As I noted in a previous post, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity asserts that “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” (Catechism, 1883).
Fine. But what exactly does that mean in regard to our own social and economic situation?
Again, it means, first of all, that the state should not violate the “moral space” of its citizens, a space that is also economic. And that is what too many state social programs, in fact, do.
Morally, it is my duty to provide for my family in my community. Providing for my family isn’t something that is merely altruistic; it’s part of my moral perfection. If the state takes over that moral duty, it has violated the moral “space” wherein I can and must become good. It has taken over moral duties that my wife and my children rightly expect of me.
Violations of moral space, even with good intentions, always bring bad results. Whatever the good intended, the result of our social welfare programs has been the creation of generational welfare dependence, the displacement of husbands and fathers by the state.
Even worse, they have created the situation known as “moral hazard,” where it actually pays to do the wrong thing, and hurts to do what’s right.
Example 1: A single mother will lose state funds if she marries, and she will increase her funds if she has more children out of wedlock. Single-motherhood was the exception when welfare programs were put in place. Now it’s the “norm” because it’s both subsidized and entirely devoid of moral censure.
Example 2, and obviously related to 1: Welfare programs have created, as the “norm,” fathers who are not husbands. Fathers on welfare are strongly discouraged from getting married and providing for their own children because the state’s welfare benefits for them and/or their children are so generous: free dental care, medical care, eye care, orthodontics, food, subsidized shelter and utilities.
This is a fact that can be verified using government calculators provided on the Internet. Do this exercise: Imagine that you are a father on welfare, and thinking of your children’s best interests. Would you get a job? How likely is it that you could get a job that would replace the state’s benefits? How much would you have to make to “break even,” and make the jump from welfare to work “pay”?
I once figured that out for my own situation, using those government-provided calculators available on the Internet. I’d have to make somewhere between $45,000 to $65,000, depending on how one calculates it.
There’s another form of “moral hazard,” one that affects the Church itself. The notion that the state is the primary organ of social charity violates the “moral space” of the Church.
It is primarily the Church’s moral duty to care for the poor, not the state’s. Thinking it’s the state’s duty has led many well-intentioned Catholics to believe that their moral responsibility to the poor is fulfilled by lobbying for state social welfare programs.
That is a shifting of responsibility from themselves and the Church, to the state.
The moral harm done here is twofold. Charity is a theological-moral virtue, not an amoral system of providing entitlements. Like the moral demand upon fathers and mothers to care for their own children, the command to care for the poor is part of the Church’s moral and theological perfection. It is personal, not institutional.
We in the Church are commanded to care for the poor. We are made holy by caring for the poor. We are not made holy by demanding that someone else do it with someone else’s money. (Dare I say it also harms the poor. Indiscriminate state entitlements lead to the “entitlement mentality,” that one is owed charity. The personal care and sacrifice of another to care for me and my family in need leads to gratitude, a kind of virtue.)
The second harm follows upon the unlinking of charity from the demand for holiness. The state’s view of charity, of what social “welfare” means, can be, and often is, radically at odds with the Church’s.
The state’s social welfare programs now include funding for Planned Parenthood, and state supported “sex education.” And that’s moral harm done on top of — and feeding — the destruction of the family outlined above. Making social charity the primary responsibility of the Church again, means that charity will be governed by morality.
Note that I have not mentioned in all this the enormous, unsustainable financial burden of ballooning social welfare programs. That’s to make a point: Even if we could pay for them, even if we weren’t headed for financial collapse, they would be harmful.
But we can’t. Europe is collapsing under the unsustainable weight of its social welfare commitments. Such programs naturally expand, and that expansion cannot be sustained. As Europe all too clearly demonstrates, economic collapse causes grave harm to everybody, even and especially those who previously benefitted from state largesse.
For all these reasons, our social welfare programs need to be downsized, and this in two senses. First, what they try to provide should be, in large part, provided for by the family, local communities and, most emphatically, by the Church, thereby returning moral responsibility to the “moral space” where it belongs, and where it can be administered prudently rather than indiscriminately. Second, such programs, insofar as they exist, must be defined by the actual needs of the recipients, as well as governed by moral (rather than secular) aims.
