First, a reminder that an important principle described in the Catechism of the Catholic Church is the principle of subsidiarity.
Check out No. 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 coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.’”
By the way, the quote is from Quadragesimo Anno, an encyclical put forth by Pope Pius XI.
In other words, don’t let a higher authority make decisions and meddle in issues that a lower authority can handle better, cheaper, faster and with more humanity.
A great philosopher could provide you with a complicated explanation of subsidiarity. But I’m just a regular Joe, so here is my description:
I live in Chicago and it is snowing — a lot. In the morning, to get my car out of the garage I’ll need to push the show off the drive way. I’ll do it myself with the help of a shovel and snow blower.
That’s the principle of subsidiarity in action. I take care of the immediate situation because I can do it best. I don’t expect the city, the county, the state or the federal government to shovel my driveway. If I’m too feeble or lazy to do the work myself, I can pay a kid down the street to do it — and since it is my driveway I don’t expect my neighbors to pay the kid for me.
The street at the end of my driveway is a different story. I expect the city to plow that, as do all my neighbors. We have paid taxes so our little community can own a couple plows and hire people to drive them. I don’t expect the county, state or federal government to do that job. So it continues: The county plows county roads, the state plows state roads and the federal government plows whatever it is responsible for, maybe the sidewalk around the White House.
The point is each level of “community” handles what it can best handle.
The opposite of subsidiarity is the principle of “upsidiarity.” You won’t find this in the catechism for two reasons. First, it is a bad principle. Second, I made it up — although it clearly is being practiced by some politicians in Washington.
According to the principle of “upsidiarity,” we should push responsibility to the highest level possible. So, if it snows and my driveway is covered, I should send a request to Washington. It will be processed and in several weeks I’ll receive a snow-removal-rationing form that I can take to the regional federal plowing office to request assistance. They will put me on a list and in a few more weeks they will send someone to remove the snow from my driveway.
The “upsidiarity” system isn’t efficient or effective and it costs a fortune, but it ensures that everyone gets the same level of service: equally bad. And I’m afraid that if applied to real issues — like medical care — the “upsidiarity” approach could cause some real problems.
I’m just a common Catholic, but I wish our politicians would pay more attention to Pius XI.
Jim Fair writes from Chicago.
Comments
Post a Comment
Thanks for this, Jim. Too many Catholics have long forgotten this principle (or never understood it) in their quest for Social Justice.
I continue to be amazed at how supposed Catholics can promote socialism and charity at the point of a govt gun. First such help is not charity, that requires voluntary action; and second, it breaks the - thou shalt not steal commandment. Have they also forgotten about the cardinal virtue of prudence (in addition to subsidiarity)? Certainly we are all obligated to help those in need, but the end does not justify the means, and there is a right way and a wrong way to proceed in such matters. The encyclical Rerum Novarum speaks well to the issue, condemning socialism outright, but only to the excesses of capitalism. And suggesting we need to correct such individually, not via legislation. Somehow things have been turned on their head. It’s our job to set things straight again.. and to do it both properly and with love.
Thanks to Matthew for noting that “Too many Catholics have long forgotten this principle (or never understood it) in their quest for Social Justice”. As founder of a parish-education group “Witnessing With the Poor” back in the Eighties, I put in its bylaws that WWP rejects Marxist “class struggle” methods of taking power. Instead, the program acted out the subsidiarity principle by helping local citizens to address legitimate, systemic problems of the poor.
Fast forward to 9/09 and the USCCB is found downgrading subsidiarity in one of its important articles on the Health-Care debate which includes the threatening FINANCIAL dimension of unintelligently controlled immigration. The short article deserves study because subsidiarity is first recognized as FUNDAMENTAL, then at article end, dropped altogether: it bravoes “solidarity and the common good come at a price”, ironically implying little cost to America is RECOGNIZED by USCCB for the forgotten subsidiarity principle!!!
http://www.usccb.org/comm/archives/2009/09-179EA.shtml
In strong contrast, Benedict XVI in his 12/16/09 weekly audience said we must always “seek subsidiarity and solidarity at the national and international level. Otherwise, we would end up with what John of Salisbury defined as the ‘tyranny of the prince’ or, as we would say, ‘the dictatorship of relativism’ ”. I’m with Jesus re helping immigrants but the USCCB needs to speak clearly and sensibly, for but one example, on just how far the basic good of uniting families extends – i.e., to unknown numbers of relatives or just to immediate family, which is just. Crippling America financially is step one to “tyranny of the prince
Thank you again, Jim…each one hits the mark with few words; genius : )
I am not a Catholic, but was interested in this reading when it was posted to facebook by a cousin who is. I understand the subsidiarity principle as it is explained in the snow analogy, but I personally don’t see a parallel to medical care (or to health care, which is broader than medical care). Could the author (or someone else) elaborate?
