Showing posts with label human dignity. Show all posts
Showing posts with label human dignity. Show all posts
Monday, March 9, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Immoral Abuse of Morality
This is in response to Jim Wallis, his confused "God's Politics" blog, and this post in particular. It presumes at least a familiarity with the Model of Catholic Social Teaching, which can learn about here.
First, I absolutely agree that a budget, be it a family's, a parish's, diocesan, state, or national or any other, is a moral document. There, however, ends my agreement with him.
From a moral perspective I utterly disagree with Jim Wallis' statement (and underlying assumptions) when he speaks about our nation's current budget: "[Obama's 2009 budget is] a budget aimed at redressing the imbalances." He goes on to say this is a very good thing: "The new budget proposed by the White House is a dramatic step in the direction of the common good, with strong support for the middle of America, real help for the poorest among us, and the proposition that the wealthiest pay their fare share."
Let's start with the underlying presumptions in his moral analysis. He presumes that inequality is a bad thing. Poverty (of any kind, defined as anything that prevents us from becoming who God created us to be), is a bad thing. Barriers which prevent people from having equal opportunity are a bad thing. But inequality in results is part of what motivates us to take ownership of who we are and what we do. Inequality in results is part of what compels us to co-create with God. Imposed equal results is not a moral principle that upholds human dignity. Imposition of equal results undermines natural law, demotivates people from responsibility, ownership, risk, and reward. It undermines human dignity and is sinful.
A second, and equally sinful presumption under Wallis' statement is that it is the right and proper role of government to address the issues that need addressing, particularly by taking from those who are successful and giving to those who aren't as successful. This inherently undermines subsidiarity, one of the three required pillars upholding human dignity. From a moral perspective we have to stop presuming government is required to address moral issues simply because we've ignorantly forgotten that we are supposed to do that ourselves.
The solutions Wallis advocates as "moral" are, in fact, immoral because they are highly socialist. They redistribute wealth and undermine the right of the people to freely enter into contracts, keep the fruit of their labor. Catholicism has long recognized the right to own property, and keep the fruit of one's labor is a fundamental individual, God-given right (going back to Aquinas and even earlier -- long before Socialism existed as we know it).
Socialist answers to the poverties of our world are wrong and immoral and deepen the poverty of the world. From a Catholic moral standpoint, Socialism and socialist answers (which this budget is) are irredeemable because they inherently undermine human dignity.
What of the free market? That can hardly be a moral system, Wallis and friends will claim. Ahhh, but they are wrong. Free will is just as immoral as the free market it. Put another way, both free will and the free market are neutral -- their morality depends on the choices made by those exercising or within them.
Here's the hard truth about our current economic situation. Part of it is our fault as a Church. What? To to extent that we have failed to speak with the moral teaching authority of the Church in the areas of faith and morals, we are responsible for failing to invite and challenge the people of the free market system to be moral in their business practices, use of debt, the rightful role of government to protect and defend the inherent rights of her citizens instead of entering into the markets as a power hungry, greedy participant who no longer is capable of regulating the free market playground because it is a horse in the race. Quite simply, we've failed to teach human dignity and the three pillars required to uphold it. We've failed to teach our faithful and society morality. We've failed to compel our faithful to answer their God given mandate of faith to reach out to our neighbor and help them become the fullness of who God created them to be (yes, that's our responsibility, not government's!).
As a Church we have advocated for specific solutions and ignored our own moral teaching. It's one thing to advocate against the mortal sin of abortion (it is an inherently grave mortal sin), quite another to advocate specific economic solutions such as farm subsidies, universal healthcare, minimum wage, when there are other solutions which aren't inherently morally grave.
The reality is that it's poor theological and moral understanding like what Wallis touts that leads to the type of irresponsibility and lack of ownership on many moral issues required to uphold human dignity, abortion included. There is a reason that abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and other inherent evils are part of the platform of our current administration. It fundamentally does not understand human dignity or how to uphold it.
