Terrific post!!  Something I have been trying to articulate for some time.  I also like to point out that the gift of charity or agape in the Bible is a connected love.  True charity cannot be realized by having the higher order institution do it on your behalf.  This is especially true in a society that has redefined freedom of religion as a separation of Church and State.  In this case, government strips the love out of it and gives only the material support.  That is not how the Church was intended to function.  Your example of the family is perfectly on target.  When our children are in need, we wouldn’t say “I voted for someone to take care of that for you”.  In our larger family, the Church, we likewise shouldn’t say that either.  We should be living it out at the local level.

I like this post, thank you for explaining this topic. I especially like the inclusion of the cosmological basis on which subsidiarity is founded.

What would you say to the counterargument: Yes, it’s your moral duty to provide food/shelter for your family. It’s also your duty to provide safety. should we then oppose collectivist police and fire forces in the same way we fear government assistance for the poor, so that a husband can better live out his moral duty? And in the case of material support, what if the husband cannot find work, through no fault of his own, should we continue to respect his moral space and allow him and his family to starve out in the cold?

Excellent, excellent post.  You do a great job of articulating subsidiarity, and I look forward to your future posts as you connect them to current discussions in the United States. 

I currently live outside the US as a missionary, and I see what happens when government has not either the will or resources to assist the poor.  It is horrible, and people suffer and die needlessly.  However, a one-size-fits-all solution is not the answer for my home nation of the United States.  The Church provides a great solution. 

As I live outside the US, I do not get great news coverage.  But from what I have seen, Catholics who weigh in on social policies (including our bishops) do not mention this third path.  And this is the compromise that might bring about healing in the face of politics of division that currently harms America.

Nicely worded.  I would appreciate it if, in your next article about this topic, you would give some word space to the fact that subsidiarity is not a blanket commandment but a general rule and that, within the concept of subsidiarity is the reasonable and logical provision that, should a necessary function be impeded or drastically curtailed by a forced move from the national to the local level, this would be AGAINST the rule of subsidiarity.  Subsidiarity, being an elegant and multi-layered concept, allows that some functions are best left in the national arena.  In the case of assistance to the poor, for instance, history has proven that leaving all matters of assistance to the local level results in increased poverty.  This is the reason why Social Security and other helpful programs were originally nationalized.  There were all kinds of local schemes designed to help the poor, and this system did not work.  Grandma starved to death or went to the poor house.  People need to know that subsidiarity is not a blanket command to be followed in all circumstances no matter the result.  It is more important to actually HELP the poor than it is to abide by a philosophical point of view that leaves them starving.

I think of it this way: When we stand before God and and declare all the good we have done for people in our social programs and through taxation, God might say, “Yes. It is true you gave an awful lot in taxes and helped the less fortunate. But, you did you did not give it willingly. In fact, you complained week after week after week and condemned welfare recipients: widows, orphans, and the disadvantaged, and yes, the downright lazy. In fact, even as you unwillingly gave of your finances, the middle man in the government took the largest chunk. And as you complained bitterly about your neighbor’s reliance on your hard earned money to another neighbor. The other neighbor was working for that government entity which got the lion’s share. She received most of your money.  So, now you stand before me puffed with charity, when I can clearly see that there is no charity within you because you did not give of your own freewill.”

Being forced to provide for others on an ever increasing scale, and taxed to infinity, does not display the charity within us. It deprives us of resources we need, and the opportunity to do the right and moral thing for our neighbor; which can lead to complacency, complaint, and bitterness.  Once complacency sets in, we give up and join the ranks on welfare. What is the point in working when we can get for free anyway? Why support others and work this hard, when we can be taken care off too?

I see this is Ireland.  Hardworking people pay for someone who is taking advantage of the system (some work and claim the dole too. They get ‘around the system’).  Those who abuse the system cheer each other on, because they think they are getting back what they paid in.  They ignore the hardships of the current workers who are their benefactors. And these workers do not report them because they are ‘sticking it to the man’.  They are ‘the man’.

At The Crossroads: A Vision Of Hope by Bishop Thomas Doran describes the law even more clearly: “Judeo-Christian society says, ‘What is most important in a truly human society is the human person.’ Obviously we cannot all create our own sewage departments and our own fire departments or post office departments, so human beings have to form societies in order to get those types of things done. In so doing, it also is important to resist the tendency which is all too common in human life to let somebody else do everything, to cast all of our hopes and all of our fears on somebody else. The principle of subsidiarity holds that no higher society should do what a lower one can. In other words, no society or government should do what the individual can do for himself or herself. That is to preserve each person’s dignity and promote the good of society. Those things which individuals cannot do for themselves, the next higher level of the social organization should do. That is how a healthy, balanced society functions. There is a certain solidarity in human communities which hold that the well-being of every person is the first and foremost concern and which are made up of individuals who have helping one another as their goal. All societies must have this in them or they fail, as we have seen time and time again throughout history.” (More at http://www.johngile.com/crossroads.html—At The Crossroads: A Vision Of Hope, ISBN: 978091941266)

