Tag: subsidiarity

  • Mitt Romney the Social Justice Candidate

    Mitt Romney the Social Justice Candidate

    A few days ago I published an article explaining why Catholics and others of good will have a moral obligation to vote for Mitt Romney. The crux of my argument centered around the non-negotiable moral issues that are in play in this election as they never have been before.

    I enjoyed the healthy give and take resulting from that last article.

    That article dealt with moral imperatives. Now I would like to write about an issue of prudential judgment. However, I believe the argument in favor of Romney in this case is just as clear, if not as imperative. If you care seriously about living authentic Catholic social teaching and social justice in the United States of America then you must vote for Mitt Romney.

    Romney is a distributist. That is, he believes in a distributed economy wherein the primary economic engine is small business – an economy of multitudes of independent businesses whose capital is provided by innumerable individuals and whose laborers are not separated from investors by multiple layers of bureaucracy. Business owners are close to their workers, close to their business partners and close to their customers. This creates an economy of relationship, an economy in which the providers of capital and the providers of labor work together and share equitably the rewards of the production that results from their collaboration. This is an economy whose participants understand that they best serve each other and the best serve their own interests by cooperating with each other. This is an economy living solidarity. This is the sort of economy that made America great and it is the sort of economy to which Mitt Romney wants to return.

    Let me bring to your attention several quotes from Mitt Romney of comments made during the presidential debate on Tuesday, October 16 (emphasis added):

    “Fifty-four percent of America’s workers work in businesses that are taxed as individuals. So when you bring those rates down, those small businesses are able to keep more money and hire more people.”

    And…

    “My five-point plan does it: energy independence for North America in five years; opening up more trade, particularly in Latin America, cracking down on China when they cheat; getting us to a balanced budget; fixing our training programs for our workers; and finally, championing small business. I want to help small businesses grow and thrive. I know how to make that happen. I spent my life in the private sector. I know why jobs come and why they go.”

    And in response to a request to point out how his positions differ from those of President Bush…

    “And then let’s take the last one, championing small business. Our party has been focused on big business too long. I came through small business. I understand how hard it is to start a small business. That’s why everything I’ll do is designed to help small businesses grow and add jobs. I want to keep their taxes down on small business. I want regulators to see their job as encouraging small enterprise, not crushing it.

    And the thing I find most troubling about “Obamacare” – well, it’s a long list, but one of the things I find most troubling is that when you go out and talk to small businesses and ask them what they think about it, they tell you it keeps them from hiring more people.

    My priority is jobs. I know how to make that happen. And President Bush had a very different path for a very different time. My path is designed in getting small businesses to grow and hire people.”

    Our current president has an abysmal record when it comes to the economy and small business. One of the reasons for this is his failure to understand and support small business. He believes government creates jobys. He is wrong and his policies have stymied growth in small business, have discouraged individuals from investing in small business and have set up road blocks to individuals who want to embark on their own small business ventures.

    By getting government out of the way, Romney will turn small business loose. This will lead to more jobs, less poverty, greater freedom and a renewed sense of responsibility among private citizens. Consequently we will see a flowering of authentic social justice, a social justice focused on bettering the condition of all rather than what we see as the focus of the current administration, a promotion of strife between social and economic classes policies directed a pulling some groups down in order to “level the playing field.” The fruits of authentic social justice are solidarity and communio. We certainly are not seeing these fruits now.

  • Presidential Campaign

    Presidential Campaign

    I launched A Sensible Life back in June with the intent to write about authentic Catholic social teaching: gratuitousness, solidarity, subsidiarity and a distributed economy. My intent was and is to cover these subjects from a theoretical and practical standpoint. I want to write about public policy relative to these topics as well as writing about down to earth ways we can live these principles in our families and in the larger economy.

    These topics still serve as the primary reason of being for A Sensible Life. Unfortunately, as I was launching A Sensible Life I failed to take into account the fact that we were entering into the prime season for what one could reasonably call the most important presidential campaign in the last several generations. Because of this presidential campaign, I have allowed myself to focus the attention of A Sensible Life on politics more than I would have otherwise liked. Please be patient with us. I will steer the ship back to more weighty and interesting matters. However, pardon me if I spend some more time now and in the next few weeks on the more imminent issues surrounding the presidential campaign.

    That said, I feel the need to lay the cards on the table. Here goes. There is no moral or rational posturing that can justify a Catholic or other person of good will in not supporting Mitt Romney for president. That is to say, it is our moral obligation not only to vote against Barack Obama but to vote for Mitt Romney. How can I say that with absolute certainty? Here is how.