Obviously, this critique is aimed at the Left. But the Right is also corrected by the principle of subsidiarity, as we’ll see in the next post.
View Comments
Comments
Join the Discussion
“racial impact”
What’s that got to do with anything?
Why would you suggest I’m millenniums late in my understanding?
Is it because I don’t post on touchy issues without examining their racial impact and the POSSIBILITY that I might not understand them as a highly educated, older white male?
Is it because I don’t choose two LUDICROUS examples to try and make a point?
Is it because I don’t blame the government for my own greed and lack of supporting those in poverty?
Tell me this: how exactly is it that the government is depriving you of the ability to serve the poor?
Is it because they’re not leaving enough people to care for? Last I checked there are 15 million people in poverty in America. I’m sure you can find SOMEONE to care for.
Is it because they’re “taking all your money”? My bad, I didn’t realize you couldn’t give up your time. Or your cable subscription.
erik,
You are two weeks late in the discussion of the article and millenniums late in understanding God’s laws.
Wow… This is the biggest piece of victim-blame I’ve ever seen. Is your theology coming from the Catholic Church or from Paul Ryan (/Ayn Rand… they’re synonymous)?
This is an embarrassing piece for the NC Register.
QUOTE:
It is ironic, then, that the greatest challenge to Catholic philanthropies only began much later, during the New Deal. Aloisius Muench, bishop of Fargo, North Dakota, famously remarked at the time, “The poor belong to us. . . . We will not let them be taken away,” meaning that growing secular programs threatened the old institutional mission. A few years later, another Catholic leader warned that trends towards taking charitable efforts out of the parishes and centralizing them in diocesan offices might lead to a loss of “both the interest and the support of the clergy and the laity.” Even worse, he feared a future “when parish priests and their people cease to say ‘our poor’ and speak rather of ‘your cases.’” (END QUOTE)
(“Conversion Story: What happens when big charity meets big government”)
Robert Royal in Philanthropy Magazine
Bill,
Perhaps of the reason the old style rescue has become difficult is in part because the government has so taken over and fouled the system up. It has distorted different sectors of the economy. If the government wasn’t taking so much of citizens’ money through taxation, perhaps more of us would be able to take care of our own families rather than sending them off to have other people care for them.
The liberals of today seem oddly reminiscent of a certain Dickens character—Are there no nursing homes? Are there no day care centers?
You seem to forget that this money to pay for these services still has to come from someone - we’re paying for it, one way or the other. There is something deeply troubling about increasingly relying upon an increasingly secular government that is becoming increasingly hostile to Catholic principles and the Catholic Church itself.
The government is becoming God. And we are losing our souls.
Neither the Church nor Christian charity are in the same ball park as even the medicaid budget alone which is over $400 billion a year. The Vatican has total savings of 1 billion dollars in investments as far as anyone can surmise. If the Vatican gave all of it to help medicaid, it would only cover most of one single day out of 365 days of medicaid’s yearly budget. Catholic parishes gave $60 million to Haiti relief which is one small part of one day of medicaid’s budget. Private charity due to brand new in history, expensive medical help is too small for civilization’s problems. Catholic nursing homes RECEIVE 60% of their operating income FROM MEDICAID.
You see a man living under an overpass and tell yourself your family will adopt him and help him rise back onto his feet. You take him home and gradually find out he is mentally ill and needs a psychiatrist at $150 an hour every week and he needs a kidney transplant but has no medical coverage. There goes the simple version of old style rescue…out the window.
