What Happened to Subsidiarity?

[markomalley]

In a lot of the threads on the “Social Justice” forum, there are a tremendous number of threads advocating essentially socialist/statist solutions to societal woe. Whether those concerns are health care, CEO salaries, pollution, or whatever.

One of the key principles of social doctrine is the concept of “Subsidiarity.”

As stated in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, paragraph 185:

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]

Pius XI stated in Quadragesimo Anno (cited in the above document):
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”[399].

Yet I never (or rarely) see that principle upheld in so many of the solutions proposed. I also rarely see it advocated among the more “socially conscious” organizations in the R/W Church, either.

Why is it that subsidiarity rarely appears to be a concern with the “social justice” crowd?

 

[Dale_M]

Why is it that subsidiarity rarely appears to be a concern with the “social justice” crowd?

I had never heard of subsidiarity until I came to CAF. It is an interesting concept, and one we need to keep in mind.

 

[markomalley]

I had never heard of subsidiarity until I came to CAF. It is an interesting concept, and one we need to keep in mind.

Apparently you’re not the only one.

If the principle of subsidiarity is not kept in mind, looking out for the “Common Good” can quickly degenerate into socialism. Without the principle of subsidiarity, trying to take care of the common good will likely take away the dignity of the human person.

 

[mapleoak]

Why is it that subsidiarity rarely appears to be a concern with the “social justice” crowd?

Because it is the mortal enemy of socialism, communism, and other like ideals in disguise.

 

[Maxply]

Subsidiarity is an extremely powerful idea. It has to do with proportionate human response to problems. Much better to keep things as local and at-hand as you need them to be.

I’m no hard-right libertarian government-hater. But I feel I’ve seen situations in which the first response was to get federal help, rather than state or local help.

Part of the problem is the interpretation of the Constitution. State and local law can’t contravene the US Constitution, so this limits what can be done locally: basically you have to use the court’s notion of what you can do.

 

[steveandersen]

…
Why is it that subsidiarity rarely appears to be a concern with the “social justice” crowd?

Who says it’s not?
Subsidiarity calls for the delegation of power to the lowest competent authority not just to the lowest authority.

But since justice usually revolves around universal principals, what is the problem with guaranteeing them at the higher levels of government?

At the very least local government may need assistance or support otherwise why bother with higher forms of government at all?

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Because it is the mortal enemy of socialism, communism, and other like ideals in disguise.

Unbridled capitalism as well as it tends toward monopoly and large corporate structures eating smaller competitors.

 

[Dale_M]

Who says it’s not?
Subsidiarity calls for the delegation of power to the lowest competent authority not just to the lowest authority.

So in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, who was the lowest competent authority? Was it a matter for individual states? Individual counties? A national matter?

 

[mapleoak]

Unbridled capitalism as well as it tends toward monopoly and large corporate structures eating smaller competitors.

Here we go!!!

 

[LCMS_No_More]

Here we go!!!

Alls I’m sayin’ is that it works both ways.

 

[steveandersen]

So in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, who was the lowest competent authority? Was it a matter for individual states? Individual counties? A national matter?

Well for disasters or emergencies there has to be a sliding scale and a hierarchy of responses rather than a set rule.
That is the nature of the beast.

As emergencies get larger the ability of local authorities to respond diminishes. That is why there are city, county, state and federal emergency authorities and separate State and federal disaster area declarations.

In the case of Katrina the police stations, the hospitals, the firehouses, the courts, tha administration buildings, the roads, all the utilities…. everything that forms the sinews of a community were knocked out for miles.

The tragedy of that storm was that it was unclear who was in charge and who was supposed to be doing what.

 

[mschrank]

The Industrial Revolution happened!

 

[CentralFLJames]

In a lot of the threads on the “Social Justice” forum, there are a tremendous number of threads advocating essentially socialist/statist solutions to societal woe. Whether those concerns are health care, CEO salaries, pollution, or whatever.

Why is it that subsidiarity rarely appears to be a concern with the “social justice” crowd?

I think you are inadvertently wounding subsidiarity by associating it with the word "socialist and its many negative connotations. The key concept of subsidiarity is in relocating “where” in the hiearchy of society (assuming its not a completely flat or an anarchy) problems are solved. The underlying precept is that the best solutions are handled nearest the problem. This is a concept I have used very effectively in engineering and science applications as well and it rings sound in practice.

But there is also a natural sense of reasonableness and fairness to subsidiarity. It compels one through moral conscience to contribute (invest really) to their community (and indirectly to the larger plurality) according one’s means and conscience. It manifests a real expectation of actually raising the standards of the community to benefit all rather than the status quo of jailing a protected class perpetually in a gilded cage of dependent entitlement. The tone of this rings much more pleasant than the rude imposition of the state telling us a-priori what we must “give” the “state” what it demands. We all know that the state demands first to extract its own vigorish under a banner of benevolent “charity” then gives the residuals to whom scream the loudest politically.

