Well said! Thanks for the reminder. :)

“If men were *angels…” is the James Madison quote.

I feel like the moral and the economic are too often mixed with one another in Catholic theology, as if economics is not a social science on its own, but is a sub-branch of morality. Certainly, like medicine, economics has moral dimensions and aspects and implications, but it remains a science with its own principles and structure that morality ought not to encroach upon, lest it be reduced to moralism.

I struggle with certain parts of Papal Encyclicals in the Social Justice tradition that seem to base moral arguments for economic issues, without understanding the economic issues in the first place. Popularum Progressio comes to mind about government - to - government transfers of wealth.

oh well. Praise Christ.

AMDGomer: I would recommend The Church and the Market by Thomas Woods.  Woods differentiates between the fallible economic opinions of the Pope and his infallible declarations on faith and morals.  As Marks points out, there is a legitimate diversity of opinion on economic and government matters.

Everything Mark has written in this article is correct, and I agree with him for the most part. Nevertheless, I would still like to defend “political decentralization.” Quickly, the reason one should favor this principle is because political power has an inexorable tendency to centralize, and as this happens, governmental institutions shift from serving citizenry to serving themselves. It is necessary that there be some sort of counter-balancing force against this. Since there doesn’t appear to be a “natural” force which does this, people themselves must be this force. Is this the Catholic position? No, because there is no “Catholic” position. Should Catholics support it? I tend towards “yes,” but that would require a longer response. I also recommend Thomas E. Woods, Jr.‘s book, “The Church and the Market.” Thanks for the article, Mark!

How could any Catholic recommend Woods on this issue? You may as well recommend Nancy Pelosi on abortion public policy. The Popes are clear contra Woods:

“We lay down the principle long since clearly established by Leo XIII that it is Our right and Our duty to deal authoritatively with social and economic problems. It is not of course for the Church to lead men to transient and perishable happiness only, but to that which is eternal. Indeed “the Church believes that it would be wrong for her to inferfere without just cause in such earthly concerns”; but she never can relinquish her God-given task of interposing her authority, not indeed in technical matters, for which she has neither the equipment nor the mission, but in all those that have a bearing on moral conduct. For the deposit of truth entrusted to Us by God, and Our weighty office of propagating, interpreting and urging in season and out of season the entire moral law, demand that both social and economic questions be brought within Our supreme jurisdiction, in so far as they refer to moral issues” [Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, no. 41].

Woods claims that this is an abuse of power on the part of the Popes. Well I prefer to be a part of a Catholic Church run by Popes, but perhaps others feel Woods, who has zero competency in this matter, is to believed against ALL the Popes of the Twentieth Century, who spoke precisely to this issue. I will admit, however, that Woods is an honest dissenter. He openly admits his disagreement with the Popes on this issue.

@AMDGomer: You have to realise, however, that in traditional Catholic thought (at least Thomistic thought), economics is in a very real sense merely a sub-discipline of morals, or, as Aristotle would say, the later is architectonic in its relation to the former.  The reason for this is that morals is the study of human action *qua* human action, just as metaphysics is the study of being qua being or phenomenology is the study of consciousness qua consciousness.  Any economic act, therefore, insofar as it is human, necessarily falls under the scope of morals in an at least virtual sense, whereas, since not all human action is economic (thanks be to God!), the converse does not hold, just as the study of any specific variety of being falls under the scope of metaphysics and the study of any specific variety of consciousness falls under the scope of phenomenology.

That being said, *of course* economics is not purely reducible to morals or that the moralist is as such qualified to make judgements concerning specific economic matters, just as the architect is not as such qualified to judge concerning the engineering of a particular stained-glass window in a cathedral he is planning.  Nevertheless, just as the engineer’s work necessarily derives from and is subordinate to the designs of the architect, so do morals ground the first guiding principles of economics.

@ChrisSarsfield: Woods praises the Popes with whom he disagrees and makes sure to differentiate between fallible and infallible pronouncements.

Mark, whenever you get real nit-picky like this it means that you have found that Catholic teaching supports some conservative position.  Nits or not, smaller government is more in accordance with Church teaching.

No.  When I get nitpicky, it because somebody is trying to take part of Catholic tradition and use it to accessorize pre-conceived ideologies.  Believe me, I’m all in favor of shrinking the state, which is a bloated and absurd behemoth.  I’m four square in favor of ending Great Society experiments both at home (where Democrats love to conduct them) and abroad (where nation-building Republicans like to conduct them).  My point here is not “More Bloated Government” but rather “Libertarianism Does Not Equal Catholicism”.

