Is the principle of "subsidiarity" Catholic doctrine?

[HomeschoolDad]

You will often hear of the principle of “subsidiarity”, as elucidated in various papal teachings. In a nutshell, the principle of subsidiarity says that all social matters and affairs should be handled at the lowest possible level, for instance, “Washington shouldn’t fix potholes”.

Is this Catholic doctrine and are we obliged to accept it? People legitimately differ as to how social problems should be handled. For instance, some say that education should be handled at a local level, taking into account the needs and desires of the individual community. Others say there should be national standards that are the same for people everywhere, and that a central bureaucracy is needed to ensure compliance. And so on.

Any thoughts?

 

[christofirst]

Subsidiarity is indeed a doctrine of the Church, formulated by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, but it is balanced by the teaching of Solidarity, which can be understood as the pooling our resources for the common good, based on the responsibility that those who are blessed with more must share with those who have less, since the goods of creation are meant for all. As you say, this can and should be done on a personal, local, and regional level, but also on a national and even on an international level, depending on the situation. In his encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II links subsidiarity with solidarity as the two basic principles of Catholic social justice. I often see a tendency among Catholics to favor one over the other, depending on our personal inclination and politics, but preferably, I believe we should always try to balance one with the other.

 

[TheLittleLady]

Yes, subsidiarity is doctrine.

An excellent resource to study the Social Doctrines:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/p...peace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html

1. Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine and has been present since the first great social encyclical[395]. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, associations, local territorial realities; in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth[396]. This is the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”[397]. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity[398].

 

[Canvas]

Subsidiarity is indeed a doctrine of the Church, formulated by Pope Pius XI in his 1931 encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, but it is balanced by the teaching of Solidarity, which can be understood as the pooling our resources for the common good, based on the responsibility that those who are blessed with more must share with those who have less, since the goods of creation are meant for all. As you say, this can and should be done on a personal, local, and regional level, but also on a national and even on an international level, depending on the situation. In his encyclical Centesimus Annus, Pope John Paul II links subsidiarity with solidarity as the two basic principles of Catholic social justice. I often see a tendency among Catholics to favor one over the other, depending on our personal inclination and politics, but preferably, I believe we should always try to balance one with the other.

I was starting to type a post, but I really can’t top this. Excellent summation.

 

[Canvas]

Is this Catholic doctrine and are we obliged to accept it? People legitimately differ as to how social problems should be handled. For instance, some say that education should be handled at a local level, taking into account the needs and desires of the individual community. Others say there should be national standards that are the same for people everywhere, and that a central bureaucracy is needed to ensure compliance. And so on.

Any thoughts?

This is a political, not a moral judgment, and I don’t believe the Church has a defined stance on what level of government is best equipped to run certain programs. The individual Catholic will inform their conscience with the principals of solidarity and subsidiarity.

to quote Pope Benedict XVI:
The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa , since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need."

on Solidarity:

Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone, and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State. While in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the first place. What is needed, therefore, is a market that permits the free operation, in conditions of equal opportunity, of enterprises in pursuit of different institutional ends. Alongside profit-oriented private enterprise and the various types of public enterprise, there must be room for commercial entities based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends to take root and express themselves. It is from their reciprocal encounter in the marketplace that one may expect hybrid forms of commercial behaviour to emerge, and hence an attentiveness to ways of civilizing the economy. Charity in truth, in this case, requires that shape and structure be given to those types of economic initiative which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the exchange of equivalents, of profit as an end in itself.

On Subsidiarity:

Subsidiarity respects personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those plans.

from Library : Caritas in Veritate | Catholic Culture

 

[TheLittleLady]

The above linked “Compendium of the Social Doctrines of the Church” is a must read!

 

[Canvas]

Indeed it is. Sections V and VI deal with the two main topics here, but it is good to look at the document as a whole, because the concepts are best understood in the framework of the whole of the social teachings. The various compendiums that elaborate on the basic universal Catechism made since the 1990s are excellent and authoritative. The modern Catechism and it’s compendiums are really one of the crowning achievements of the Papacy of John Paul II.

 

[Theo520]

Any thoughts?

Yes, it is Catholic doctrine but the implementation is more complex than you’ve indicated.