@ eric. What is upsetting is this knee jerk attitude that: Any elected government=always supper inefficient =always bad =amoral. Free market= all ways supper efficient= always good = moral. This is getting a little old. Pragmatic facts just do not support this. There are plenty examples of good and bad on both sides. There are several “industrial complexes”, that represent large chunks of the US economy that are free market, but make money on base human cravings/ideologies and are amoral (all the people that profit from 60’s “adult pelvic rights”; unhealthy food industrial complex; tobacco; the border control/selling junk military hardware to despots industries, etc ..). 1.2 million abortions each year are in large part due to evil free market forces, working in collusion with corrupt or misguided government officials (“adult pelvic rights” industrial complex). They brain wash the next generations, that reproduction is not reproduction, but a commodity, so they can make money on it. This is what Catholics should be focusing on, in both parties. Reverse examples also exist. For example, improvement in child cancer treatment would not have been possible without cooperation between, mostly non market driven groups working together with private enterprise (Pharma is just one element). This includes working with highly competitive government institutions, like the NIH (the world Marines/Seals of medical research). But Randian “Opus Dei” catholics want to dismantle the later, based on some 20th century non Christian dogmas. How can the pseudo philosophy of Ayn Rand, an atheist Hollywood screen writer who never owed a real business, be even considered catholic? This is just as ridiculous as using Marx, it seems to me.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=ID7o5L3CaRU
www.youtube.com/watch?v=mq-ZGktYWWA
@SD “Charities are there to “fill in the gaps” when there’s an emergency or whatever government help the family is getting is not enough.” This is exactly the opposite of what the principle of subsidiarity holds. By that principle, government would be there to fill in the gaps that can’t be met by churches and other private charities, as well as by local communities. The subsidiarity principle does NOT maintain that government should play no role in the care of the poor, only that lower communities should have primacy in that work and that larger government be there to support the lower communities. In other words, it’s a bottom-up approach rather than a top-down one. A major point Dr. Wiker makes, as I understand him, is that the government is getting in the way of policies that would lessen the need for dependence and that this a result of the top-down approach.
@ Tom ATK
I guess I’m one of those Ayn Rand/“Opus Die” Catholics you so grossly mischaracterise. I can’t speak for all of us who believe in LIMITED GOVERNMENT, as you do, but I believe nothing breaks the soul of a man like a hand out. Sure we need a safety net administered at the local level. But what we have now is a bloated gov that wastes about 40% of our money just to pay for the bureaucracy and keeps people living in a cycle of dependency. I also feel this weaken my own heart when it comes to helping the poor. I know there are a dozen programs out there for the poor so the devil tells me “Why should you be concerned about them?” Let’s get our govenment back to the constraints of the constitution and make the concern of the poor our business.
I am not an economist but I know this:
1) The free market is the driving force that got people out of poverty over the last century. Not socialim.
2) But, a big but, there is not a single example of a country that did this without cooperation between the private sector and government. It’s a question of being pragmatic. Subsidiarity is about finding the optimal pragmatic level of cooperation that works at the lowest level.
3) The European Union is based on the very principal of subsidiarity. It worked great to prevent wars. Now it needs to be brought down, because in places like Spain, corrupt banks, often run by “Opus Dei” University of Navarra graduates, abused the system.
4) So it is upsetting when Ayn Rand/”Opus Die” catholics try to make into dogma something that is not. There is no part in the Bible that advocates pure free market in an anarchy or a theocracy driven by the wealthy, like this so called expert keeps on trying to do. He is trying to sell the a new religion. Fine, it’s a free country. But don’t try to high jack the Catholic faith. We will be judge by is how we Loved God and neighbor. Nothing else.
5) There are plenty of examples where Christ spoke to groups of people, not individuals. He also fed groups of people, out of pity. Finally he advocated paying taxes to Cesar, because he knew that Cesar had an effective government that built top of the line infrastructures (ports, roads, communication and governance systems), that his followers would later use to spread His message, very effectively.
6) Can Ayn Rand/”Opus Die” Catholics give an example of a country that runs only on free enterprise, and no government? Is Honduras their example? The Pope said during the Christmas homely just after the coup, that the Church was helping rebuilt institutions in Honduras. Look at it now: it has the highest murder rate in the world, by a long shot. Is that what Ayn Rand/”Opus Die” Catholics want as an example, lazy, aristocratic oligarch run chaos?
7) The main concern should be “social justice” as defined in the 18th century: which simply means lack of tyranny. In the case of the US, tyranny is when civil liberties are curbed, despite the constitution, as in the case of the health mandate. Or when 1.2 million abortions are happening per year. This is what Catholics should be focusing on, in both parties. Not creating some new dogmas based on “Holy Money”.
It looks like Rita is a very angry person.
Tim S.
“...this isn’t utopian ideological thought- it’s grounded in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit.”