My criticisms of conservative ideologies proposing themselves as substitutes for or identical with Catholic faith are due to the fact that, with the typical readership of the Register, that’s the typical way in which the conversation tends to skew.  In other Catholic circles (say, the Reporter) the tendency is skew toward lefty ideology as the substitute for the Faith.  I don’t get a lot of readers here who are ready to declare liberation theology as the only thing “real Catholics” could possibly believe.  I do get a lot of people who reduce the faith to libertarianism or Catholic social teaching to abortion and nothing else.  So, I have to compensate for reader biases.  If you send me a note, Margaret, saying “Catholic for a Free Choice is the bee’s knees!” or “Marxism is perfectly Catholic!” I assure you I will nit pick these grand assertions to death.

We would all do well to detach the idea of subsidiarity from government.  We would also do well to detach the idea of solidarity from government.

Let’s look at one particular model—Mother Teresa.

Mother Teresa did NOT look to government to take care of the poor.  She did not see government as the answer.  Instead, she went into the streets herself to serve the poorest of the poor.  This is subsidiarity.

But, she also did not seek to do it all alone.  Mother Teresa recognized that we are all interdependent, so she turned to everyday people, private citizens, to help her, to contribute food, clothing, prayers, etc.  This is solidarity.

Jesus Christ came and preached to people.  He speaks now to people, to individual persons.  He says to YOU, “I thirst.”  He asks YOU to give Him a drink.  He did not then and does not now look to government to be the savior of people or for government to help Him in that work of salvation.

Subsidiarity and solidarity are about YOU and your neighbors, whether the government is big or whether it is small.  Subsidiarity and solidarity are about the individual and about society.  Government and organizations and corporations and other impersonal entities enter into that calculus only fairly far down the line.

As Bender pointed out, Subsidiarity is not just about decentralized vs centralized government, but also government vs private charity.  When a private organization like the Church can effectively address an issue, the government ought to take a secondary role or stay out of it entirely.  I don’t disagree with Mark, I’m just adding my two cents.

The Catechism:
2431 The responsibility of the state. “Economic activity, especially the activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical, or political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency and efficient public services. Hence the principal task of the state is to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. . . . Another task of the state is that of overseeing and directing the exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary responsibility in this area belongs not to the state but to individuals and to the various groups and associations which make up society.“216

@Bender: We would all do well to detach the idea of subsidiarity from government.  We would also do well to detach the idea of solidarity from government.

Not sure “detach” is the word I would use. “Distinguish” maybe. Both solidarity and subsidiarity imply governmental structures. But neither concept is limited to governmental structures. Indeed, subsidiarity points out different kinds of authority as well as different levels.

So, for example, a teacher and a parent both have authority over a child’s education. The teacher’s authority derives from expertise in the subject matter, and the parent’s from natural responsibility for the child’s well-being. In a democratic republic such as America, the government also has an interest, since it is responsible to provide for a well-educated citizenry. Yet these kinds of authority will ideally work together, not against one another. Subsidiarity shows us that the teacher and the government (ranging from a local school board to the federal Department of Education) are there to support the parents in their responsibility to raise the child.

Another example is the authority an employer has over an employee. That authority exists to support the employee in A) producing a good or service of benefit to the community, and B) providing a living for the employee’s family.

Sadly, corporations and teachers and governments (both local and national) have forgotten that they exist to serve, rather than to accumulate power or profits.

Bender’s point is well taken.  One of things missing from most of the “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” discussions is the actual text of the Gospels.  Our Lord was very clear - “YOU give YOUR all to the poor”, “YOU pick up YOUR cross and follow me”, “YOU feed and clothe the poor”, etc.  Not in a single place did Our Lord ever say, “OK, boys, grab your swords and head over to Mr. Hiandmitey Richman’s house and take his money and give it to the poor.” (Which is the way of taxes.)  The simple truth is that we each are responsible, not some ethereal gov’t, neither local nor federal.  Our Lord pinned the duty on us to do His Will and His Work, to preach it, live it and love it.  We are to convert others to the task, not force them at gunpoint as seems to be the wont of far too many.

