In the form of
liberal democracy — the “American” kind that puts sovereignty in the human
person as the highest temporal expression of human dignity, not into government
(local or otherwise) or into an élite — the concept of subsidiarity has
been around since Adam. It is an
application of the natural right of liberty (free association or contract)
which necessarily implies that control over someone’s life is vested in the
person whose life it is.
This extends to
the “life” of the body politic. Control
over local matters should be in the hands of whatever authority is “closest” to
whatever is being controlled. Thus, the principle
of subsidiarity holds that control over my life should be vested in me, control
over my family should be vested in my family, over my neighborhood in me and my
neighbors, over my workplace in me and my fellow workers, and so on, up the
scale of the levels of the common good.
 |
| The Principle of Subsidiarity reverses the conceptual image of the common good at every level. |
(The terms “up”
and “down” as well as “higher” and “lower” in reference to the common good and its
hierarchical structure should not be taken as implying that “up” and “higher”
are somehow better than “down” or “lower.”
These terms are used in this way only because it is customary usage. If the convention was that the more local or
closest levels of the common good were portrayed graphically as above the most
distant or more removed levels of the common good, then we would refer to the
individual as the highest level of the common good, and the world community as
the lowest, which actually conforms more closely to a personalist understanding.)
It is a serious
breach of the principle of subsidiarity for me to control your life, for my
neighbors to control my family, for workers not to own a share of the
enterprise that employs them, or for citizens not to have a say-so in their own
government. Equally serious is when
“higher” levels of the common good take over functions of the “lower” levels as
a solution to the failure or the refusal of the lower levels to function
effectively.
The key to
understanding the theory and practice of subsidiarity, then, is the same as it
is for understanding the application of everything else related to the common
good, whether directly or indirectly: does it enhance or undermine human
dignity?
We do not mean “human
dignity” in a vague or collectivist sense, nor in an overly particular individualistic
sense, although we can be very precise in our definition as far as it goes. “Human dignity”
What is
“dignity”? Dignity is the “quality or
state of being worthy, honored, or esteemed.”
(“Dignity,” Meriam-Webster Dictionary.) In Thomist philosophy, every single human
being, by virtue of his or her existence as a human being, is automatically a
person, and therefore “worthy, honored, or esteemed” . . . or should be.
This definition
is reflected in the concept of “personalism,” which itself has evolved along
somewhat divergent paths. As developed
by Pope John Paul II within the framework of Aristotelian-Thomist philosophy,
personalism can be used to describe any school of thought, or any intellectual
movement that focuses on the reality of the human person and each person’s
unique dignity. (Thomas D. Williams, L.C., “What is Thomistic Personalism?” Alpha Omega, Vol. VII, No. 2, 2004, 164.)
Bound by the
absolutes of the natural law, this “Thomistic personalism” is critically
important for moral, spiritual, and even material development. Outside the parameters established by the
natural law, however, personalism becomes invalid, even anti-human. It descends into moral relativism, and
ultimately nihilism.
Personalism
recognizes a radical distinction between persons
and things, the latter category
consisting of other beings and non-persons. (Ibid., 179.) Keeping in mind
that a corporation is a “legal fiction” adopted for expedience that is not a
true person but a thing, the distinction between persons and things in
personalism opposes what may be one of the most serious philosophical, even
economic and political errors of the modern age, and one that has inhibited or
prevented people from understanding social justice. That is the failure to distinguish between
actual human persons and the abstraction (a thing) of collective humanity or
“the People.”
Although coming
from a different religious and philosophical tradition, the personalism of Dr.
Martin Luther King, Jr. supports the Thomist focus on the dignity of the human
person. To King, personalism was
valuable as a practical means of eradicating injustice, especially as it
related to racism, but always consistent with the demands of human dignity and
the principles of natural law. (Rufus Burrow, Jr., God and Human Dignity. Notre
Dame, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press, 2006, 69.)
Simply imposing
desired results regardless of the means was not King’s objective, nor would this
have been consistent with his moral and political sense. King’s personalism was grounded on his
acceptance of a transcendent God Who, nevertheless, has a personal relationship
with His special creation, man. (Ibid.,
70.)
For King,
applying personalist principles involved introducing changes to the social order
by reforming institutions. This was by
means of organized actions for the common good, what in the social doctrine of
the Catholic Church are called “acts of social justice.” The goal of an act of social justice is to
reform institutions to make it possible for people to live virtuously.
Human dignity is therefore
key to understanding the principle of subsidiarity as well as social virtue. It derives from the unique value every child,
woman, and man has by the mere fact of being a human person. Respect for human dignity, therefore, is not
a vague feeling of liking, admiration, or veneration, such as some individuals
or groups accord others. That sort of
thing is based on something other than mere humanity, such as wealth, poverty,
race, religion, or sexual orientation, the type of prejudgments both John Paul
II and King explicitly repudiated. (Ibid., 165.) Rather, respect for human dignity is realized
through recognition and protection of the sovereignty of each human person as a person under the ultimate
sovereignty of God.
Nor is
“sovereignty” a mere platitude. In this
context, sovereignty refers to power over one’s life. Specifically, sovereignty of the human person
consists of the ability to exercise one’s natural, inalienable rights,
especially life, liberty, and private property.
Through the exercise of rights, people become more fully human by acquiring
and developing virtue. Anything that
interferes with the legitimate exercise of individual rights within the
framework of the common good therefore violates the principle of subsidiarity,
and is socially unjust.
#30#
