In some commentary from the Acton Institute, of which I highly recommend, is this article on Catholic schools and the instruction on the Church’s social teaching.
…The principle of subsidiarity, which teaches that a community of a higher order should not interfere in the activities of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, is a first principle in genuine Catholic social teaching. It requires each of us to be responsible for those who are suffering in our midst. Families, friends, associates, churches, local charitable organizations—these should be the first to respond to the needs of their brothers and sisters. Government should only be directly involved as the organization of last resort and should implement policies designed to support rather than replace intermediary groups. In this way, people are induced to serve one another, as Christ commanded.
While this sounds fine in theory, how does it play out in real life? Pope John Paul II presents an example in his 1991 encyclical Centesimus Annus. In discussing the social problem of unemployment, the Pope outlines the roles of the players in solving it. Government should be involved, he says, both directly and indirectly. Its direct activities include defending the weakest, limiting the autonomy granted to determine working conditions, and ensuring that a minimum of support exists for those who are unemployed. Indirectly, government should create an environment conducive to the free exercise of economic activity. Entrepreneurs then have the opportunity to create and operate businesses, leading to abundant employment and myriad sources of wealth. In this way, government and private actors both have their roles to play and neither seeks to do that which the other can do more effectively.
Subsidiarity respects the proper roles of all the players. It allows government to have a role, as the final source of assistance, and as implementer of policies encouraging to the practice of subsidiarity, while, at the same time, being respectful of human freedom. It allows businesses and entrepreneurs to use their unique talents and abilities to serve the common good by, among other goals, fulfilling the responsibility to make a profit justly. It takes into account the insights offered by economics, as well as Catholic theology, and it allows everyone to take the lead in caring for those in need, instead of simply allowing a government agency to do so.
It is not a case of selecting either the individual/community/state or the federal government, it is the proper ordering of these in relationship to those in need.
As students return to Catholic schools this month, it is important for those schools to teach them authentically. Students should not be taught that the aid of those in need depends upon government intervention, but rather, that it depends upon faith-filled individuals who take up Christ’s call to love one another, and who use their unique gifts and talents to serve their neighbors.
Update: Mark Shea also comments on this article:
Seems reasonable to me as long as calls for subsidiarity don’t become a mask on a commitment to individualism that trumps the good of the family and the common good. Libertarianism, like the GOP and Liberalism, can become the god that is idolatrously adored more than the God of Israel, who has dangerously socialistic things to say about the alien, the orphan and the widow. If the free market can do the best job of helping the family, then the free market is best. If some other system works better, or some modification of the present system, then that is best.
Why? Because all Catholic social teaching instantly (and only) makes sense if you put the good of the family first and everything else second and in the service of the family. Unfortunately, neither libertarian, GOP conservative nor liberal do this, so Catholic social teaching is always incomprehensible to them.
13 comments
Peace, Jeff.
It has yet to be shown that the Acton Institute presents Catholic social teaching authentically. A society that proclaims itself as Christian (or harbors such pretensions) must itself act upon Matthew 25 and Christ’s other admonitions for the poor. It is true that Western Social Welfare systems do not always exemplify the virtues of Christ or of their taxpaying supporters. However, I think conservatives have yet to make a strong case for their view in society or in the Church. Likely, we are talking of finding a middle way with innovations respectful of the human need for self-reliance. But when Republicans speak of going back on promises and commitments to veterans, I have a hard time thinking of their overall approach to the economics of poverty as being anything but selfish.
Selfish? How can taking care of the poor being ordered to each individual as selfish? When people stop giving to charity because the rich are paying higher taxes – that is selfish. There is no middle way. Christian charity starts with the person looking at you in the mirror it then goes on to your Church community, neighborhood, city, state, and as a final follow throught the state. The poor should be helped way before the federal government needs to step in.
If you say that the Acton Institue is not teaching authentically then where are your examples from the Cathechism or Church documents or is it just a smear.
Subsidiarity is taught and practiced by the Church.
Todd, who mentioned Republicans?
It sounds like you yourself concluded that this sounded suspiciously like conservative economic philosophy and immediately jumped on the defensive.
Could be perhaps that you have a guilt complex about voting for pro-abort politicians…and feel the need to find some sort of justification for this terrible sin against God?
Socialism is opposed to Christianity.
Okay, I promise to stop being obnoxious from now on.
For the first time ever, having read catholic blogs for several years, I agree with Todd. The Acton Institute has not yet proven that it presents Catholic Social Teaching authentically.
I say this even as I know personally and love dearly one of the priests on their board of advisors.