And the “wisdom of the Holy Spirit” is exclusive to those who crafted “ch.8 of the compendium of the social doctrine of the church?”
My personal guide to understanding the moral blueprint for the political community is ch.8 of the compendium of the social doctrine of the church- which is authoritative- this isn’t utopian ideological thought- it’s grounded in the wisdom of the Holy Spirit
@Tim S
“I think that the typical ‘conservative’ analysis is made by those who have the luxury to imagine an America without government responsibilities in the economic and environmental sectors- trusting in the blind self-interests of the most powerful corporate conglomerates to ‘make nice’ ‘play fair’ and oh yea- operate according to the principle of pursue the maximim profits for the benefit of our shareholders.”
That pretty much sounds like how God established things, to me. He trust that we will do the right thing. He’s given us what the rules are and leaves it is up to each of us to do the right thing. When someone doesn’t, God’s not there with some kind of law suit or police action. He lets man play it out. So, Tim S., do you think man can set up a better system than God? I don’t think you trust God and his order of things. I think you think man can do better and can set up some kind of utopia, “for the good of everybody.” But utopias never seem to work out, if fact, they always seem to work into state control dictatorships that collapse after millions have been murdered and persecuted. No, I don’t like this collectivist thinking that your way of looking at things always seem to lead to. I trust God’s governing ways better of free will and following His laws.
I think what is missing in the self-described conservative Catholic economic analysis with the focus on the principle of subsidiarity, is the destructive role of powerful multinational corporations and banks. Conglomerates can move freely but persons cannot necessarily keep up. If the jobs in my industry move to China because my middle-class lifestyle is more expensive than a far away dictatorship- I couldn’t pick up and move my family to China even if I wanted to. So- if my talents don’t keep up with the global market machinations- and I can’t afford to keep going back to school to learn the latest in computer technology- my options in the New Economy are pretty much take a low paying job and hope the government subsidies will make it possible for me to support a few kids and what if my wife wants to be a stay at home mom to properly nurture those children? I think that the typical “conservative” analysis is made by those who have the luxury to imagine an America without government responsibilities in the economic and environmental sectors- trusting in the blind self-interests of the most powerful corporate conglomerates to “make nice” “play fair” and oh yea- operate according to the principle of pursue the maximim profits for the benefit of our shareholders. The thing about the conservative commentators is that they typically don’t sound the Pope when he addresses the same topics- they do the old cut n paste job in favor of their ideological presuppositions- same as the liberals. I’m waiting for a non-ideological analysis that actually takes the complete social doctrine of the Church seriously- not just blowing one of the major principles way out of proportion and conveniently ignoring big players other than small businesses and big government- in the REal Economy- many of us are struggling to support more than 2 kids and try to keep mom at home, and work in industries that aren’t able to sustain wages that this traditional Catholic family even possible. If you want to blame poor people for all America’s problems- just remember that oftentimes the first will be last, and the last will be first- when it comes down to crunch time on Judgment Day. I’m glad if you are lucky and skilled to have particular skills that translate into big incomes- but remember that the market forces are not the Holy Spirit and Friends in all circumstances- that should be obvious when we see an abusive, anti-humanitarian SuperState like China benefiting the most in the current model of global economics.
Romney and Company smirk ...and smile ...and say to us:
TO HELL with all those “moochers” and “free-loaders” receiving Medicare, or Veterans Benefits, or Pell Grants, or Social Security, or Unemployment, or Medicaid, or Food Stamps, or on Disability.
Romney says TO HELL with all of us that are struggling to stay afloat, to those in the Middle-class, and to those hoping to get there.
Romney says TO HELL with the hungry, the homeless, the helpless, and the hopeless, ....to all the biblical “least of these”.
Romney says TO HELL with the “47% of America”—the “losers” that Romney so easily dismisses and disrespects as “dependents”.
Romney wines… INCREDIBLY ...that we’re shamelessly sponging off of him, and off of all of his poor-poor-poor super-rich friends
.....all those super-rich folks who want to BUY this ELECTION,
.....all those super-rich folks who want to BUY this COUNTRY.
Trickle-down economics? Hey, sure , let them eat cake. It’s all the same. Always has been.