Can we say “both / and”? The Holy Father has written that the state has an obligation to see to the needs of the poor who have not received sufficient help from their families, parishes, or communities to lead lives of human dignity. I believe the state does have a role in assisting the poor, especially the poor who struggle with multiple, complex issues that would quickly exhaust the resources of even the most dedicated ordinary home or family: serious mental illness, drug addiction, chronic serious illness. These are consuming, draining, wearying, month-in, month-out, soul-searing, gut-wrenching problems that may never seem to get better. Families who want to raise their other children in happy, normal homes, or to enjoy a peaceful week-long vacation trip during retirement, may need to say good-bye to these aspirations if forced to assume primary responsibility for such poor, sick loved ones without government assistance. Although God can and does work miracles in these situations, and although small communities can and do come together to address them, much of the time the needs of sufferers from these conditions can be adequately addressed by dedicated professionals and by dedicated facilities. These cost money, a great deal of money, the kind of money that thus far only the government can provide.

I do believe, however, that there is a great deal of room for Catholics to create and operate organizations right at the parish level to give help and outreach to parishioners as well as others in the community who need assistance. Even poor persons receiving government assistance, for example, in nursing homes paid for by Medicaid, would benefit from receiving friendly visitors. Even homeless mentally ill persons living in government shelters would benefit from a wood-working class taught by Catholics, or visits from Catholics who bring especially trained pets to be cuddled and played with by the ill. And for those with less serious problems we Catholics can form organizations and do a great deal of substantive assistance - child-care, teaching ESOL classes, teaching life skills, providing legal and financial expertise, other practical assistance, etc.

I would also like to note that, as much as I agree with the idea that too powerful and too centralized a government is pernicious, I also believe that small, local communities, if too isolated, can, in fact, become loci of much dysfunction and suffering. Think of _The Color Purple_ and _To Kill a Mockingbird_ - in which vulnerable persons living in isolated areas are prey to powerful, prejudiced locals, who, because there is little federal presence, are free to abuse others. I realize the feds abuse, too. My point is I wish the locals and the feds were both powerful enough to provide a check and balance against each other. I think when it comes to government power of any kind, we need all the checks and balances we can get.

Sorry people - as much as I hate big government, I don’t think the Church is going to specify to us the way in which we organize our government.  We’ve been better off in the US than in totalitarian regimes Christians have endured.  I think this is something the Church has to hold back on.  Do we really want to condemn our brothers and sisters for seeing politics in their own color of the holy light?

We would all do well to detach the idea of subsidiarity from government.  We would also do well to detach the idea of solidarity from government.
 
No, no, no, no, no! This is just the “conservative” form of Enlightenment liberalism. In truth, and according to St. Thomas, there is no necessary distinction of solidarity from government. It’s just that where men share a common vision of life and are more virtuous you do not need government power to organize, order, and direct the common good. In such a case, people put themselves voluntarily under the authority of someone (often the church) who most clearly articulates the common good. When that happens, you avoid the opportunities for misuse of power that come with government, but if abuse of power is a reason for depriving an institution of any authority, then the church should be first in line for neutering and the English have it right.
 
In any case, this sort of argument completely misses the distinction between justice and charity. Making sure your people do not die in the gutter is a matter of justice, and God will judge Indian society for allowing it at all. To care for the dying of India was not the responsibility of one Albanian nun, and so _Mother Theresa’s_ actions go above and beyond justice and therefore demonstrate charity. But we in our own communities must, must, must understand that justice (_not_ charity) calls us to take care of the people in our own community, and that therefore, feeding the homeless on our own doorstep, supporting single mothers in our own neighborhood, and lending the helping hand to the poor of our own cities is _not_ charity, but justice.
 
Justice is what the community is for. That’s why we live together: to do justice to one another. Charity is going above and beyond justice. The problem is that American Christians, individualists to a man, do not understand that they owe things to their neighbor in justice, and so see every outreach as an adventure in charity. It’s not.

” . . .if abuse of power is a reason for depriving an institution of any authority, then the church should be first in line for neutering and the English have it right.”

And who would do the depriving? The state? As personified by that murderous, bloated monster Henry VIII . . .? who established a church that has now de-evolved into a watered-down secular ethical society which meets in really, really beautiful halls (formerly Catholic churches) and with great music? What a solution!

