Subsidiarity and Cooperation

Here is another post I really enjoyed from Catholic Moral Theology.

The principle of subsidiarity may be among the most controversial topics of the doctrine of Catholic Social Teaching because it is often used by both the left and the right to justify either small government or big government.

I prefer Meghan Clark's interpretation, that it is a two-sided coin. We need a system of governance that allows for the common good with multiple levels of institutions and associations working together for that common good. We cannot rely only on big government, nor can we rely only on small government. It is clear that there are proper functions belonging to each, but that most functions necessary for the common good require cooperation from all levels--individuals, families, local governments and private associations all the way to national government and international associations.

Here is Meghan's full article: Subsidiarity is a Two-sided Coin

Here are some highlights:

As a Catholic moral theologian, I must confess that the principle of subsidiarity is perhaps one of the most crucial and most misunderstood in Catholic social teaching. According to the principle of subsidiarity, decisions should be made at the lowest level possible and the highest level necessary. Subsidiarity is crucial because it has applications in just about every aspect of moral life. In medical ethics, subsidiarity helps guide decision-making. In social ethics, subsidiarity helps us prudentially judge not only decision-making but allocation of resources. Subsidiarity is an effort at balancing the many necessary levels of society – and at its best, the principle of subsidiarity navigates the allocation of resources by higher levels of society to support engagement and decision making by the lower levels. Despite how often it is stated – subsidiarity does NOT mean smaller is better.

Pope Quotes 3-7-12

This is the second installment of my series entitled "Pope Quotes".

In commemorating Populorum Progressio, Pope John Paul II re-emphasized the concept of authentic human development as consisting of more than economic well-being or technological gain and that over-emphasized the 'economic' can lead to a society of consumerism which I think is still very prevalent today. He also distinguished "having" from "being" by reminding us that "having" must be directed toward and subordinated to "being" and that the reversal of these inhibits our development and leads quickly to dissatisfaction:

At the same time, however, the "economic" concept itself, linked to the word development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a better understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and services, even for the benefit of the majority, is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every form of slavery. On the contrary, the experience of recent years shows that unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him.

A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelopment, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible, because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to true happiness.

This super-development, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of "consumption" or " consumerism ," which involves so much "throwing-away" and "waste." An object already owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.

All of us experience firsthand the sad effects of this blind submission to pure consumerism: in the first place a crass materialism, and at the same time a radical dissatisfaction, because one quickly learns that the more one possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations remain unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled.