Exactly. Thank you for your entry. I agree with you but was not able to express my opinion as accurately as you have. How is it any different than trying to end hunger in the world or setting out to offer aid to another country during a time of need? I try to give more than my share whenever I can, but it should never be a hardship to give when I have enough. Blessing
How is it different?!?!
Look, “ending world hunger” and “providing adequate health care” are wonderful goals. We should try to pursue them. The principle of subsidiarity is partly about HOW we pursue them!
How should we try to end world hunger? Should we set up some world government to take care of the problem, and send all of our “excess” resources (all money not required for basic sustenance) to this government so that our resources can be redistributed until things like world hunger and healthcare inadequacies are solved?
NO. Not only does that approach not work, it is a violation of a variety of liberties and of the principles of charity (whereby we are required to be involved personally, not abdicate our responsibility by delegating to some higher authority or having all of our ability for charity stolen from us by that higher authority). It is also a violation of this principle of subsidiarity, whereby we should handle our problems at the lowest level possible first.
This is not just a moral obligation. It is also a recognition of how things work. The greatest efficiency and effectiveness is achieved at the lowest level possible. Yes, some things require efforts by larger communities, working off of economies of scale, but you still just try to resort to the smallest level possible.
From the Catechism:
1883 Socialization also presents dangers.** Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative.** The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "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."7
(co-ordinate, not usurp or replace/supercede)
1884 God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power.
He entrusts to every creature the functions it is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature. This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They should behave as ministers of divine providence.
1885
The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
Also see:
1887** The inversion of means and ends, which results in giving the value of ultimate end to what is only a means for attaining it**, or in viewing persons as mere means to that end,
engenders unjust structures which “make Christian conduct in keeping with the commandments of the divine Law-giver difficult and almost impossible.”
The ends of providing adequate health care to all and ending world hunger do not justify any means in doing so, and can in fact end up “engendering unjust structures” in our government and in viewing people (“the rich,” or health care professionals) as mere means to an end. These are some of the evils of the approach that is being taken with universal health care in this country.