First, I absolutely agree that a budget, be it a family's, a parish's, diocesan, state, or national or any other, is a moral document. There, however, ends my agreement with him.
Catholic social teaching offers us a beautiful and challenging understanding of what human dignity is, our call to always uphold it, and even some understanding of what is required to uphold it. What follows is my personal response to Jim Wallis' radio statement and blog, based on my understanding of Catholic social teaching.
From a moral perspective I utterly disagree with Jim Wallis' statement (and underlying assumptions) when he speaks about our nation's current budget: "[Obama's 2009 budget is] a budget aimed at redressing the imbalances." He goes on to say this is a very good thing: "The new budget proposed by the White House is a dramatic step in the direction of the common good, with strong support for the middle of America, real help for the poorest among us, and the proposition that the wealthiest pay their fare share."
Let's start with the underlying presumptions in his moral analysis. He presumes that inequality is a bad thing. Poverty (of any kind, defined as anything that prevents us from becoming who God created us to be), is a bad thing. Barriers which prevent people from having equal opportunity are a bad thing. But inequality in results is part of what motivates us to take ownership of who we are and what we do. Inequality in results is part of what compels us to co-create with God. Imposed equal results is not a moral principle that upholds human dignity. Imposition of equal results undermines natural law, demotivates people from responsibility, ownership, risk, and reward. It undermines human dignity and is sinful.
A second, and equally sinful presumption under Wallis' statement is that it is the right and proper role of government to address the issues that need addressing, particularly by taking from those who are successful and giving to those who aren't as successful. This inherently undermines subsidiarity, one of the three required pillars upholding human dignity. From a moral perspective we have to stop presuming government is required to address moral issues simply because we've ignorantly forgotten that we are supposed to do that ourselves.
The solutions Wallis advocates as "moral" are, in fact, immoral because they are highly socialist. They redistribute wealth and undermine the right of the people to freely enter into contracts, keep the fruit of their labor. Catholicism has long recognized the right to own property, and keep the fruit of one's labor is a fundamental individual, God-given right (going back to Aquinas and even earlier -- long before Socialism existed as we know it).
Socialist answers to the poverties of our world are wrong and immoral and deepen the poverty of the world. From a Catholic moral standpoint, Socialism and socialist answers (which this budget is) are irredeemable because they inherently undermine human dignity.
What of the free market? That can hardly be a moral system, Wallis and friends will claim. Ahhh, but they are wrong. Free will is just as immoral as the free market it. Put another way, both free will and the free market are neutral -- their morality depends on the choices made by those exercising or within them.
Here's the hard truth about our current economic situation. Part of it is our fault as a Church. What? To to extent that we have failed to speak with the moral teaching authority of the Church in the areas of faith and morals, we are responsible for failing to invite and challenge the people of the free market system to be moral in their business practices, use of debt, the rightful role of government to protect and defend the inherent rights of her citizens instead of entering into the markets as a power hungry, greedy participant who no longer is capable of regulating the free market playground because it is a horse in the race. Quite simply, we've failed to teach human dignity and the three pillars required to uphold it. We've failed to teach our faithful and society morality. We've failed to compel our faithful to answer their God given mandate of faith to reach out to our neighbor and help them become the fullness of who God created them to be (yes, that's our responsibility, not government's!).
As a Church we have advocated for specific solutions and ignored our own moral teaching. It's one thing to advocate against the mortal sin of abortion (it is an inherently grave mortal sin), quite another to advocate specific economic solutions such as farm subsidies, universal healthcare, minimum wage, when there are other solutions which aren't inherently morally grave.
The reality is that it's poor theological and moral understanding like what Wallis touts that leads to the type of irresponsibility and lack of ownership on many moral issues required to uphold human dignity, abortion included. There is a reason that abortion, euthanasia, gay marriage, embryonic stem cell research, and other inherent evils are part of the platform of our current administration. It fundamentally does not understand human dignity or how to uphold it.
