But the ability or lack of ability of any given estate in society to deal with its problems is based on the power of that estate and power is based on nature. So clearly the nature of an estate (the nature of the family or the corporation or the state itself) provides the criteria for the use of subsidiarity in a society.
Yes and no. You’re still confusing the
framework of subsidiarity with a
system.
For example, take the US Military and the Iraqi Army. Both are run very, very differently, but both run on a concept of subsidiarity. Unfortunately, the Iraqi Army is still very much given over to a mentality prevalent in Iraq itself- tribalism. Tribalism works within subsidiarity too, but in conflict with higher authority if the chain is not recognized and properly employed for the situation.
**
As such subsidiarity is an objective thing that depends on the nature of different estates and since some social structures are more conducive to some estates rather than others (Communism is very anti-family for instance), likewise subsidiarity is advanced better under different social systems. So sometimes, subsidiarity is a social system in the same manner that I suppose color is a divisible thing (insofar as color resides on a divisible surface and not as such) correct?**
Communism
can use principles of subsidiarity, but the idea and purpose breaks down in the function of communism off the bat. Some would say Trotsky was a great guy because he envisioned an ideal without such issues, but, he still failed because the communist system is flawed and so are human beings who don’t realize it.
But this doesn’t answer my original questions: if everyone participates democratically in the state, then doesn’t that violate solidarity by (1) making the nature of state action a function of the nature of individuals instead of some other estate? and (2) subsidiarity by making the lower orders constantly appeal to the protection of the higher orders?
Re: 1- the whole is a sum of its parts. Imagine an auto’s check engine light. That auto light is going through certain processes to turn on. Eventually, it is saying, “hey, you, the one in charge, fix this! we got a problem!”.
2- if the lower orders cannot provide, including the individual, they are granted recourse though higher spheres. That’s the entire point. The make everything run smoothly by addressing problems at the lowest level possible.
**And about the adultery issue: I suppose you have a point but it is hard to say that someone should just gather evidence and not judge, for to judge is the act of justice and it befits a legislator to be just. "Now to decide rightly about virtuous deeds proceeds, properly speaking, from the virtuous habit; thus a chaste person decides rightly about matters relating to chastity. **Therefore judgment, which denotes a right decision about what is just, belongs properly to justice. For this reason the Philosopher says that “men have recourse to a judge as to one who is the personification of justice.”
Further: “Those who stand guilty of grievous sins should not judge those who are guilty of the same or lesser sins, as Chrysostom [Hom. xxiv] says on the words of Matthew 7:1, “Judge not.” Above all does this hold when such sins are public, because there would be an occasion of scandal arising in the hearts of others. If however they are not public but hidden, and there be an urgent necessity for the judge to pronounce judgment, because it is his duty, he can reprove or judge with humility and fear.”
As for the priests who must judge, then I suppose that this falls under the above clause that “If they are hidden, and there be urgent necessity for the judge to pronounce judgment, he can reprove…” But even I think that this argument is too inconclusive.
newadvent.org/summa/3060.htm#article2
It can work in any system, because it is not a system, but a framework to improve system performance at all levels.