If an article’s author does not directly answer questions, Lisa, here are some thoughts that might help. What you rightly note about health care being broader is an excellent starting point to see the danger to society of turning over to big government-bureaus decisions and regulations invariably involving gravely moral matters precisely because health care topics can be complex via pregnancy complications, details of hospice treatment, etc.
Consider the Nov 09 Mikulski amendment to the Senate bill. It doesn’t openly support abortion but it does emphasize “preventive care”. Such intelligent care sounds good to me. However, it is known that dangerous social engineering is first preceded by language engineering. Mikulski is very “pro-choice” and smart not to explicitly use the term abortion in ways unhelpful to her amendment’s passage.
Cleverly she greases her amendment with “preventive care” terminology to get federal money for such things as “pregnancy depression”, insisting it is a matter between doctor & patient what is to be done—which can be a private decision to abort. Of course she knows Roe & Doe combine to allow abortion for emotional health reasons. But she also knows emotional health reasons are NOT among the Hyde exceptions.
The Mikulski amendment violates the Hyde principle of protecting freedom-loving Americans from atheists to God-respecting taxpayers—from having their monies abused to facilitate ugly abortion. Her “engineering” includes nice-sounding terminology plus privacy as means to undercut Hyde. Perhaps you can now see that broader problems within health care can be used to SERIOUSLY DISS MILLIONS of Americans in grave ways not possible in the illustrative example of that different “snow job”! That atheists can be strongly prolife on abortion, ponder:
http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
Yes, Lisa, medical care and broader health care are excellent starting points to see the danger to society of turning over to big government-bureaus major decisions on serious moral matters in health care, in contrast with the snow removal problem illustrating elementary subsidiarity.
Consider the more complex 2009 December-approved Senator Mikulski amendment (WOMEN’S PREVENTIVE HEALTH SERVICES, S 2791). Though it states abortion is not included NOW and reminds abortion was never (yet) defined as a preventive service, S 2791 alarmingly provides for HHS authority to cover future “additional” preventive services. NRLC reports that abortion-as-a-preventive-service has been discussed by abortion industry. So, it CAN happen and such a preventive service could be covered automatically, given above built-in HHS authorization. Crucial subsidiarity simply gets subverted on a NATIONAL scale by such prearranged-authority provisions.
FACILITATING abortion violates the Hyde principle of no federal-funds for abortion from taxpayers who include pro-life atheists and MANY God-respecting pro-lifers. You may now also see why bill supporters shun the Stupak-Pitts wording: it excludes ALL facilitations and limits future HHS powers. That intelligent atheists can be strongly prolife on abortion, see:
http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html
To use the presence of abortion in the bill is to misunderstand why subsidiarity applies. Right now many private plans fund abortion. If this bill were to ban any health insurance plan from doing so, it would still violate subsidiarity. To say that it is wrong because it contains something (funding abortion) that is wrong, while valid, does not at all address Lisa’s question. Answering that way makes it seem like subsidiarity only applies when we disagree with the result. Rather, subsidiarity requires that something like heath insurance be handled at a lower, more immediate level of society, *regardless of what the bill would or would not fund.*
Upon re-reading Lisa’s question, one still sees she understands Jim’s instructive snow-case on basic subsidiarity, one still accepts her “broader” (her term) case involving complex health-care and, lastly, one still sees she is asking to better understand subsidiarity in that broader context. To be responsive in that same context, my 11:02 post cites the instructive Sen. Mikulski amendment which HAPPENS to involve abortion in a way that gives insight into how a National Bureaucracy can be dangerously clever via bill-language which later causes local citizens EVERYWHERE to be negatively impacted via special HHS powers.
You may have missed reading my 10:27 AM post which cites a NON-abortion issue while indicating that subsidiarity is FUNDAMENTAL. Hence it cannot be a matter of implying “subsidiarity only applies when we disagree with the result”. Also noted there is agreement with the present pope’s concern for the ‘tyranny of the prince’ which is much broader than abortion. When his predecessors wrote on subsidiarity, abortion was not the problem it is today. While SOME states might undermine subsidiarity temporarily, dealing with that problem is much easier than dealing with a U.S. Congressional grab of power.
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.