    Moral absolutes: The first issues we must examine as discerning Christian electors are those non-negotiable issues involving intrinsic moral good and intrinsic moral evil. The moral absolutes at stake in this presidential election include: the defense of life from birth to natural death, the definition of marriage as between one man and one woman and the protection of each individual’s freedoms of religion and conscience. These are issues that touch upon the most basic rights of men and women in this country. They are incontrovertible and they trump all other issues.

    On each one of these issues Mitt Romney’s position is without any question or doubt better than that of his opponent. His statements support this conclusion as do his actions. No amount of equivocating will get around this fact. No matter how many people repeat, “well, Romney isn’t perfect on these issues either”, the fact remains that Mitt Romney is substantively better on these issues. No amount of cynicism about the honesty of politicians will relieve us of the moral burden of acting upon this reality.

    Matters of prudential judgment: There are other issues that women and men of good will may debate. These matters, subject to the conclusions of our well-formed prudent judgments, can include important issues like the death penalty, the most just and prudent way to engage in international policy and the application of Catholic social teaching to domestic policy. In a presidential election, these are important issues and should be issues upon which we form our political decisions so long as the are not trumped by issues of a higher magnitude.

    However, in this particular presidential election all issues are trumped by those involving the moral absolutes. And, what is more, there may never have been an election like this one in the history of the United States: an election (a) that involved so many questions concerning moral good and evil and (b) in which there was so much clarity on each of these questions with regard to the positions of each of the candidates.

    I just want to say one more thing about issues involving prudential judgment and that has to do with the question of Catholic social teaching. Many Catholics have taken the position during this presidential campaign that we are justified in voting for or even obligated to vote for Barack Obama because of what he has done with government money and policy in support of the poor. First, as I have said above, matters of prudential judgment cannot trump matters of moral imperative. However, this fact aside, these folks are simply wrong in their understanding of Catholic social teaching. Catholic social teaching (and Christian charity) tells us that we must care for those in need (the poor, the sick, the weak). We do not fulfill this obligation by passing it along to the government. To the extent the government takes my tax dollars to care for my brother, it robs me both of my freedom and my responsibility. Moreover, such activity by the national government is in direct opposition to the Christian principle of subsidiarity. This principle states (for purposes of this conversation) that the needy must be cared for by those closest to them; their brothers or very local institutions. The national government not only bungles such work but it de-humanizes the recipients of its efforts and robs others of the opportunity to fulfill their obligations in Christian charity.

    In summary, there is no case in support of Barack Obama. On the contrary, we are morally obligated to oppose him and to support his opponent, Mitt Romney.

  • Paul Ryan and True Catholic Social Teaching

    Paul Ryan and True Catholic Social Teaching

    The article following was published by Bishop Robert Morlino of the Diocese of Madison in the diocesan newspaper, the Catholic Herald. Bishop Morlino provides a wonderfully clear exposition of the distinction between those burning issues of our day that involve intrinsic evil and those issues that are merely matters of prudential judgment. The former, of course, should be non-negotiables for all Catholics and with regard to many of these non-negotiables we Catholics share our beliefs with our Jewish and Protestant brothers and sisters as well. Bishop Morlino goes on to discuss some other issues that could be considered matters of prudential judgment. But he does not leave us to fend for ourselves in working through these issues. He writes about the use of the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity in working through questions such as how to deal with poverty and a stagnant economy. These principles are near and dear to the heart of A Sensible Life! The answer, my friends, is not a bigger, more oppressive national government. The good bishop stops short of endorsing Paul Ryan and his running mate Mitt Romney but clearly the Romney/Ryan ticket is the option for those who take true Catholic Social Teach seriously.

    Subsidiarity, solidarity, and the lay mission

    Bishop’s Column

    Thursday, Aug. 16, 2012 — 12:00 AM

    Dear friends,

    It was no shock at all for me to learn that our diocesan native son, Paul Ryan, had been chosen to be a candidate for the Vice Presidency of the United States. I am proud of his accomplishments as a native son, and a brother in the faith, and my prayers go with him and especially with his family as they endure the unbelievable demands of a presidential campaign here in the United States. It is not for the bishop or priests to endorse particular candidates or political parties. Any efforts on the part of any bishop or priest to do so should be set aside. And you can be assured that no priest who promotes a partisan agenda is acting in union with me or with the Universal Church.

    It is the role of bishops and priests to teach principles of our faith, such that those who seek elected offices, if they are Catholics, are to form their consciences according to these principles about particular policy issues.

    However, the formation of conscience regarding particular policy issues is different depending on how fundamental to the ecology of human nature or the Catholic faith a particular issue is. Some of the most fundamental issues for the formation of a Catholic conscience are as follows: sacredness of human life from conception to natural death, marriage, religious freedom and freedom of conscience, and a right to private property.