What I see here I think is broad agreement on the “ends” or the goal of a just society.  However, we have to be clear that we are free to disagree on the means so long as they are just as well.  We must distinguish between what is a sure outcome and what is a debatable outcome.  Let’s be clear that reducing social programs, modifying social programs, etc does not mean instant death in the same way that legalizing abortion does.  There are many varying views on the best means to feed the hungry, clothe the naked and shelter the homeless.  And some do not necessarily include a broad government responsibility.  This does not mean that such people do not care.  The issue of Social Security is a perfect example of a program that has led to a false security.  Just this year, it has surpassed the point of positive return with a declaration that recipients are now receiving less than what they paid in.  Additionally, because of the sexual revolution, not one nation in Europe or in North America has a reproduction rate high enough to replace the population.  Less incoming workers are supporting growing retirement populations.  The *only* thing that distinguishes Social Security from Bernie Madoff’s scheme is that the government has the power to prevent people from cashing out.  If we think the present system is working, consider that ever since we declared a war on poverty, not one single administration has reduced spending and no one that I know of has argued that poverty is actually decreasing in America.  The reason?  I’ll leave parting word to our current Holy Father in his book Jesus of Nazareth: “The aid offered by the West to developing countries has been purely technically and materially based, and not only has left God out of hte picture, but has driven men away from God.  And this aid, proudly claiming to know better, is itself what first turned the third world into what we mean today by that term.  It has thrust aside indigenous religious, ethical, and social structures and filled the resulting vacuum with its technocratic mind-set.  The idea was that we could turn stones into bread; instead, our aid has only given stones in place of bread.  The issue is the primacy of God.  ... History cannot be detached from God and then run smoothly on purely material lines.”  This completely gets to the root of why a government that insists on removing God from society cannot do His work.  I echo the other sentiments and ask “are we really helping the poor out of poverty and closer to God or are we helping the poor towards a mindset that they don’t need God and only need a “caring” government?”

Another fact that needs to be considered in the plethora of information on this topic is that much of the government aid goes to the working poor whose wages are not enough for their basic survival.  If corporations were paying a fair wage, millions of people would drop off the government roles.

Since 1973, corporations have suppressed the salaries of wage earners.  While CEO salaries have increased 435% in the ensuing years, and corporate profits have increased 250%, wage earner salaries have stalled at only 26%, which ultimately led to the situation in which we find ourselves at present: a WIDE disparity of income between the rich and poor, the disintegration of the middle class, and increased need for government assistance.  (statistics from Dept. of Consumer Affairs)

Applying the concepts of social justice and subsidiarity in this scenario, the solution is obvious.  Increase the minimum wage and put pressure on the corporations to give a fair wage to the working man, who can then take care of himself and his family without having to appeal to government agencies to put food on his table.

Hi, My name is Tavarres I’m a single parent of one Child recently are home caught fire & have left us homeless Im disabled and not able too help are Situation I have Tried seek help from Local organizations Only to be told we don’t have no funding are we can’t help a man with a Child I don’t have living relatives that we could live with although i do have a mouthly income it isvery limited & not enough for a deposit for us to live in a livable area please reply back if you could help us or offer some advice Thank you and God bless.Tavarres Henderson

“the Church’s central economic principle, subsidiarity”

Not true - what about:

- Life and Dignity of the Human Person
- Option for the Poor and Vulnerable
- Dignity of Work and the Rights of Workers
- Care for God’s Creation
- Solidarity - remember that the next time you say OUR Father

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/seven-themes-of-catholic-social-teaching.cfm

Consider the teachings of Jesus. Does subsidiarity (as defined by Benjamin Wiker) feature as highly in Jesus’ teachings as the items in the list above (from the US Catholic Bishops)?

You have also selectively and I believe misleadingly quoted from the Catechism - look at the headings for the context:
LIFE IN CHRIST
MAN’S VOCATION LIFE IN THE SPIRIT
THE HUMAN COMMUNION
THE PERSON AND SOCIETY
THE COMMUNAL CHARACTER OF THE HUMAN VOCATION

CCC 1879 “The human person needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition but a requirement of his nature.”

Catholicism is not a privatized Protestant “God and me”. The Church is not just a collection of like-minded individuals.

“The state, like a benevolent dictator, could provide food, clothing, and shelter for my wife and children, but in doing so, it would violate my “moral space,” the space in which I have the opportunity and responsibility of using my freedom to become morally good.”

So do you propose that if there is no work there should be destitution, starvation and justified theft instead of social security?

The USCCB explains

Subsdiarity ... does not mean, however, that the government that governs least, governs best. Rather it defines good government intervention as that which truly “helps” other social groups contribute to the common good by directing, urging, restraining, and regulating economic activity as “the occasion requires and necessity demands”.

http://www.usccb.org/beliefs-and-teachings/what-we-believe/catholic-social-teaching/call-to-family-community-and-participation.cfm

Please contact me through the National Catholic Register, Tavarres. I need your address and phone number. Your letter follows a pattern of similar letters which have proven to be bogus, but I would like to follow up with you.