Are we compelled by our faith in Jesus our Christ to respond to the needs of our poor? Absolutely. But let's not make the mistake of foolishly falling for the argument that the government is the only or even the best way to accomplish what we are called to do as individuals, and which we as a Church have poorly taught.
Truth can not contradict truth. In that same vein, human dignity is not upheld if one of it's three required pillars is undermined. It is an error to uphold "common good" as if it is a stand alone principle. It's not. Human dignity is, and it requires all three pillars of common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity to be upheld. A social action which takes power and rights which rightfully belong to families and individuals and churches and the free market undermines subsidiarity and fails to uphold human dignity. The government ought not be in the business of forcing us to do with our money what they think we ought to do, making it so we have less to do what Christ calls us to do.
Christ's challenge to all of us is to find a way to address society's poverties that actually upholds human dignity. Our current path does nothing of the kind.
Sunday, March 1, 2009
Human Dignity in One Lesson
Our nation is facing challenging economic times. Such times often cause tremendous change in roles of government, private sector, and family. It is the purview of the faithful and all in our society to assess how to best meet our moral obligations. As hierarchy in the Catholic Church, it is our responsibility to remind both our faithful and all people in our society of what these moral responsibilities are.
Always and everywhere it is the responsibility of every individual, and all grouping of society, including government, to serve and uphold the dignity of every human being. To accomplish this, it is necessary to understand what is meant by human dignity, and what is required to uphold it.
Human Dignity
Human dignity is the innate and unalienable quality bestowed on every human at conception. We each have a value beyond reckoning and a God-given potential that only we can fulfill. Our nation's Declaration of Independence is founded on this most fundamental natural law.
Three principles must be fully, mutually, and equally met in order to uphold human dignity: the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. If any of these three is absent or slightly lacking, then, human dignity is not uphold, and is in fact undermined -- a three legged stool with a missing or shortened leg can not uphold the person sitting on it.
The Common Good
The common good is the mutually shared responsibility of all individual people to corporately realize our full human potential as individuals.
Subsidiarity
Subsidiarity is the responsibility of individuals to realize the fullest potential of the smallest groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon their local authority, but it is the responsibility of larger groupings to encourage and support ownership at smaller levels as required.
Solidarity
Solidarity is the responsibility of individuals to realize that what happens to one effects all and thus to stand together, with our strongest helping support our weakest, that we might realize our fullest human potential.
The Most Common Error in Trying to Uphold Human Dignity
Any well intentioned act by an individual, group, society or government which fails to uphold human dignity does so for one or both of two very simply reasons:
It examines the impact of its cause and effect for too short a time and/or on too small a group.
Abortion is the perfect example of this grave error. Examining the rights of the woman only at the time of her pregnancy and anticipated motherhood, her right to not be bothered by anything she doesn't want to be falsely makes abortion seem a moral option. However, doing so fails to consider the effect of the abortion on her unborn child (death), on the mother's life-long mental, spiritual, and physical well being (tremendously harmful effects in all areas), on the father (who has a right to know he's a father and who suffers mental, spiritual, and physical effects as well), and on society at large, which fails to value human life and dignity leading to the harming or killing of millions because of being blind to evil.
To the extent that government, corporations, and other larger groups usurp actions, rights and ownership which rightfully belong at an individual, family, or smaller group level, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that we as a society fail to reach out and help our brothers and sisters overcome their poverties to the point they have equal opportunity, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that individuals turn to others for what they themselves can provide, even through struggle, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that government takes the fruit of individual's labor beyond what is essential to fulfill government's rightful role to protect its people's fundamental, God give, unalienable rights, human dignity is undermined.
Our Call to Uphold Human Dignity:
Christ's challenging invitation to each of us: making decisions effecting the dignity of ourselves and others, to examine the full effect of our actions and laws, and ensure our actions uphold human dignity as fully as possible. Doing so is essential for our nation to continue to be a vibrant, free beacon of democracy, and to us to live our faith.
Ask yourself two simple questions: What is the effect of this action if I consider it's full impact over a long period of time? Does it fully, equally, and mutually uphold the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity, and thus human dignity?
Always and everywhere it is the responsibility of every individual, and all grouping of society, including government, to serve and uphold the dignity of every human being. To accomplish this, it is necessary to understand what is meant by human dignity, and what is required to uphold it.
Human Dignity
Human dignity is the innate and unalienable quality bestowed on every human at conception. We each have a value beyond reckoning and a God-given potential that only we can fulfill. Our nation's Declaration of Independence is founded on this most fundamental natural law.
Three principles must be fully, mutually, and equally met in order to uphold human dignity: the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. If any of these three is absent or slightly lacking, then, human dignity is not uphold, and is in fact undermined -- a three legged stool with a missing or shortened leg can not uphold the person sitting on it.
The Common Good
The common good is the mutually shared responsibility of all individual people to corporately realize our full human potential as individuals.
Subsidiarity
Subsidiarity is the responsibility of individuals to realize the fullest potential of the smallest groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon their local authority, but it is the responsibility of larger groupings to encourage and support ownership at smaller levels as required.
Solidarity
Solidarity is the responsibility of individuals to realize that what happens to one effects all and thus to stand together, with our strongest helping support our weakest, that we might realize our fullest human potential.
The Most Common Error in Trying to Uphold Human Dignity
Any well intentioned act by an individual, group, society or government which fails to uphold human dignity does so for one or both of two very simply reasons:
It examines the impact of its cause and effect for too short a time and/or on too small a group.
Abortion is the perfect example of this grave error. Examining the rights of the woman only at the time of her pregnancy and anticipated motherhood, her right to not be bothered by anything she doesn't want to be falsely makes abortion seem a moral option. However, doing so fails to consider the effect of the abortion on her unborn child (death), on the mother's life-long mental, spiritual, and physical well being (tremendously harmful effects in all areas), on the father (who has a right to know he's a father and who suffers mental, spiritual, and physical effects as well), and on society at large, which fails to value human life and dignity leading to the harming or killing of millions because of being blind to evil.
To the extent that government, corporations, and other larger groups usurp actions, rights and ownership which rightfully belong at an individual, family, or smaller group level, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that we as a society fail to reach out and help our brothers and sisters overcome their poverties to the point they have equal opportunity, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that individuals turn to others for what they themselves can provide, even through struggle, human dignity is undermined.
To the extent that government takes the fruit of individual's labor beyond what is essential to fulfill government's rightful role to protect its people's fundamental, God give, unalienable rights, human dignity is undermined.
Our Call to Uphold Human Dignity:
Christ's challenging invitation to each of us: making decisions effecting the dignity of ourselves and others, to examine the full effect of our actions and laws, and ensure our actions uphold human dignity as fully as possible. Doing so is essential for our nation to continue to be a vibrant, free beacon of democracy, and to us to live our faith.
Ask yourself two simple questions: What is the effect of this action if I consider it's full impact over a long period of time? Does it fully, equally, and mutually uphold the common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity, and thus human dignity?
Friday, February 6, 2009
Why We Prefer Victimhood to Responsibility
Here's the article that triggered this blog. The headline reads: "Phelps needs less idle time, no more."
Ug.
As a nation, do we no longer realize that it is not government's (or governing bodies of sports) role to take responsibility for our choices -- it's ours?
News flash to the numbskullian George Vecsey who wrote the article: If Phelps has taken genuine ownership of his poor choices, he will realize what he needs to do to move forward and he will do it. If that means 16 hours in the pool practicing, fine. If that's more down time, fine.
How often do we inadvertently fall to false victimhood, simply because it's a HUGE blind spot in our culture?
Thursday, January 1, 2009
What's Missing from the Gay Marriage/transgender Dialogue
I just saw an episode of Eli Stone, in which a transgendered priest (Lutheran, I believe) put forth his/her arguments for why a sex change operation is morally justified.
-- She was in the wrong body for 30 years and needed a new one.