If we are to embrace the principle of subsidiary, we must then also ask how it applies to the ownership of the means of production.
What does the principle of subsidiary say about entire communities where people are employed by large corporations whose owners live in distant and elite communities? What does the principle of subsidiary say about closing down factories and moving operations overseas?
The principle of subsidiary, when applied to assistence for the poor would have to suppose that the wealth created in a community actually STAYS in that community. This is NOT the case if the means of production are owned by outside parties.
If you want to know why we need to look to a national answer for poverty, just look at the distribution of property in this country and the world. Until the Acton Institute says something about how the current system of capital in this country–which sanctions owners in small elite communities on Martha’s Vineyard, contolling the wage structure in small third world communities–violates the principle of subsidiary, I’ll agree with Todd on this one.
Peace, Jeff.
Let’s make some distinctions. First, saying that the Acton Institute has yet to demonstrate it presents Catholic social teaching authentically is not the same thing as saying it doesn’t or it hasn’t. It’s hard to believe their representation of Church teaching is perfect. I think they present interpretations which fall under the heading of prudential judgments. I read some of their materials about two, three years ago, and I found some of what I saw to be a stretch. It was opinion. Fairly well-argued and intellectual, but not without holes.
It’s no more of a smear than saying the BCL or the Catholic college or the curia have yet to show they present Catholic teaching accurately. We can hope, but hope is not faith.
And Billy, your comments are just left-field. I’m fairly familiar with Acton from their mailings and publications. I just disagree with them.
Socialism, like capitalism, is a human philosophy. If a particular presentation of human philosophy isn’t in contradiction with Church teaching, then it is morally neutral. There are sinful aspects of socialism and capitalism as they have been practiced over the years. But it is theoretically possible to infuse either system with Christian values and make it a just and workable system. Problem is, human sin enters in.
And Jeff’s quote: “When people stop giving to charity because the rich are paying higher taxes – that is selfish.”
This is irrelevant. Rich people should be tithing 10%. If they follow the example of the Bible (that of Tobit comes to mind: he paid three tithes) they should be paying more. Taxation is a morally acceptable way for a society to support its common projects for a common good. Progressive taxation in the US is ameliorated by tax loopholes to a degree. But I read my tax tables when I do my annual duty. It still behooves me to maximize my income: there are no 100% brackets, at least as far as I can see.
“There is no middle way.”
Of course there is, especially when we’re talking about substantial amounts of money.
Todd,
Let’s continue to make distinctions, shall we?
1. The Acton Institute is not a synonym of Republican. Republicans may introduce policy agreeable to the Acton perspective, they may not. But whether they do or do not has no bearing on the strengths or weaknesses of Acton Institute articles. Attempts to tie them together are clumsy and confuse theoretically pure policy alternative with real policy initiatives that must make their way through a thoroughly compromised political process.
2. “I think conservatives have yet to make a strong case for their view in society or in the Church.” Later, you comment that Acton material was “…fairly well-argued and intellectual, but not without holes.” What would satisfy your requirements for a strong conservative case at this point? Acton’s not the only player out there: could it be a question of expanding your reading lists?
Jeff:
1. That modern corporate ownership suffers under the crushing weight of sin is readily apparent. I doubt anyone, including the folks at Acton, will argue the point. But the question “What does the principle of subsidiary say about entire communities where people are employed by large corporations whose owners live in distant and elite communities?” is answered this way, I think: it would condemn it. Should this be addressed by an erudite body? Yes. Should this be addressed in regards to the question of subsidiarity? Probably. Should it be addressed in an article pertaining to the question of subsidiarity and state-sponsored initiatives? Probably not. Will this frustrate those who mistrust corporations while taking a benign view of the state (who must, not incidentally, coerce compliance)? Most definately.
2. If the principle – subsidiarity – is authentically Catholic, then the problem of oppressive corporate ownership is not resolved by “a national answer for poverty.” If anything, the correct response is a distinctively *local* answer for poverty. I’m not an apologist for Corporate America – one need only read, say, a Jack Welch biography to cure you of that. But no government will cure us of greed… and if they attempt to do so, I’d suggest the cure would be worse than the illness.
Rich people should be tithing (Catholic doctrine does not specify exactly 10 percent, but it shouldn’t just be out of their excess), but that has nothing to do with forced contributions to the government at the point of a gun. Rich people like all of us should be helping the poor out of the charity of our hearts. Not only is this good for the poor it is good for those who give.
And I find it funny for you to question the institute for the representation of the Catholic faith when advocacies can be found on your blog that are in direct contradictions to the Cathechism and the teachings of the Holy Father.