It’s crumbs for us, and Cadillacs and car elevators, and loopholes & lower taxes for them.
That is, if they, and the bailed-out banks, and the big corporations pay ANY taxes at all….
If THEY get a break- they deserve it. But If YOU get a break, it’s a handout. BULL!
Tell me - who are the REAL “takers”, who are the REAL creators, who are the TRUE workers and builders?
Who are the REAL “victims” here?
Who gave their LIVES and limbs ...in unpaid and un-needed wars?
Whose sweat, .....on whose brows, has BUILT this great country?
Was it the Romney’s of this world ...or us?
But we still have a voice. It’s called our VOTE.
Loud and Clear—Just say NO.
Say NO to Romney & Company ...and what they stand for.
This is STILL our country. Our children’s country.
And we mean to KEEP it that way. Period.
I would like to have read about the principle of “subsidiarity” in the context of the partner principle “solidarity”.... additionally, what part today does the excellent 1980’s Bishops’ pastoral, “Economic Justice for All” play? Or is the contemporary Episcopate edging away from that challenging community document?
Robert E, that’s very simplistic. It’s no different from pro-choice people who say “Jesus never said anything about abortion.”
As seen elsewhere on the internet: “I have yet to find the passage in scripture where Jesus demands of Pontius Pilat a governmental program to help the poor.”
I am seeing articles like this more and more in conservative Catholic publications, and it’s very troubling to me. It seems to me like a misunderstanding of subsidiarity. I’m an orthodox, pro-life Catholic, but I support the idea of social welfare programs. I agree that the government should not fund anything immoral (like Planned Parenthood), and I understand that government programs are not perfect and can have problems (like women losing their benefits if they get married.) But I think your analysis is overly simplistic.
First of all, I’ve never understood the argument that the state “replaces” a husband’s provision when a family is on welfare. That reduces fathers and husbands to a paycheck. I didn’t marry my husband for his money. And if a woman is completely dependent on her husband to provide for her instead of the government, that’s still dependency, right? What if he leaves? Is it really better to be dependent on a fallen human being who could leave at any time?
I also don’t understand the argument that social programs “replace” the Church. The Church and private charities don’t have the resources to provide for people the way the government can. Sure, in an ideal world, everyone would be so generous that government programs like welfare and Medicaid would be unnecessary. But we don’t live in an ideal world, and the reality is that people simply don’t give enough. I personally think we need both – government programs AND private charities and Church groups. Charities are there to “fill in the gaps” when there’s an emergency or whatever government help the family is getting is not enough. Both charities and government perform essential but different functions. One doesn’t replace the other.
You’re also forgetting the enormous amount of shame attached to getting welfare or other government benefits. If I was on welfare, I would be doing absolutely everything I possibly could to get off it. I can’t even imagine. I know not everyone is like this, and I know there are people who try to cheat the system, but I think those numbers are relatively small. Welfare is supposed to be temporary.
The idea that husbands and charities can take care of everyone is pie-in-the-sky idealism. I thought Catholics were supposed to be realists who realize we live in a fallen world.
Generally a very thoughtful article the likes of which aren’t found in pop-journalism. I do take exception to one statement, though:
“Whatever the good intended, the result of our social welfare programs has been the creation of generational welfare dependence, the displacement of husbands and fathers by the state.”
To suggest that social welfare dependence is the root cause of displaced fathers and husbands is quite incorrect. No doubt I’ll get flamed for this, but if you want to to go back to some of the real root causes, the slave trade would be a good place to start, which so disbanded families and colonies that its effects are still being felt today. State welfare dependence certainly has perpetuated the phenomena as the author eloquently lays out above, but it isn’t a root cause.
Otherwise an excellent article.
An excellent article. The Church has it right regarding Subsidiarity.
My comment is aimed toward Daniel, who asked about the history of welfare. I googled it and came up with :
http://www.uncp.edu/home/marson/348_history.html
It’s a daunting read, but even by skimming you can come up with the answers you are looking for.
I copied the word exactly as you printed it.What is your game?Either you want comments or you don’t.If you don’t please let us know.
The left often embraces “immoral but consensual behaviors” on the basis of moral relevancy. Thus the “next question” is what immoral and consensual behaviors to your mind are objective sins that the religious should wish to abet through their taxes and insurance premiums?