Take education, the local entities are primarily responsible but that doesn’t exclude federal oversight. Subsidiarity just demands that the feds primarily work with and through local entities, not replace them. Local police, fire departments, and school systems are far more reactive to local needs than if they were managed by an outside entity.

 

[commenter]

Take education, the local entities are primarily responsible but that doesn’t exclude federal oversight.

The nose of the camel under the tent.

In every case I am aware of, federal “oversight” for the purpose of ensuring at least a minimum standard of “quality” has not raised quality, but facilitated an agenda.

 

[TheLittleLady]

The United States of America are not the United Catholic States of America. Secular governments are just that.

 

[commenter]

The United States of America are not the United Catholic States of America. Secular governments are just that.

The word “Secular” has taken on a new meaning, which the founders of the USA never intended. Their idea of the public school included prayer and Bible reading.

Secular once meant the economic, or Monday through Saturday, or Sunday through Friday sundown part of life that all persons shared. Even priests who were not in religious orders were called seculars, which did not mean non religious, let alone the anti Christian sense in which secular is used today.

Secularism today is a specific ideology, which dominates most media and education. It is not religiously neutral.

Secularists and atheists (not necessarily all the same group) could support subsidiarity. So could Protestants and Jews. Like the Natural Law it isn’t a Catholic specific thing. But perhaps Catholics will more and more be the bulk of those who support it

 

[Genesis315]

Subsidiarity is a matter of human nature which acknowledges man as both an individual and social creature, and the various communities he belongs to (from the family outward). Subsidiarity merely means we start from the smallest, closest units, and build outward to the larger. At what point it becomes better for a responsibility to be taken up by the larger community is going to vary by the facts and circumstances. Since none of us are omniscient, even if we embrace the same principles, people of good will are going to disagree on practical matters like this.

Politics, at its best, should be about the process of reaching the best conclusion and course of action in such cases.

 

[TheLittleLady]

which the founders of the USA never intended

The founding fathers very much intended a secular state. The majority were Deists. Throwing off the yoke of the religious government of England was very important.

Their idea of the public school included prayer and Bible reading.

Interesting, then, that these things were left out of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc.

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Any thoughts?

Very true. Try to imagine, for instance, if the federal government were responsible for all police departments in the United States (“The United States Police Force”), and there were no local police forces. You could have police stations managed, and even staffed, in part or entirely, by outsiders who have no connection to the area being policed. That wouldn’t be good.

 

[commenter]

Subsidiarity is sometimes associated with conservativism, but not necessarily so. One example was turning the Canal over to Panama. In the 1970s, Reagan opposed it. WF Buckley surprisingly supported it.

Later President Bush (considered mildly conservative) triggered the modern push for federal standards in education.

 

[Theo520]

The nose of the camel under the tent.

In every case I am aware of, federal “oversight” for the purpose of ensuring at least a minimum standard of “quality” has not raised quality, but facilitated an agenda.

And that is why it should be pushed to local control wherever possible, which is practicing subsidiarity. I assume most of the trouble follows accepting federal $.

 

[Theo520]

Subsidiarity is sometimes associated with conservativism, but not necessarily so. One example was turning the Canal over to Panama. In the 1970s, Reagan opposed it. WF Buckley surprisingly supported it.

Later President Bush (considered mildly conservative) triggered the modern push for federal standards in education.

I don’t find the canal to be an insightful example. It’s a piece of international trade infrastructure that the US built. I don’t see it as related to subsidiarity that we continued to manage the infrastructure. How much we delved into manipulating their local politics though does relate to subsidiarity.

On the whole, the US has comparatively shunned colonial control of territories we obtained after conflict.

 

[RCIAGraduate]

Doesn’t subsidiarity also warrant/call for assistance for higher authorities if lower entities need help?

 

[HomeschoolDad]

Doesn’t subsidiarity also warrant/call for assistance for higher authorities if lower entities need help?

If lower entities need help, that could indicate that in these particular circumstances, those entities are not, in fact, the smallest or lowest entities that can sufficiently deal with the situation. A temporary “bail-out” could be called for, or it could be that a higher entity is, indeed, the smallest or lowest entity that meets the requirement of subsidiarity.

For instance, a network of autonomous local post offices, each establishing its procedures in its own way and differing from locality to locality, would not be the most efficient means of ensuring prompt, seamless nationwide mail delivery. In that case, a national or federal post office would be called for (which is, in fact, what we already have).