Subsidiarity still affords order and authority but migrates a significant amount of power to those lower in the hiearchy and in so doing preempts the opportunity for large scale central abuse. There is the plausible expectation of delivering higher efficacy to those that really need assistance - and in a timely manner. My take is that the advantage of economy of scale seen in current centralized systems is in practise being overcome by the higher exposure to larger scale corruption and abuses inherent in central control and administration.

It should then be no surprise why we won’t see too many of the “socialist” ilk who are advocates for “big government” solutions supporting anything like subsidiarity. Subsidiarity calls the bluff on those who pay lip service to altruism and social conscience by making it conscpicuous that what they call social service looks more like somone serving themselves to our back pockets. Meritable charity can never take the form of indentured slavery to a task master (riding a white horse or not) - otherwise we could all buy our way into heaven by simply paying our taxes. I truly do not believe that any socialists wants to succeed in rescuing the socially marooned. That would sever the endless cycle of co-dependency and put them out of a job.
-dependent on each other through a negative relationship.

Sadly, I don’t think the US can embrace subsidiarity unless we can raise the moral bar of society and get people thinking less of themselves, more in terms of community service and also get people weened off the idea that the Federal government is their mother.

James

 

[markomalley]

Who says it’s not?
Subsidiarity calls for the delegation of power to the lowest competent authority not just to the lowest authority.

But since justice usually revolves around universal principals, what is the problem with guaranteeing them at the higher levels of government?

At the very least local government may need assistance or support otherwise why bother with higher forms of government at all?

*79. As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things which were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them.*Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno

188. Various circumstances may make it advisable that the State step in to supply certain functions[401]. One may think, for example, of situations in which it is necessary for the State itself to stimulate the economy because it is impossible for civil society to support initiatives on its own. One may also envision the reality of serious social imbalance or injustice where only the intervention of the public authority can create conditions of greater equality, justice and peace. In light of the principle of subsidiarity, however, this institutional substitution must not continue any longer than is absolutely necessary, since justification for such intervention is found only in the exceptional nature of the situation. In any case, the common good correctly understood, the demands of which will never in any way be contrary to the defence and promotion of the primacy of the person and the way this is expressed in society, must remain the criteria for making decisions concerning the application of the principle of subsidiarity.
Pontifical Council on Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church.
*In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called “Welfare State”. This has happened in some countries in order to respond better to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses, especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the Welfare State, dubbed the “Social Assistance State”. 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.100

By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.*
John Paul II, Centisimus Annus

There are roles for government at various levels. There are roles for the Church. And there are roles for families, both immediate and extended. And there are roles for individuals. Mixing those roles up is a major cause of disorder in modern society.

 

[markomalley]

So in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina, who was the lowest competent authority? Was it a matter for individual states? Individual counties? A national matter?

Sure would have been nice had the local authority decided to use their school busses to evacuate people rather than letting both the people and the busses swamp.

 

[markomalley]

I think you are inadvertently wounding subsidiarity by associating it with the word "socialist and its many negative connotations. The key concept of subsidiarity is in relocating “where” in the hiearchy of society (assuming its not a completely flat or an anarchy) problems are solved. The underlying precept is that the best solutions are handled nearest the problem. This is a concept I have used very effectively in engineering and science applications as well and it rings sound in practice.

But there is also a natural sense of reasonableness and fairness to subsidiarity. It compels one through moral conscience to contribute (invest really) to their community (and indirectly to the larger plurality) according one’s means and conscience. It manifests a real expectation of actually raising the standards of the community to benefit all rather than the status quo of jailing a protected class perpetually in a gilded cage of dependent entitlement. The tone of this rings much more pleasant than the rude imposition of the state telling us a-priori what we must “give” the “state” what it demands. We all know that the state demands first to extract its own vigorish under a banner of benevolent “charity” then gives the residuals to whom scream the loudest politically.

Subsidiarity still affords order and authority but migrates a significant amount of power to those lower in the hiearchy and in so doing preempts the opportunity for large scale central abuse. There is the plausible expectation of delivering higher efficacy to those that really need assistance - and in a timely manner. My take is that the advantage of economy of scale seen in current centralized systems is in practise being overcome by the higher exposure to larger scale corruption and abuses inherent in central control and administration.