Question: Do Social Programs Intrude on ‘Moral Space’?
Answer: Yes.
Aaaand the right does this by criminalizing immoral but consensual behaviors.
Next question?
Ultimately who is better off; the poor people who receive benefits or the governmental people who administer the benefits and their crony friends who provide the benefit of goods and services for a profit and a campaign contribution? The poor are big business which would account for the reality that the poor will always be with us.
The poor and having poor is vital to the economy. This is so because someone will make a living by providing for them. How much of the six trillion dollars spent by government over the last 4 years found its way into the pockets of the poor and how much into the pockets of the other two groups? The system of aiding the poor would be better off returned to religious groups from government as it used to be because such groups are better able to determine true need and provide for it.
At this time, the government has determined that insurance companies must provide abortifacients and contraception for “free” as an issue of “women’s health.” It will become a certainty as a requirement to include elective abortions next because abortion is often framed in a cloak of being a woman’s “health issue” instead of being a woman’s social and cultural depravity. Obviously to use tax dollars or require insurance companies to charge premiums to subscribers to pay for the culture of death violates the religious beliefs of the public. Service to the poor should never include the killing of their infants in the womb.
The clear-sighted analysis provided by Dr. Wiker in his article on social programs, cuts through the obfuscation and confusion that layers the issue. I especially appreciated his definition and treatment of the word, “charity” as it is interpreted under government programs, as opposed to private application. In the government version, the word is simply a synonym for “entitlement,” the aspects of “holiness” and “gratitude” entirely missing. It is only in the the personal and private version that the true character of “charity” is evidenced.
Well written article!
“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…” CCC 1883
This extends across borders, as well. In particular, I reference Melinda Gates’ initiative to advance “family planning” in Africa, as well as globally. With the same amount of money, imagine how much clean water, food, education, and infrastructure could be provided to these underserved Africans. They do not need a “so-called Catholic” billionaire providing them with contraceptives, many of whom are truly devout, practicing Catholics. We see how well contraception availability has worked in the U.S. with the decline of marriage and family, and with abortions in the millions…abortion having become a convenient form of contraception.
What is it going to take? +Please pray for all of humanity.+
@David Buddle
“I’ve wondered whether supporting the federal government’s programs to help the poor actually answers the Gospel imperative to feed people who are poor.”
Where is the “Gospel imperative” in the Gospel that you speak of.
On a side note: if the Church relegates to the government (specially this governemnt that is hostile towards Christianity) the care of the poor, the elderly and the children, then we relinquish our capacity to spread the message of Jesus Christ with each and every person we serve. Governemtn can never take the place of the human touch. And this message of love is what society needs more than a handout.
The simplest way I can explain this is using the well known phrase: “give a man a fish, you feed him for a day. Teach him how to fish, and he eats his whole life”. Both actions accomplish feeding (caring for someone), but the life outcome in both scenarios could not be more opposite. Obama expouses “giving fish”, which Romney espouses “teaching how to fish”.
Thank you for this post. I’ve wondered whether supporting the federal government’s programs to help the poor actually answers the Gospel imperative to feed people who are poor. I look forward to more posts on this topic.
Thanks for this insightful article! Do you know a good source for the history of the state’s programs leading up to the point we are at now in the USA?
Generally in Section 8 & other assisted housing programs, even the boyfriend/father of the children can’t live with the family or the mom will lose her housing voucher for having “unauthorized persons” in the home.(Assuming the mom qualified for housing under her income/status alone.)
Shacking up isn’t a perfect option, but at least there would be some adult male presence in the home & possibly less involvement in gangs, premarital sex, etc by the children left home on their own with no dad.
I guess you’ve read the Moynihan report from back in the mid-sixties?
Thank you for your clear understanding of subsidiarity and how it’s been abused by so many including our very own Church. Even the best of intentions become tainted once easy money is available, no wonder the USCCB is members of Jim Wallis’ Circle of Protection to keep entitlements coming when Catholic Charities gets over 4 billion a year mostly from the gov’t.
Join the Discussion
We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words. By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines. Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words. Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.
Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.