What Are the Social Teachings of the Church?

[fnr]

It at least appears to me that those Catholcis who are most passionate for Social Justice often neglect a key component - subsidiarity, (CCC 1883-1885) vatican.va/archive/catechism/p3s1c2a1.htm
Essentially, the lowest level of community that can deal with an issue should be enabled and allowed to do so.

Subsidiarity is appropriate, and should be followed consistently. When the source of injustice is outside the scope of any one community, then subsidiarity requires that the next level up gets involved, and so on.

It doesn’t mean that there’s no such thing as a Catholic concern over global poverty, just local poverty. Here’s a map of the percent of children under five years, globally, with sub-normal growth:
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

Do you suggest that we just rely on the good graces of Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to care for his people? Or the Laotian regime?

In those cases, subsidiarity requires that at least regional (e.g. supranational) endeavors are undertaken.

Let us also not forget that a large component of injustice is defined by the geographic distribution of infrastructure, much of which is a public policy choice at the state, national, international level, not to mention the multinational level.

 

[fnr]

You know, I often hear this argument. But I just don’t see it. I suppose it comes from the liklihood that those who are big on social justice often support government programs which assist in accomplishing this endoevaor.

Don’t forget that historically, and arguably at present in much of the world, more benefit accrues to the wealthy and powerful in society as a result of government action in suppressing grassroots movements, funding infrastructure to advantage certain market players above others, and provide taxpayer-funded goods, infrastructure, and services that are handed for free or below-market costs to private individuals and companies.

Just one example: oil. From the 2005 U.S. Department of Defense-funded report, Winning the Oil Endgame:
*"But even in peacetime, without lives directly at stake, the United States has for decades routinely maintained large forces whose stated primary mission is intervention in the Persian Gulf. In every issue of their United States Military Posture Statement from FY1979 to FY1989, the Joint Chiefs said this was even more important than containing Soviet ambitions in the region.128 The 2002 U.S. national-security strategy mentioned neither oil nor the Gulf, but the 18 February 1992 draft of Defense Planning Guidance for the Fiscal Years 1994–1999 forthrightly stated America’s ‘overall objective’ in the Gulf: ‘to remain the predominant outside power in the region and preserve U.S. and Western access to the region’s oil.’
*…
The Pentagon’s other unified commands are also having to set aside many of the other missions that they have trained for, as they are ‘slowly but surely being converted into a global oil-protection service’ —for example, Southern Command in Colombia, European Command in Africa (except the Horn) and the Republic of Georgia, Pacific Command in two oceans, and
Northern Command in undisclosed places."

In other words, we’re spending an enormous amount of money by providing free security services to the oil industry, quite aside from the costs of current deployments in Iraq and Afghanistan.

This isn’t a unique situation. Gasoline taxes paid by people in U.S. states with large driving populations subsidize highway building in states with small by growing driving populations. States use existing property-holder’s tax money to fund the construction of new sewers into far-off residential and commercial developments far from water treatment plants, with no charge to developers for sewer mains, just the local hook-ups.

Just a few examples…

 

[ChrisR246]

When the source of injustice is outside the scope of any one community, then subsidiarity requires that the next level up gets involved, and so on.

No, subsidiarity calls for using the minimal level needed to alleviate the problem. And even if the problem does require broad response, it does not have to be from a State. A Worldwide community of individuals, freely cooperating through, say, Catholic Charities, could resolve the issue, not necessarily only another State entity.

Let us also not forget that a large component of injustice is defined by the geographic distribution of infrastructure, much of which is a public policy choice at the state, national, international level, not to mention the multinational level.

Infrastructure is not a zero sum that needs to be distributed. It would be more accurate to, one, call it capital, and two, to say that it is State policies that attempt to limit or control capital that generally cause long term social injustice.

 

[fnr]

No, subsidiarity calls for using the minimal level needed to alleviate the problem. And even if the problem does require broad response, it does not have to be from a State. A Worldwide community of individuals, freely cooperating through, say, Catholic Charities, could resolve the issue, not necessarily only another State entity.

Absolutely true. Governmental authority is not at all needed to address many problems. However, when dealing with a governmental as the source of injustice per se, such as Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe, the military regime in Burma, or the communist dictators of Laos, it would seem that the type of massive social movement needed to change things are few and far between. If we look at the U.S. civil rights movement of the 1950s-1960s or Gandhi’s “soul force” movement in India, it’s obvious that those techniques can be very effective. However, when you have examples of the 1991 Indonesian massacre of East Timorese at Santa Cruz, the 1988 massacre of Burmese by the military authorities against whom they were protesting, the 1944 razing of Warsaw by the Nazis, or the 1989 Tienanmen Square crackdown in China, it seems cruel to say that grassroots organizing is the only appropriate course.

Infrastructure is not a zero sum that needs to be distributed. It would be more accurate to, one, call it capital, and two, to say that it is State policies that attempt to limit or control capital that generally cause long term social injustice.

That seems reasonable, though to say that State actions and policies only lead to injustice is too strong. Sometimes, governmental action stems suffering. Look at the official U.S. response to the Pakistani earthquake. A good thing that helped to bridge cultural mistrust!

 

[Contarini]

The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church is available online. I just discovered it, and I look forward to digesting it more thoroughly.

With regard to the issues that have been discussed concerning economic justice and the principle of subsidiarity, I offer paragraph 353 of the Compendium (though of course there’s a lot more clarification in the surrounding context):

It is necessary for the market and the State to act in concert, one with the other, and to complement each other mutually. In fact, the free market can have a beneficial influence on the general public only when the State is organized in such a manner that it defines and gives direction to economic development, promoting the observation of fair and transparent rules,
and making direct interventions — only for the length of time strictly necessary [737] — when the market is not able to obtain the desired efficiency and when it is a question of putting the principle of redistribution into effect. There exist certain sectors in which the market, making use of the mechanisms at its disposal, is not able to guarantee an equitable distribution of the goods and services that are essential for the human growth of citizens. In such cases the complementarities of State and market are needed more than ever.

Edwin

 

[SoCalRC]

No, subsidiarity calls for using the minimal level needed to alleviate the problem.

No, in the Catechism subsidiarity is defined by quoting Pope Pius XI::

“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 co- ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.”

Minimum interference in internal structure and operation yes, but not in satisfying legitimate need. For a full understanding of context, refer to the documents cited in the Catechism. Further, in 1881 of the Catechims, Pop John XXIII is quoted:

Each community is defined by its purpose and consequently obeys specific rules; but “the human person . . . is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social institutions.”

Again, reading the entire quote, in the context of the original document, the meaning again appears clear. A legitimate ‘community’ with regards to the Catechism, must recognize certain rights of the human person. This has been reiterated several times by the Congregation of the Doctrine of the Faith over the last 15 years.

Trying to stretch Church teachings which are intended as a stance against oppressive forms of socialism and communism to apply to state foreign aid and even state welfare is novel, but there is the pesky matter of being a Christian faith.

In that context, the path to salvation, as it applies to nations appears clear - Matt 25:32-46. It appears to be the same path to salvation presented to individuals - Luke 10:25-37.