Lux Lucet

Awhile back, I’m not really sure why, I started getting weekly newsletter emails from a group called InsideCatholic.  And although I don’t recall signing up for their email list, I decided not to unsubscribe since the articles were written for the purpose of explaining and defending Roman Catholic social teaching, an area of particular interest to me.  Not that I agree with the Romanists, mind you.  Far from it.  I find the social and economic teaching of the Roman Catholic Church-State as repellant as its false gospel.  But there’s something to be said for reading the arguments of your opponents. 

The most recent email had an article titled “Does the UCCB [United States Conference of Catholic Bishops] Understand Subsidiarity?”, which turned out to be an interesting conflation of two very different systems of government:  subsidiarity and federalism.  The author, Deal W. Hudson, whose biography states that he’s a Southern Baptist turned Roman Catholic, would have us believe that the US Constitution is compatible with Romanist political philosophy.  Hudson writes,

While the bishops objected vigorously to the presence of abortion funding in the legislation, they seem untroubled by the question of its general constitutionality, one that comports closely with the principle of subsidiarity as articulated in Catholic social teaching. 

It seems that Dr. Hudson is as confused about the Constitution as he is about the Bible, for the principles of the Constitution do not comport with those of subsidiarity.  According to Pope Pius XI, subsidiarity,

is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable…The state should leave to these smaller groups the settlement of business of minor importance.  It will thus carry out with greater freedom, power, and success the tasks belonging to it, because it alone can effectively accomplish these, directing, watching, stimulating (do these guys sound like good Keynesians or what?) and restraining… – Pius XI, Quadragesimo Anno, 1931, 40-41, in Robbins, Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 152.

 The Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994) gives this definition of subsidiarity,

The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a community of 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 co-ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.” – CCC, 1883.    

This clearly does not describe federalism.  In a federal system, such as is outlined in the Constitution of the United States, authority is divided among different levels of government – federal, state and local – and the power of the state and local governments exists independently of that of the federal government.  In subsidiarity, all power flows from the top down.  In fact, subsidiarity as defined above is a perfect prescription for tyranny.  Consider John Robbins analysis of Catechism’s statement,

Few bother to ask Roman Catholic political candidates how, exactly, this principle of subsidiarity is supposed to limit power in a political or ecclesiastical structure in which power flows from the top down.  Who is to judge when a “community of a higher order” is interfering too much with a “community of a lower order”?  The lower order community cannot judge.  The lower order community is, according to Roman Catholic political thought, monitored, directed, stimulated, and restrained by the higher order community…All judgments about what constitutes too much interference must always be made by the higher order community…The authority to judge such matters is inherent in the definition of the term “higher order.” – Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 153.    

And not satisfied with pointing out the implicit tyranny of all decision-making power resting in the higher community, Robbins continues by noting that subsidiarity has no objective criteria for determining when interference by the higher community has gone too far.  Robbins comments,

Furthermore, the principle of subsidiarity itself neither implies nor sets forth any criteria for deciding when interference is unwarranted; that decision is entirely at the discretion of the higher order community.  – Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 154   

Continuing with his analysis Robbins remarks,

The Catechism of the Catholic Church also declares that the higher order community “should help to coordinate its [the lower order community’s] activity with the activities of the rest of society.” That function requires the higher order community to act as the planner and director of all the subordinate communities in society.  – Ecclesiastical Megalomania, 154.

Far from providing a blueprint to oppose national healthcare legislation on constitutional grounds, subsidiarity actually lends support government takeover of private industry in the name of coordinating its activities with the rest of society.  

Robbins concludes by writing,

It is quite clear that in asserting the principle of subsidiarity, the Roman Church-State is not espousing the decentralized and federal system mandated by Scripture and reflected in the United States Constitution, but merely its own hierarchical structure in which the higher orders, at their discretion, control the lower orders, and the power of the highest order, the papacy, controls all, and is controlled by no one.  The pope, who is the highest authority on Earth, permits lesser men to exercise the power he ahs received from Peter and in turn delegated to them under the principle of “subsidiarity.”  He directs, monitors, restrains, and stimulates so that all do his bidding. There is little accommodation needed between the principle of subsidiarity and the theory behind the fascist regimes of the twentieth century.  – Ecclsiastical Megalomania, 154, emphasis mine.

So to answer the question Dr. Hudson posed in the title of his article, yes, the USCCB does understand subsidiarity.  Much better, in fact, than Dr. Hudson does.  At least the good bishops aren’t so foolish as to suppose it comports with the Constitution.