Of course everyone in the show who "had a heart" melted at the expressions of compassion and acceptance by the end of the episode. Unsurprisingly, completely missing is a single concept:
Natural Law.
It is natural law that God makes each of us exactly the way we are. Our eternal essence, who we are fundamentally, is not just our soul. When we find ourselves in heaven we will be the fulfillment of the same mind, same body, same soul (the belief that souls are superior/separate from our body and thus where our essence must reside, is rooted in a heresy from St. Augustine's day, Gnosticism/ Manichaeism).
So, a personal drawn to being transgendered must address that question. Did God truly make them wrong? Or do they have a heavy cross to bear for some reason we can not see? Transgender surgery is not a repair, it is a controlling change. I don't know the answers, but our public dialogue is far from complete without these questions being included.
Gay marriage. The Church teaches that marriage is only between a man and a woman, for a life time. Why? Simply biology. Puzzle pieces. Love and pro-creation are part of every marriage.
I can not begin to understand the cross gay people carry. Or transgendered folk bear. I do know the burden of carrying my own cross of life disabled with TBI. I trust that God has gift in this cross and that when it is God's will for this cross to be removed (on either side of death's veil), I will gladly accept healing. And I'll look forward to discovering just exactly who God created me to be, and how these things that I don't understand will have imminent clarity.
Church teaching in these matters is clear. How people who are born with them are to bear their cross is an entirely poorly explored area.
What would Jesus Do?
Jesus warmly embraced and accepted people who were clearly sinners and then challenged them to "go forth and sin no more." (The woman at the well). This remains the Church's action as well, except that we sometimes overemphasize the "sin no more" part, and don't see (and or having it dismissed by the media and political agendas) the "embrace, accept" precursors inherent to individual ministry. Why? Because they happen individually, privately, pastorally. As they should.
Why the Heavy Pessimism about 2008?
As I glance through the headlines that pop up in my browser's home page a common thought has struck me: the world (or at least it's journalists) have yet to hear and embrace true hope -- hope in Jesus Christ.
To read the headlines, 2008 was a dismal year. Too long. Full of war. Full of financial doom. All fretting over things that really only matter in light of Jesus Christ. And in that light, we have to ask ourselves how well we're doing upholding the dignity God gave us.
Jesus our Christ came to reveal to us our own God-given potential, our beauty, our dignity. And regardless of how well we're doing in that regard, the weight of any burdens we bear into 2009 is infinitesimal compared with the uplifting that running toward Christ brings us.
Come on, folks! Life is a pilgrim's journey. We are, at best, lodgers at inn beside the road toward our true home -- Jesus our Christ.
For this coming year, let's seek to find and serve Jesus in each person we meet. Then we will be like the wise men -- traveling far, sacrificing much, gaining eternal life.
Saturday, December 13, 2008
Where Hope is Found
Eucharist plants seeds,
Christ's Mass Grows within,
Prepare ye the way!
Eucharist plants the seeds of Christmas in our mind, our heart, our soul. How do we nurture the seed of Christ? What fruit will we eventually bring forth?
Eucharist plants seeds,
Christ's Mass Grows within,
Prepare ye the way!
Christ's Mass Grows within,
Prepare ye the way!
Eucharist plants the seeds of Christmas in our mind, our heart, our soul. How do we nurture the seed of Christ? What fruit will we eventually bring forth?
Eucharist plants seeds,
Christ's Mass Grows within,
Prepare ye the way!
Science Fiction and Salvation
Science Fiction is a powerful tool for exploring and understanding how we human collectively see ourselves.
"No," some might argue, "it's simply the result of a few minds and how they see the world."
Indeed. That's true of any given work. But, those that make it to the masses and become popular, have somehow spoken to people "en mass" and it has a lot to say about how we collectively see ourselves.
Jules Vern, Doyle, Asimov, Roddenberry, Lucas. These are among the minds that have asked us, collectively, to ponder our human potential and how we recognize and choose good and evil, God or Satan.
