In preparation
for a discussion on the natural law principles underlying religious social
teaching (as opposed to religious faith-based teaching), we’ve been re-reading
Mortimer Adler’s 1990 book, Truth in Religion: The Plurality of Religions
and the Unity of Truth (New York: Scribner and Sons). As Adler argued, there are certain philosophical
and natural law principles that are common to almost all religions, and are
true, regardless of the truth of a religion’s purely faith-based teachings.
 |
| No, you can't punish people just because you want to. |
Among the more
obvious truths such as don’t lie, cheat, or steal, there is the presumption in “western”
religions (not knowing enough about “eastern” religions, we can’t make the same
claim one way or another) that the actual, flesh and blood human person is of
supreme importance, relatively speaking, and in comparison to the abstraction
of humanity or the collective. Thus (for
example), it is never permissible to condemn an innocent person to death,
regardless of the presumed advantages that will accrue to a large number of
people as a result; it is not “expedient for you that one man should die for the people
and that the whole nation perish not.” (John 11:50.)
This is not “religion.” It is simple justice, the highest natural
virtue. It is unjust for anyone who has
done nothing wrong to be punished, even if you think it means the end of the
world if you don’t. That remains so,
even though the fate of the world is rarely at stake. Usually it means someone’s power or property
might be threatened if they don’t get rid of an inconvenient, albeit innocent,
person.
 |
| David Christy |
Not surprisingly,
it is also wrong to punish someone who is innocent if something less than the
fate of the world is at stake. For
example, the most intellectually rigorous (although still fatally flawed in its
logic) defense of slavery in the United States was David Christy’s 1855 book Cotton
Is King.
As Christy
argued, the economic survival of the British Empire and the United States
depended absolutely on the cultivation of cotton by slaves. He admitted it was a horrifying and unjust
system. But it was justified even though
unjust (we told you it was fatally flawed in its logic) by the fact that it is
impossible to grow cotton without slave labor (did we mention that Christy’s
logic was fatally flawed?). As Christy
concluded his argument,
King
Cotton cares
not whether he employs slaves or freemen.
It is the cotton, not the slaves, upon which his throne is
based. Let freemen do his work as well,
and he will not object to the change.
Thus far the experiments in this respect have failed, and they will not
soon be renewed. . . . His Majesty, King Cotton, therefore, is
forced to continue the employment of his slaves; and, by their toil, is riding
on, conquering and to conquer! He
receives no check from the cries of the oppressed, while the citizens of the
world are dragging forward his chariot, and shouting aloud his praise!
 |
| Only for their own good, of course. . . |
But what if a “condition
of dependency” is imposed on people for their own good? What if people are unable to obtain adequate
food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, education, or anything else by their own
efforts? What would happen to them if
someone, such as the State, did not make adequate provision for all of their
needs? Isn’t that why parents look after
children, and the State institutes welfare programs?
Yes, it is. It is also why Ol’ Massa kept slaves: those
people couldn’t look after themselves, so they needed an owner who, out of the
goodness of his heart, took care of them and trained them to enter society as
fully functioning and virtuous adults . . . right?
Oddly enough,
however, few slaves ever learned how to be free adult members of society out in
the field picking cotton, any more than most of today’s welfare recipients ever
seem to move on to become self-supporting standing in line or waiting by the
mailbox to receive a check. Whether people
are prevented or discouraged from doing something, the fact remains that only
the most extraordinary individuals will be able to get themselves out of dependency
by their own efforts, just as most children aren’t able to raise themselves.
That is why we
paid special attention to a question a reader sent us on the subject of
subsidiarity. As the reader said,
A person I know claims that the
following applications of the principle of subsidiarity. What do you have
to say about that claim? I would like to respond and would appreciate
your thoughts on the matter. Perhaps this is also subject matter for one
or more of your blogs.
Then followed the
claims that someone was making regarding the presumed applications of the
principle of subsidiarity, which we’ve edited slightly for clarity as well as
corrected for spelling and grammar:
Permit me to give three examples
of the (non-socialist) subsidiarity principle applied to legislation: ARA, ACA,
CPP. These were signature measures in
which states were given the power to decide how they achieved a national goal.
America Recovery Act (ARA) sought
local and municipal projects which would stimulate the economy but were under
the administration of those entities.
Affordable Care Act (ACA) gives
states options for how they administer the act, while meeting HHS regs &
guidelines, including an expansion of Medicaid. A state assembly could/can
adopt the federal approach if they chose not to build their own.
The Clean Power Plan (CPP) was
the EPA means of complying with the Supreme Court decision on CO2
emissions as part of it clean air mandate. After the public comment period for
relevant stakeholders and citizen, each state was compelled to publish a plan
to reduce fossil fuel energy generation by a target date. States were free to
develop their own plan or they could adopt a federal model plan, with local
modifications.
All three measures are examples
of setting a national goal but implementing it at levels of state, municipal
and city government. That’s subsidiarity, not socialism.
We disagree that
the cited pieces of legislation are applications of the principle of
subsidiarity. That’s one issue. They are, frankly, socialist — which is
another issue, albeit a related one.
Our primary
interest today, however, is subsidiarity, a concept from Catholic social
teaching, although not really a “religious” issue (hence our little discussion
with which we began this posting). That
means to be able to comment on it intelligently, we are going to have to drag
religion into the discussion, or at least make reference to certain natural law
principles found in Catholic social teaching.
First, we need to
correct a misunderstanding of subsidiarity.
Subsidiarity is not a principle to determine which governmental level or
unit does something, or the idea that the government does what an individual
cannot do for himself. It is a question of which level of the common good
is the most appropriate level, the lowest possible level — that of the individual person — being preferable.
In general, as Catholic
social teaching is primarily concerned with human dignity and the sovereignty
of the human person under God, it is inappropriate for any level of
government to do what individuals, either alone or in free association with
others, can do for themselves. Even then, the first recourse of the State
at any level is to remove barriers that prevent individual or group action
instead of taking over the function, which is contrary to the “laws” of social
justice.
Only as an
absolute last resort is the State to make provision for individual goods, and
then only so long as is necessary to remove the barriers that prevent people
from doing for themselves. In each of the examples given, there are
private sector alternatives available or possible, so it is contrary to the
principle of subsidiarity as well as social justice for the State to impose a
presumably permanent solution to the exclusion of the private sector.
That is the quick
and dirty response. We’ll start to look
at a more complete discussion as to why it is improper for the State to provide
for people’s needs as a usual thing in our next posting on this subject.
#30#
