I’ve been talking in recent posts about the Church’s principle of subsidiarity, the principle 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).
It’s now time to talk about another Catholic principle, solidarity. Whereas the principle of subsidiarity is generally ignored, the principle of solidarity is generally misunderstood.
Solidarity, in emphasizing the concern for the poor, is often taken to imply the Church’s hearty affirmation of socialism and/or the welfare state. That is as much a mistake, as to assume that the Church’s affirmation of private property and economic initiative implies the Church’s hearty affirmation of liberal capitalism.
The truth is that the Church stands with the truth; that is, it stands above all such economic or political systems and judges them according to the truth about human beings, the human good and God.
And so, in the words of Blessed Pope John Paul II, “the Church’s social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 21). For that reason, the Church also recognizes the dangers of non-Marxist collectivism, i.e., what might be called liberal socialism.
As the Catechism states, “A system that ‘subordinates the basic rights of the individuals and of groups to the collective organization of production’ is contrary to human dignity” (2424). Such collectivism violates the principle of subsidiarity stated above.
Pope Benedict XVI, in the 2005 encyclical Deus Caritas Est, writes, “The State which would provide everything, absorbing everything into itself, would ultimately become a mere bureaucracy incapable of guaranteeing the very thing which the suffering person - every person - needs: namely, loving personal concern. We do not need a State which regulates and controls everything, but a State which, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, generously acknowledges and supports initiatives arising from the different social forces and combines spontaneity with closeness to those in need” (8).
Solidarity does not equal socialism. To state the obvious — no mean achievement these days — the Church wouldn’t support a view of solidarity that violated subsidiarity, any more than she would affirm a view of “rights” that included the “right” to abortion.
But again, the Church stands with truth, not with the one or the other of the prevalent views or parties of the day. The Church asserts that it is just as contrary to human dignity, and hence just as immoral, to have a system that “makes profit the exclusive norm and ultimate end of economic activity.” (Catechism, 2424).
In short, the Church stands above both liberal socialism and liberal capitalism, and offers corrections to both in the light of the whole truth about humanity, and what the economic order should really be about — which is, to repeat, serving the whole truth about humanity, the true human good.
So, if solidarity isn’t socialism, what is it?
The principle of solidarity was put forth in the context of the Church’s concern about the global inequalities of human economic development, and was elucidated primarily by Pope John Paul II in his 1987 encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (from which I’ve quoted above), written to mark the 20th anniversary of Pope Paul VI’s encyclical Populorum Progressio.
In it, John Paul was just as concerned with the problem of “superdevelopment” as he was with underdevelopment, with the rampant consumerism and waste of rich nations and the dire conditions in poor nations.
The focus of solidarity is our common humanity, especially insofar as we recognize, in our growing awareness of the condition of others around the world, that our common humanity is more fundamental than mere national boundaries. Our very real interdependence makes us aware that what we do — or what we fail to do — affects other people whom we’ll never meet, and this should awaken a sense of moral responsibility among those who have far more than they need.
In the Pope’s words, this “interdependence, sensed as a system determining relationships in the contemporary world, in its economic, cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral category” should create “a moral and social attitude,” which, as a virtue, can be called “solidarity” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 37).
The key to understanding solidarity is that it is a virtue. It is not, as the Pope made clear, “a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far” (38). Even less is it a governmental structure or economic system or bureaucratic redistribution program.
It is something in us. Like all virtues, solidarity concerns first and foremost the formation of our personal character. One develops the virtue of solidarity by creating “a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38).
We’ve got to go more deeply into the difference it makes to understand solidarity as a virtue (rather than another name for socialism), and also, how it is connected to the principle of subsidiarity. And I’ll do just that in my next post.
Comments
Post a Comment
Excellent piece - thank you for your work, Dr. Wiker.
Yes, thanks so much for this.
Bravo. If only Catholic democrats would read this and see the light.
..was the building of the interstate highway system a sin?
..was funding apparently obscure basic science on plasmids for decades that gave rise to the biomedical medical revolution of today, a sin?
..so was the elimination of small pox a sin?
..was sending a man on the moon a sin?
..was sending a rover to mars a sin?
..was finding better ways to treat childhood cancer a sin?
..was building the Hoover Dam a sin?
…was building the Panama canal a sin?
…was the war effort in the 1940’s a sin?
…was creating National Park service a sin?
..was eradicating Rinderpest and bovine tuberculosis a sin?
..is giving medical care to all children a sin?
..was building the Golden Gate or the Brooklyn bridge a sin?
According to the author, all these acts are, by his dogma, “socialist” sins.
If the best way to provide cancer care for children is not via piece meal charities, but by a well organized networks of hospitals, will the author still choose the first and impose it on others, because it follows his new dogma? According to this new dogma maker, it is better that kid die of cancer, because if they are treated in these networks, they are part of “socialism”, a “sin”, according to his Fatwa.
To me the answer is simple: all the above are not sins, but they would be meaningless if the price is greater evil. And currently that is the case, with 1.2 million abortions. That is the problem. Abortions are the result of both private and government efforts, working together in “subsidiarity” and “solidarity”. So even “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” are meaningless if people are immoral. What counts is how we follow God’s commandments: to Love Him and neighbor. Those commandments are repeated 9 times in the New Testament. Love tells use what ever works best, not what ever fits one’s dogma.
A.M.D.G.
This series has been outstanding. Thank you very much, Dr. Wiker.
Catholic faith and values do not support unhindered, free-for-all Ayn Rand capitalism, either.
US citizens give about $300 billion to charity yearly. But medicaid alone if over $400 billion a year. Charity cannot come up with an additional $400 billion a year to replace medicaid. The Vatican has 1 billion in savings. It could not pay medicaid’s bills for one day out of 365. This charity delusion is further deflated by what the Vatican gave to Haiti, Japan, and Iraq last year…$200,000 each. It’s a nice gesture. But there are surgeries on one person that cost more than that.
The early Church took care of widows and orphans. Now social security does because medical bills plus all else for two widows with children would be impossible for a parish….who on average gave $3600 each to Haiti after the quake.
What is “socialism?” Is it Social Security, Medicare, and Unemployment Insurance Laws? This blogger, Benjamin Wiker, Ph.D., says the Church does not approve of “socialism.” But he never says what socialism is.
The Tea Party people, and many other prominent conservatives, are defining socialism as including such things as Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, Minimum Wage Laws, Child Labor Laws, Antitrust Laws, Inheritance Taxation, Medicare, Medicaid, Laws Giving Collective Bargaining Rights to Labor Union, and so on. The Tea Party people and many conservatives and libertarians (including many prominent Catholic lay persons in these movements) call for the immediate elimination of all federal laws that create these programs or rules.
Virtually no Republican will support a Minimum Wage law or Worker Collective Bargaining Law under any circumstances, even though Catholic Social Doctrine is very supportive of a legislative mandate for these things. It was a Catholic Labor Union Movement in Poland that ended up bringing down the whole USSR empire. See the problem?
Political Conservatives, perhaps this blogger included, toss around the world “socialism” to mean many things that are viewed very positively by official Social Doctrine of the Catholic Church.
Thus, the minute you hear a Catholic condemning “socialism,” there is an immediate need to interrogate the speaker about exactly what they mean by that. Make them be very specific. If they won’t, you can assume they are trying to deceive you, and that probably they are conscious dissenters from the Magisterium of the Catholic Church.
Fr. John Corapi, right before his scandalous fall, was touring the country speaking before rallies against “socialism.”
The conservative political party that gained power in Germany in the 1930s had as its main issue the rejection of “socialism.”
Matthew 7:15: ““Beware of false prophets.”
Pope Benedict XVI has spoken approvingly of socialism. “In many respects, democratic socialism was and is close to Catholic social doctrine and has in any case made a remarkable contribution to the formation of a social consciousness.” http://josephcardinalratzinger.blogspot.com/2008/04/europe-and-its-discontents.html#
This matter of “socialism” is a complex one. Beware of the over-simplifiers. As a tool to win elections and sell ideas and programs, over-simplification is a very powerful tool. But great calamity can came of that, as we saw in Europe in the period 1920s-1940s.
It is a historical fact that the Catholic Bishops in the U.S. were generally very supportive of the New Deal programs of the Franklin Roosevelt presidency. That was a long time before the time when, according to Political Conservatives, the U.S. bishops became so liberal on Social and Economic Justice matters that their teachings can no longer be trusted on those matters.
Dear Dr. Benjamin Wiker, our honorable blogger, please be an educator. Please help inform our consciences, rather than joining and lending support to emotion-based and fear-based mass movements of mainly led by non-Catholic right wing radicals on talk radio.
Did not Pope Paul VI state that the right to private property is not an absolute right?
Tom,
Excellent post.
@mike robertson:If only Catholic democrats would read this and see the light.
Funny—thing - I was just thinking—If only Catholic REPUBLICANS would read this and see the light.
Catholic Social teaching does not advocate crony capitalism or socialism. The nany state leads to dependency and that is not a good foundation for a just society. Right before Christ started his ministry after fasting 40 days in the desert, Christ rejects Satan proposal to depend on him by responding “it’s also written, man does not live of bread alone” Open markets unrestricted capitalism is not compatible with Catholic Social teachings either. Catholic social teachings fall in the middle. We must always look and care for our poor but to take that mission and make it into some sort of welfare system is missguided. Last year our federal government collectected by their own records 1.03 trillion dollars for the poor, that means each poor person got $63, 000 and therefore are no longer poor, well the poor probably got $21,000, what happen to the rest of the money? can we say government corruption just as we can say there is corruption in the markets? absolutely yes.
Post a Comment
By submitting this form, you give The National Catholic Register permission to publish this comment. Comments will be published at our discretion, and may be edited for clarity and length. For best formatting, please limit your response to one paragraph and don't hit "enter" to force line breaks.
The time period for commenting on this article has expired.