn’t require unanimous
approval, but consensus does reflect something far more than simple majority
rule. A consensus means that a dominant
proportion of the people agrees with a proposition, and equally important, that
those who don’t agree with the proposition do agree to abide by the dominant
viewpoint, regardless of their personal position.
On matters of personal
ethics and morality, people of integrity do not buy and sell their opinions and
do not vote or accept anyone else’s opinion concerning what is fundamentally
right and wrong. Still, on matters of
ethics and morality, we must be willing to work toward a national
consensus. We must be willing to continue
to search for ways to carry out the day-to-day private functions of the economy
and public functions of government by means that don’t conflict with our
individual ethical and moral values. We
must agree to participate in an ongoing process of reaching and maintaining a
national consensus – not in the marketplace, nor in the voting booth, but in
the hearts and minds of the people.
The “tragedy of the
commons” is a story told by skeptics of government about people in a mythical
village who owned cattle individually, but shared common grazing lands in the
surrounding countryside. Since the
village had access to a limited amount of common land, only a limited number of
cattle could be supported by the land.
However, each person had an incentive to graze as many cattle as they
could afford to own, because the land was held in common. It was “government land,” so to speak. As might have been expected, the number of
cattle in the village grew larger and larger over time, and eventually, the
land held in common was overgrazed and the villagers were forced to sell all of
their cattle. As each individual pursued
their self-interest in using property held in common, government property, they
collectively destroyed its ability to serve the interests of anyone.
Obviously, if each
person in the village had been allowed to buy a parcel of the common property,
they would have had an incentive to take care of their property, and might have
been able to sustain their cattle operation.
Each landowner would have had an incentive to maintain the productivity
of their land, so their cattle would continue to have good grazing, and the
land would have maintained its value.
However, the moral of
the “tragedy of the commons” depends on a critical, but unstated, assumption
that people realize benefits only as individuals, not in common with others as
members of communities, nor in any sense other than their material
well-being. In the story, there is no
recognition of rational incentives for people to act for the “common
good.” Each person attempts to maximize
their short run individual self-interests while ignoring the obvious longer run
implications for the well-being of the community as a whole, of which he or she
is a part. Neither is there any recognition
of any ethical or moral responsibility to protect the “good of the commons,”
for the benefit of those of future generations.
Pursuit of the “common
good” ultimately is rooted in a belief that the natural resources of the earth
and the people of the earth are sacred – they are endowed by their Creator with
certain inherent characteristics, which cannot be altered or denied. We must act for the “common good” in the
pursuit of our own individual good because we were created as social beings. We need positive relationships with other people,
and thus, must treat others with equity and justice. We must protect the natural ecosystem because
we have a God-given responsibility to be stewards of the earth. Individually and collectively, we humans have
unique places within a higher order of things, which gives purpose, meaning,
and thus, quality to our lives.
Our relationships with
each other and with the earth are sacramental in nature – they are physical and
social means by which we express our relationships with the sacred. The long run sustainability of human life on
earth depends on our understanding and acceptance of the higher order to which
these relationships must conform – our understanding and acceptance of our
relationship to the sacramental commons.
[1] Presented at Rural Life Day 2003, Farming in the Sacramental Commons, sponsored by Social Concerns Office, Diocese of Jefferson City and MSR Center for Rural Ministry, Jefferson City, MO. December 6, 2003.
[2]
[3] John Hart, “Water:
A Sacramental Commons," workshop sponsored by NCRLC in