    Violations of the above involve intrinsic evil — that is, an evil which cannot be justified by any circumstances whatsoever. These evils are examples of direct pollution of the ecology of human nature and can be discerned as such by human reason alone. Thus, all people of good will who wish to follow human reason should deplore any and all violations in the above areas, without exception. The violations would be: abortion, euthanasia and physician-assisted suicide, same-sex marriage, government-coerced secularism, and socialism.

    Where intrinsic evil is not involved

    In these most fundamental matters, a well-formed Catholic conscience, or the well-formed conscience of a person of good will, simply follows the conclusions demanded by the ecology of human nature and the reasoning process. A Catholic conscience can never take exception to the prohibition of actions which are intrinsically evil. Nor may a conscience well-formed by reason or the Catholic faith ever choose to vote for someone who clearly, consistently, persistently promotes that which is intrinsically evil.

    However, a conscience well-formed according to reason or the Catholic faith, must also make choices where intrinsic evil is not involved. How best to care for the poor is probably the finest current example of this, though another would be how best to create jobs at a time when so many are suffering from the ravages of unemployment. In matters such as these, where intrinsic evil is not involved, the rational principles of solidarity and subsidiarity come into play. The principle of solidarity, simply stated, means that every human being on the face of the earth is my brother and my sister, my “neighbor” in the biblical sense. At the same time, the time-tested best way for assisting our neighbors throughout the world should follow the principle of subsidiarity. That means the problem at hand should be addressed at the lowest level possible — that is, the level closest to the people in need. That again, is simply the law of human reason.

    We can disagree on application

    As one looks at issues such as the two mentioned above and seeks to apply the principles of solidarity and subsidiarity, Catholics and others of good will can arrive at different conclusions. These are conclusions about the best means to promote the preferential option for the poor, or the best means to reach a lower percentage of unemployment throughout our country. No one is contesting here anyone’s right to the basic needs of food, clothing, shelter, healthcare, etc. Nor is anyone contesting someone’s right to work and so provide for self and family. However there can be difference according to how best to follow the principles which the Church offers.

    Making decisions as to the best political strategies, the best policy means, to achieve a goal, is the mission of lay people, not bishops or priests. As Pope Benedict himself has said, a just society and a just state is the achievement of politics, not the Church. And therefore Catholic laymen and women who are familiar with the principles dictated by human reason and the ecology of human nature, or non-Catholics who are also bound by these same principles, are in a position to arrive at differing conclusions as to what the best means are for the implementation of these principles — that is, “lay mission” for Catholics.

    Thus, it is not up to me or any bishop or priest to approve of Congressman Ryan’s specific budget prescription to address the best means we spoke of. Where intrinsic evils are not involved, specific policy choices and political strategies are the province of Catholic lay mission. But, as I’ve said, Vice Presidential Candidate Ryan is aware of Catholic Social Teaching and is very careful to fashion and form his conclusions in accord with the principles mentioned above. Of that I have no doubt. (I mention this matter in obedience to Church Law regarding one’s right to a good reputation.)

    Peace and reconciliation in coming months

    I obviously didn’t choose the date for the announcement of Paul Ryan’s Vice Presidential Candidacy and as I express my pride in him and in what he has accomplished, I thought it best to move to discussion of the above matters sooner rather than later. No doubt it will be necessary to comment again on these principles in the days ahead for the sake of further clarification, and be assured that I will be eager to do so.

    Above all, let us beg the Lord that divisions in our electorate will not be deepened so as to have a negative impact on pre-existing divisions within the Church during this electoral season. Let there be the peace and reconciliation that flow from charity on the part of all. Thank you for reading this. God Bless each one of you! Praised be Jesus Christ!

    * * * * *

    I love this exposition of real Catholic doctrine and true Catholic social teaching. We must overcome the insipid misunderstanding of Catholic social teaching that has been allowed to characterize American Catholic political philosophy for the last fifty years. Big government and government run social programs exist in opposition to legitimate Catholic social teaching not in support of it. Government programs rob individuals of both their freedoms and their responsibilities as defined by sound Catholic social teaching. Paul Ryan understands this reality and Romney’s choice of Paul Ryan as his running mate is a great indicator of his prescience as well. For too long have lukewarm Catholics been given a pass to vote for politicians who oppose essential Catholic moral teaching. It’s over folks! We have no choice but to vote for Mitt Romney and Paul Ryan. Gone are the days when we can justify bad political decision-making by a misplaced adherence to a misunderstood Catholic social teaching.

  • The Supreme Court

    The Supreme Court

    In the last couple of days I have been reading and listening to a lot of commentary from a variety of folks regarding the role of our chief justice in the recent PPACA decision.  I and others have commented on the motives of our heretofore fairly solid chief justice.  I realize the danger of trying to figure out motives but the reality is that when a person acts out of character I want to seek to attempt to understand and to explain.  I firmly maintain that if Chief Justice Roberts’ motivation is simply the preservation of the legitimacy and the non-partisan public perception of the Supreme Court, and this is the most altruistic motive I can see that explains the behavior, then his motivation is misplaced. I insist that all of the Supreme Court justices including the chief justice have been appointed to serve the constitution and the founding principles of this nation enshrined therein. When they neglect this sacred duty in order to preserve the perceived reputation or legitimacy or “political neutrality” of the institution of the Supreme Court they are in effect turning the constitution on its head. What is more important, the constitution or the institutions created by the constitution? What happens to constitutional checks and balances when one of the branches of government refuses to exercise its authority out of fear that it will be perceived as political?

    This idea has been tossed around that the chief justice views the role of the Court as that of an umpire.  This idea is repugnant.  The Court has an active role to play in the preservation of this country and its founding principles. Ah, “activist court”, you counter. Well, when a Court needs to assert the constitution and assert the freedoms and government limitations contained therein then the court must act, regardless of whether or not the media or the political parties may point to its action as activism and even partisanship. The Court’s duty it to do what is right not what the public may perceive to be right. When I worked at the Supreme Court back in the 1990?s, I used to help the justices go through their mail. When a big case came along there were justices who would actually have their mail separated and counted according to the positions taken regarding the upcoming case. This “voting” was then allowed to influence these certain justices’ opinions on the case. I found reliance on public opinion by justices repulsive then and I do now.  If the public is wrong let us educate the public but in the meantime let the Court do what is right.

    I have seen a lot of commentary to the effect that those of us who oppose PPACA should take the necessary political steps and not look to the Supreme Court to carry out our will in the realm of public policy.  Guilty as charged, I am one of those who want to get rid of PPACA because it is bad law.  And I wanted the Supreme Court to act.  However, I did not want the Supreme Court to act because the law is bad.  I wanted the Court to act because the law is unconstitutional. I wanted the Court to act because its failure to do so leaves the judicial and executive branches of the national government unchecked in their continual arrogation of power. Unless this tide is stemmed states’ rights, individuals’ rights and families’ rights will be a thing of the past in short order.

    As many commentators have pointed out, the way to deal with PPACA is now political. I totally agree, and I’m on board. Let’s get with it. In fact, the whole PPACA debacle should never have arisen if we had done a proper job of forming ourselves in our voting in 2008. But I’m going to make this one final point with regard to the Court – its reason for being is to serve the founding principles of this country as they are enumerated in the Constitution.  The failure of the people to exercise their responsibility well does not absolve the Court from its obligation to exercise its responsibility well.

  • The Death of Federalism

    The Death of Federalism

    Federalism is now officially dead. Chief Justice Roberts declared today in his majority opinion in the PPACA ruling that the national government (I refuse from now on to call it the federal government) has the right to force individuals to purchase health insurance and to penalize them with a fine if they fail to comply. This supposed right of the national government somehow derives from its “taxing power”. Well, if the national government can now coerce me into purchasing something against my will and impose a penalty for my non-compliance in the form of a fine (now called a tax) then no limit now constrains the power of the national government.

    In reality, I am probably late to the party in declaring the death of my beloved federalism. Power has been shifting from states, communities and families to Washington for the last 100 years. This shift occurs in fits and starts but always follows an inexorable path forward (or backward). Once powers move to this central authority they never move back. In this progression, however, today’s decision by the Supreme Court, marks such a profound shift that it is not overstating the case to say that we have reached the culmination, the death of federalism, the death of the idea that individual freedom and state sovereignty are more important than the national state, the death in short of any semblance of subsidiarity.

    If you think I state my case too strongly read the words of Justice Anthony Kennedy in his dissenting opinion to today’s Supreme Court ruling, “The values that should have determined our course today are caution, minimalism, and the understanding that the federal government is one of limited powers,” Kennedy said. “But the court’s ruling undermines those values at every turn. In the name of restraint, it overreaches. In the name of constitutional avoidance, it creates new constitutional questions. In the name of cooperative federalism, it undermines state sovereignty.”

    Can federalism be resuscitated?

    All things are possible. I cling to the hope that we can return to the founding principles of our country and turn the tide. Unfortunately, we face a very strong tide. In order to return to a sensible approach to governance in this country we must (a) overcome the historical trend of this country toward centralization of power and (b) overcome the lack of formation of great swaths of our citizenry concerning principles of political philosophy especially as they pertain to the limitations of government and the rights and responsibility of individuals.

    Don’t misunderstand me. I am not suggesting that government has no role in our lives. What I am saying is that government has forgotten that it derives its power from the people. And many of our fellow citizens have forgotten this as well. It will require a massive concerted effort from the people in order to wrest the power away from the national government that it has accumulated to itself. I hope We the People stand willing to engage in this effort.