It should then be no surprise why we won’t see too many of the “socialist” ilk who are advocates for “big government” solutions supporting anything like subsidiarity. Subsidiarity calls the bluff on those who pay lip service to altruism and social conscience by making it conscpicuous that what they call social service looks more like somone serving themselves to our back pockets. Meritable charity can never take the form of indentured slavery to a task master (riding a white horse or not) - otherwise we could all buy our way into heaven by simply paying our taxes. I truly do not believe that any socialists wants to succeed in rescuing the socially marooned. That would sever the endless cycle of co-dependency and put them out of a job.
-dependent on each other through a negative relationship.

Sadly, I don’t think the US can embrace subsidiarity unless we can raise the moral bar of society and get people thinking less of themselves, more in terms of community service and also get people weened off the idea that the Federal government is their mother.

James

No, I am not associating socialism or its ugly sister communism with a lack of subsidiarity.

The “social assistance state” (which has many socialistic attributes, but is not, in of itself, socialism) is the ugly result of a lack of subsidiarity.

I bring the topic up because there appear to be a lot of folks here who advocate doing a lot for the common good, but it appears that their solution violates the very premise of subsidiarity, which, in turn, will result in solutions that are both inefficient, self-propagating (the solution takes on a life of its own), and ultimately result in the degradation of the dignity of the human person.

I hope that these folks will actually look into the subject and truly try to understand the teachings of the Church in regards to Her social doctrine. All of the teachings. In that way, hopefully, they can take their energies and try to harness them to suggesting solutions that are in harmony with the social doctrine of the Church, rather than proposing solutions that are essentially at cross-purposes with that doctrine.

 

[CentralFLJames]

No, I am not associating socialism or its ugly sister communism with a lack of subsidiarity.

The “social assistance state” (which has many socialistic attributes, but is not, in of itself, socialism) is the ugly result of a lack of subsidiarity.

I bring the topic up because there appear to be a lot of folks here who advocate doing a lot for the common good, but it appears that their solution violates the very premise of subsidiarity, which, in turn, will result in solutions that are both inefficient, self-propagating (the solution takes on a life of its own), and ultimately result in the degradation of the dignity of the human person.

I hope that these folks will actually look into the subject and truly try to understand the teachings of the Church in regards to Her social doctrine. All of the teachings. In that way, hopefully, they can take their energies and try to harness them to suggesting solutions that are in harmony with the social doctrine of the Church, rather than proposing solutions that are essentially at cross-purposes with that doctrine.

Thanks for the clarification - we are of the same mind.

James

 

[mom24boys]

This is a great question! Much of what the federal government does in the U.S. can be done by the state or local governments. Isn’t it funny that states are always asking for federal assistance? Where do the federal tax dollars come from? They come from individuals. (Yes, even corporate tax dollars ultimately come out of an individual’s pocket.) How much of a dollar is wasted when the federal government takes it from an individual and then gives it back to the state? Wouldn’t it make more sense for the individual to give that dollar right to the state? Right to the local government?

 

[Orionthehunter]

Unbridled capitalism as well as it tends toward monopoly and large corporate structures eating smaller competitors.

I’m always shocked when populist myth’s continue to propogate without a thread of concrete historical fact.

Since “unbridled capitalism” has never been practiced on a large scale, your thesis is just a theory. However, frontier America it was tried practiced on a smaller scale without a single monopoly developing. The invasion of the fronteir west of monopolies and large corporate cattle companies was done by the imposition of governmental powers onto the people. Certainly not consistent w/ unbridled capitalism.

Alls I’m sayin’ is that it works both ways.

No it doesn’t. Subsidiarity is a Truth. It states that there are certain rights and obligations that lie exclusively with the individual/family that can not be infringed upon by any authority except natural law.

As said by Pius XI stated in Quadragesimo Anno:
Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them”[399].

This speaks directly against the basic tenet of Socialism that one is to give to the state to their ability and recieve according to their need.

The principle of subsidiarity is silent to the morality of capitalism as a means of economic order and distribution of goods. However, basic tenets of Catholic Social Teaching is not silent on the merits of accummulating wealth and goods and consuming without regard to others. CST speaks directly to the obligation of individuals to act charitably toward others. It also allows the prudential judgment of the people to organize for the assistance of the less fortunate, including the limited use of taxation and legislation to effect justice. See what I underlined above. The debate comes in when the prudential judgment of some believe a social activity infringes on the principle of subsidiarity.

 

[Dale_M]

This is a great question! Much of what the federal government does in the U.S. can be done by the state or local governments.

Mom24boys (what a handfull they must be! ), I am responding to your post, but really this question is for everyone. I am trying to get a handle on subsidiarity, what are some examples of federal programs which could be better run by state or local governments?

Isn’t it funny that states are always asking for federal assistance?

Ya know, this actually makes sense in a weird sort of way. No legislator wants to raise taxes. So state legislators want the federal legislators to do it, and the feds want the state lawmakers to do it. I think it is just an example of passing the buck.