The Catechism of the Catholic Church states:
“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.” (Paulist Press, 1994, no. 1883)
This is a vision of hierarchy with preservation of autonomy, non-interference and assistance, with higher authorities helping not usurping the freedom of action of those below them (Gregg, Samuel, Economic Thinking for the Theologically Minded (Lanham, University Press of America, 2001), p43)
For example, families are primarily responsible for raising children:
“The principle of subsidiarity would suggest that the first call of assistance for… [a parent who is manifestly incapable of caring for his child] is his extended family or, failing that, a group of local parents, and – only in the absence of any other mediating institution (and as a last resort) – the state.” (p43)
Those closest to people in need are most likely to be able to help them – ideally help them to act for themselves, avoiding passive dependence (p43)
John Paul II said:
“By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility, the welfare state leads to a loss of human energies and an inordinate increase in public agencies, which are dominated more and more by bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending. In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in need. It should be added that certain demands often call for a response which is not simply material but which is capable of perceiving the deeper human need.” (Centesimus Annus, no. 48.) This principle was first formally expounded in Roam Catholic social teaching in Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931), nos. 79-80. (Gregg, pp44-5)
No comments:
Post a Comment