Nothing in the law of subsidiarity is contrary to clothing the naked, sheltering the homeless, feeding the hungry, giving drink to the thirsty, visiting the sick and imprisoned, and burying the dead, Leo. That is either/or thinking, the error of logic called a false dilemma. Followers of Christ are called to recognize and honor the dignity of humans, all of whom are made in the image and likeness of God and all of whom elicit Christ’s admonition, “As you do for the least, you do for me.”

The law of subsidiarity calls us to recognize and honor the dignity of all humans also by safeguarding those who need our help from being imprisoned in a state of perpetual government dependence which reduces humans to slave-like subservience to bureaucracies and precludes full human development by fostering Passive Dependent Personality Disorder.

Passive Dependent Personality Disorder is a common psychiatric defect afflicting adults whose thinking is impaired from youth, leaving them bereft of a sense of personal responsibility and self-reliance. Their pattern of existence is surrender to and dependence upon others—individuals and government—to provide for their emotional and physical needs.

Passive Dependent Personality Disorder starts with a poor education, as succinctly described by Dr. M. Scott Peck in The Road Less Traveled & Beyond (pp. 27-28): “When we are young, our dependency on those who raise us shapes our thinking and what we learn. And given our lengthy dependence, we are at risk of developing thinking patterns that may become ingrained, even seemingly irreversible… 

“But it would be nonsense to presume that we are doomed. As adults, we no longer have to depend on others to tell us what to think or do… Dependency in physically healthy adults is pathological—it is sick, always a manifestation of mental illness or defect… known as Passive Dependent Personality Disorder. Such dependence is, at root, a disorder related to thinking—specifically, a resistance to thinking for ourselves.”

Government policies which expand and perpetuate dependency on government expand and perpetuate Passive Dependent Personality Disorder among citizens. They oppose and retard development of personal responsibility and self-reliance, reducing citizens to slave-like subservience to government. That is the direction in which Obama, Pelosi, and company are steering our nation. In November, citizens must decide if they want leaders who will take us farther down that road or leaders who will change direction.—www.citydesk.us

In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country.

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.

V. PARTICIPATION

a. Meaning and value

189. The characteristic implication of subsidiarity is participation[402], which is expressed essentially in a series of activities by means of which the citizen, either as an individual or in association with others, whether directly or through representation, contributes to the cultural, economic, political and social life of the civil community to which he belongs[403]. Participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good[404].

This cannot be confined or restricted to only a certain area of social life, given its importance for growth — above all human growth — in areas such as the world of work and economic activity, especially in their internal dynamics[405]; in the sectors of information and culture; and, more than anything else, in the fields of social and political life even at the highest levels. The cooperation of all peoples and the building of an international community in a framework of solidarity depends on this latter area[406]. In this perspective it becomes absolutely necessary to encourage participation above all of the most disadvantaged, as well as the occasional rotation of political leaders in order to forestall the establishment of hidden privileges. Moreover, strong moral pressure is needed, so that the administration of public life will be the result of the shared responsibility of each individual with regard to the common good.

I am impressed by the erudite comments on this conversation thread.  The level of Catholic education is quite high, and it is a pleasure to read.

As I get older, I tend to become more simple in my approach to life.  My bottom line:

Before social programs, when the church pews were filled, the poor went hungry, unclothed, unhoused and unhealthy.  For some time, we had poor houses that were wretched awful places.

Over the years, many social programs were privately proposed and adopted, but they all failed.

People did NOT step forward and take care of the poor.  We had plenty of subsidiarity along with our starvation.

It didn’t work then.  We have no reason to believe that it would work now when the pews are NOT filled and when “religious” people are spreading lies and calling the poor “lazy,” “unwilling to work,” and “resentful of the rich.”

In fact:

“Some conservative critics of federal social programs, including leading presidential candidates, are sounding an alarm that the United States is rapidly becoming an “entitlement society” in which social programs are undermining the work ethic and creating a large class of Americans who prefer to depend on government benefits rather than work.  A new CBPP analysis of budget and Census data, however, shows that more than 90 percent of the benefit dollars that entitlement and other mandatory programs[1] spend go to assist people who are elderly, seriously disabled, or members of working households — not to able-bodied, working-age Americans who choose not to work.  (See Figure 1.)  This figure has changed little in the past few years.”  [The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities]

With “religious” people spouting lies about the poor, criticizing them, etc., I have no confidence that those people will suddenly become charitable if America’s social programs were to be dismantled.  It did not work before, and it will not work now.

Subsidiarity does not demand that we handle everything locally, even if the peasants starve.

FROM THE CATECHISM:

2446 “Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs. The demands of justice must be satisfied first of all; that which is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity.”“When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice.”