I agree that the two are not synonymous. Yet they are often treated as being synonymous by many people. A good working definition of society versus State is contained in JPII’s encyclical Centesimus Annus:** Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal mass, as unfortunately often happens today.
It is in interrelationships on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more “personalized”. The individual today is often suffocated between two poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose, since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market must serve. Man remains above all a being who seeks the truth and strives to live in that truth, deepening his understanding of it through a dialogue which involves past and future generations
Centesimus Annus 49,3.
People need to stress the emphasis on the dignity of the human person. The principle of the common good is cited when State-based solutions to economic inequality (e.g., poverty) is discussed, but that doesn’t do good for either those who have much or those who have little. Please note the following:
The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one another as persons. Those who are more influential, because they have a greater share of goods and common services, should feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the same spirit of solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is destructive of the social fabric, but, while claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the good of all. The intermediate groups, in their turn, should not selfishly insist on their particular interests, but respect the interests of others.
* Solicitudo rei Socialis 39,1.*
The above quote illustrates the crux of the problem. Do people really
care about the dignity of the human person or about promoting the common good? We talk about imposing redistribution of wealth by the point of the gun. Many regard the wealthy as objects; they are constantly critical of the other’s success and believe that it was gained through some sort of cheating or inequity in society. They seek to use the power of the State to steal from them in order to give to the poor. Does that promote justice? Does that provide a blessing to those whose wealth is taken from them involuntarily? Or does that create resentment and promote an environment where the wealthy seek to cheat the system…
Don’t take this as a defense of the wealthy, though. The wealthy very often consider those less endowed as being mere objects without respect for their dignity. Many (not all) who employ others treat their workers as objects, only providing for their employees to the basest degree required by law, rather than doing so out of a voluntary desire to care for people under their charge. Many who are investors, providing the capital to fuel industry, look solely for profit, not considering the impact of their decisions on the management and labor that comprise the enterprises they finance.
Likewise, many (not all) who make up the labor force all too often don’t *do everything in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God the Father through him *(Col 3:17) Rather, they do the bare minimum necessary to collect their paychecks and go home. Those who are in service industries don’t see service to their fellow man as a holy vocation; rather they are there to do what they must to draw the paycheck. Those who are the trades do the minimum to meet their employer’s standards, rather than applying their best skills in producing the best product possible. They do not see the dignity of the human person; they do not see that they have a role toward the common good. Thus, they do not gain the trust of their management or their customers.
Many (again, not all) who are beneficiaries of the State’s largesse believe themselves to be entitled to receive that largesse, rather than seeing the gifts given them as that…charitable gifts (in fact, in the language of our government, they are called “entitlements”). Since they are entitled to this from the State (rather than being the recipients of charity from society), they feel that they are
owed this.
Before the reader flames me, please recognize that the above paragraphs should not be taken as a condemnation of all members of the above groups. I full well realize that there are wonderful folks in all segments of our society.
So what’s the solution? There
won’t be one in total. There never has been one in history. However, if we recognize the differences in the roles of the State and the roles of Society and understand the Church’s doctrine in that light, then, perhaps small changes can be made. If we promote laws in the country that encourage behavior by individual members of society that promote the dignity of the human person, promote a true respect
by all of the common good, promote *genuine *solidarity among peoples, with full respect to subsidiarity, we might be able to see some good in small ways. It’ll never be perfect, but it might be able to improve.
)