Just because corporation are owned by people other than the where they are at does not mean they do not generate wealth to the workers in those location. The Vatican is in another Country and yet local bishops have their own authority as do the priest and the layity. Corporations should also be accordance to this order.
I am no apologist for Corporations since the almightly dollar is too often their only goal and I wish that they were properly ordered to the individual.
Peace, Jeff.
“Rich people like all of us should be helping the poor out of the charity of our hearts. Not only is this good for the poor it is good for those who give.”
No argument here. But I don’t see how government participation discourages individual participation in charity. I would say that government is a better arena for the issues of justice, and individuals work better in the realm of charity. But I don’t see a segregation on this need be strict.
“And I find it funny for you to question the institute for the representation of the Catholic faith when advocacies can be found on your blog that are in direct contradictions to the Cathechism and the teachings of the Holy Father.”
A few things:
1. I said I haven’t seen the Acton Institute present social teaching authentically. That leaves the door open that they might, they might be right in part, or they might not be right at all. I’m not making a public statement on their particulars. If an Acton member wishes to present something on this thread to inform, I’d be happy to read it.
2. Which advocacies would you have in mind?
3. Thanks for reading my blog.
“Just because corporation are owned by people other than the where they are at does not mean they do not generate wealth to the workers in those location.”
True. But absentee ownership precludes their ability to participate in an appropriate subsidiarity. I think representative democracy provides an effective model for some aspects of corporate life.
Wooderson, you are right that Republicans and Actonites are not congruent. Must be the time of year for me to make such a connection.
Wooderson,
I assume your last comments were directed towards me. So I will answer. Indeed the Acton institute does speka of the principle of subsidiary as it relates to developing a humane economy. Interestingly, it seems to think that this Catholic principle applies chiefly to political power, not to economic power.
It is true that the Holy Father has suggested that the principle of subsidiary should be adhered to when addressing poverty:
Malfunctions and defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.( centisimun annus 48)
However, let us not forget that in THE VERY NEXT PARAGRAPH he says:
It can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully to its vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the State and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to promote not only family policies, but also those social policies which have the family as their principle object, policies which assist the family by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support, both for bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to strengthen relations between generations.
It could be that the family man needs to control his own means of production. It seems that the principle of subsidiary would suggest that just maybe familes, or at least groups of families who know each other as persons ought to control the means of production through wich their own labor produces wealth.
It seems that this just might be a vaild conclusion to draw from catholic social teaching, and one that the Acton Institute would be loath to concede as a possibility.
As to Jack Welch: Our Lord tells us that it is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter heaven. I will listen to the Poverello instead.
Ben (sorry for using the wrong name),
“It could be that the family man needs to control his own means of production. It seems that the principle of subsidiary would suggest that just maybe familes, or at least groups of families who know each other as persons ought to control the means of production through wich their own labor produces wealth.”
I’m still trying to sort out how a national poverty program addresses this without violating the first paragraph quoted from centisimun annus 48. One would either have to suggest that Catholic social teaching (and not just the Actonites) vis-a-vis subsidiarity has failed to address the nature of the modern economy and is in rather urgent need of updating – in effect saying that the *principle* of subsidiarity has been overtaken by events – or one would have to conclude that Catholic social teaching does not recognize the Social Assistance State as a reasonable alternative even to the alleged hegemony of corporate interests. Surely, the Actonites are closer to Catholic social teaching then not in this regard?
When you regard problems as systemic (“small elite communities on Martha’s Vineyard”) your response is to suggest an alternative system (“national answer for poverty”). That second paragraph might provide a counterweight to Acton, but it still doesn’t get you past the first paragraph…
I guess my call for a national answer for poverty stems from an internal pessimism that our current system of the unequal distribution of property is too intrenched, and that local efforts would be powerless against the wealthy living in other localities who control wealth from a distance without much regard for the families that depend on them for employment.
Your are right that I should have more faith. Perhaps pursuing an answer to poverty that rests on the principle of subsidiary will lead to more local control over the means of production by the families involved at the local level.
I will retract my call for a national answer to poverty, and instead call for the national authorites to allow localities to act with greater authority and on a scale not known in recent years to address problems of poverty where they exist.
Of course, this may mean a weakening of property rights in federal law (but is should mean a strengthening of those same rights at a local level).
You are correct, I ought not say nor imply that the principle of subsidary has been overtaken by events.
However, I do not see the Actonites supporting a repeal of the commerce clause, which seems (at least given supreme court jurisprudence) to be inherently at odds with subsidiary.
in da wind
The principle of subsi…
Comments are closed.