Loyal sons of Holy Mother Church neither propose nor applaud the idea of depriving Holy Mother Church of authority because some of her members abuse their power, as wrong and lamentable as such abuse is, and we are right to call such abuse what it is when we see it. Instead, loyal sons of the Church propose *authentic* reform. And the Church has undergone authentic reforms before, and will do so again.

Marion,
 
I never said I thought the Church should be deprived of authority, only that wicked people in the Church, just like wicked people in government, have, at times, abused the power and authority granted them. But so what? Abusus non tollit usum.
 
In any case, neither the objection nor the reply touch my point that the community (through its representative) has been given the authority by God to order and direct its members for the accomplishment of the common good. The fantasy that neutering the government of all authority to speak for the common good will somehow result in the best possible arrangement is a common one among Enlightenment liberals like us “conservatives.” That situation only works with a citizenry that shares already the same values and vision of the common good, and it is manifest that the last 200 years of American history have involved a steady destruction of common Christian values in the name of “freedom”.

Jon, beyond misunderstanding my point, you are conflating “community” with “government.”  They are not necessarily and always the same thing.  Community and society exist prior to and independent of government.  Sometimes they can be in line with each other, and work together, but not always.

Moreover, community and society are made up of persons.  “Government” on the other hand, is all too often an impersonal force.

I advocate for strong, centralized govt. but one that doesn’t take care of every little issue.
The federal government should take care of defense/security, building infrastructure projects too expensive for states or businesses to construct, maintaining the currency, and the general welfare of the public. The govt should continue to support the states in areas such as disaster relief when the states and private organizations are overwhelmed and request federal assistance. It should be strong in the sense that it is supreme to the states and can get the job done efficiently, but weak in the sense that the federal government won’t regulate every little mundane thing in life.
The states and localities should take care of those things closer to their level: education, local policing, fire, zoning. They should also handle social issues such as marriage and abortion. The states shouldn’t handle all of the issues that are at their level though. For example, the states shouldn’t handle the Asian carp because they don’t possess the expertise of the Army Corps of Engineers.  Also, these issues tend to extend beyond one state’s borders.

Mark, thanks for your post, I’m not always a fan but I think you really knocked this one out of the park. Great job!

Very well stated.  I agree on all points, and the Chesterton quote was a nice finish.

This is a thoughtful piece with one major flaw. It is dangerous, maybe even profoundly naive in the context of current developments in the U.S., to suggest that the federal government (or any federal government for that matter) might be a higher moral authority than almost any local authority. A more thoughtful comment on local lunacy might have been to suggest recourse to other branches of local government like the court system or the local executive branches to resolve the issue.

In the past 40 years or so, all three branches of our federal government have combined to seriously erode the moral fiber of this country and have particularly put Catholics and other Christians in the cross hairs. These groups now stand on the brink of active persecution. Health Care (Medicaid, SCHIP, and the recent government trammeling of our liberty and religious beliefs in the 2010 Health Care Bill) and Education (massive federal government intrusion into education combined with egregiously amoral cultural leadership from the NEA) are but two examples of this malignant trend.

Pope John Paul the Great,  whose encyclical incandescently illuminates the principle of subsidiarity, and who grew up and suffered under a viciously repressive communist regime, included the following quote in the encyclical (and I believe he was pulling punches in his choice of words)

“[The Welfare 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.”
        -Pope John Paul II, Centesimus Annus

The quote eerily foreshadows the contemporary public policy developments in this country.

If one reads the “US Constitution” including the Bill of Rights, and also the “Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition” in their entirety, there are no conflicts.
Both require “SUBSIDIARITY” - the rights of the States and Individuals (CCC 1883, 1885, 1894, 2209, 2211).
Both are opposed to:  Socialism, Communism, pure Capitalism, Collectivism, and excessive intervention by the Government.  (CCC 1883, 1885, 2425, 1907)
Unfortunately, too many US Politicians (and leftist liberals) want to take over the rights of the States and the rights of the People, and do not adhere to the Constitution.
Rather than agreeing (or disagreeing) with the author of this article since he mixes many of his own opinions with the CCC - - - -
I recommending reading the Constitution and the CCC for yourselves.
There can be no “Social Justice” without “SUBSIDIARITY”, only oppression of the people.

Jeg kan godt lide at læse www.ncregister.com og jeg opfatte dette website fik nogle virkelig nyttige ting på det!