Of modern note are creations that in recent decades have become popular TV series. Star Trek, Babylon 5, Star Gate series, Buffy the Vampire Slayer, Battlestar Galactica, Terminator: Sarah Connor Chronicles, Heros, Sanctuary.
There is a tendency among the modern sci-fi creations to be highly cynical. There is a distinct lack of hope. There is the premise that evil has won and survival equals victory. There is an underlying belief that humanity is doomed, and that being human means being irreprably connected with evil. This is an accurate and scary reality of the world without Jesus our Christ.
Mutations that are advancing humanity to our fuller potential and to greater potential for destruction abound. There is an awareness that humanity is called to more than we realize, but they very rarely point to God as the avenue for our salvation.
Watching them, it can be easy to forget the through Jesus our Christ, we can rise up to fulfill a destiny far greater than we imagine -- the one God created us to be. It can be easy to forget we are each made in God's image, and if we can say "Yes!" to Christ being born within us, just as Mary did 2000 years ago, that God's grace gives up hope of living up to being fully human.
Bizarre and Artiļ¬cial Rift Between Pro-Life and Social Justice “Camps”
This is the Enemy of human dignity clearly at work, dividing a house that should clearly be
united. There are errors on both sides, both of which boil down to not understanding our own
Catholic social teaching.
The battle against abortion is a clear moral “trump” issue. Without life, there is no opportunity
for human dignity here on earth. At the same time, our faith requires us to recognize Jesus our
Christ in every person and seek to help each person overcome the barriers between then and
equal opportunity.
united. There are errors on both sides, both of which boil down to not understanding our own
Catholic social teaching.
The battle against abortion is a clear moral “trump” issue. Without life, there is no opportunity
for human dignity here on earth. At the same time, our faith requires us to recognize Jesus our
Christ in every person and seek to help each person overcome the barriers between then and
equal opportunity.
One Body, In Christ
We can have both. We need to strive and struggle, together, toward both.
My prayer is that this model of Catholic social teaching can help move people beyond this evil
rift. We are one body. It’s time we started working like one, including that we realize we’re only one part and that other parts have other jobs and we work best when we realize we are one part, serving all parts.
My prayer is that this model of Catholic social teaching can help move people beyond this evil
rift. We are one body. It’s time we started working like one, including that we realize we’re only one part and that other parts have other jobs and we work best when we realize we are one part, serving all parts.
Human Dignity in One Lesson
In 1946 Henry Hazlitt wrote "Economics in One Lesson." It's a painfully simple book that cuts through a lot of confusion in economics. What is this one lesson? Turns out, it's one sentence:
Indeed, this is perhaps the simplest, most elegant way to describe the art of upholding human dignity.
Any policy, no matter how ill-conceived, can be shown to benefit some sub-group of people for some limited amount of time. But who does it harm? What are the medium and long term effects? How does it effect all people?
Proof of Concept:
Care for a non-economic example? I'll take a non-controvercial one (sardonic grin):
Abortion
In the little picture, abortion benefits a defined subset of the human population for a limited time. But doing so ignores that it harms everyone involved, plus society at large when we look at the big picture.
Resources for learning more:
"The art of economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups." (p. 5)
Indeed, this is perhaps the simplest, most elegant way to describe the art of upholding human dignity.
Any policy, no matter how ill-conceived, can be shown to benefit some sub-group of people for some limited amount of time. But who does it harm? What are the medium and long term effects? How does it effect all people?
Proof of Concept:
Care for a non-economic example? I'll take a non-controvercial one (sardonic grin):
Abortion
In the little picture, abortion benefits a defined subset of the human population for a limited time. But doing so ignores that it harms everyone involved, plus society at large when we look at the big picture.
Resources for learning more:
We are witnessing the slow death caused by subtle socialism
The Soviet Block used overt socialism to kill itself in 70 years. The US is using subtle socialism to accomplish the same thing over a longer timeframe.
Why does it take longer to kill a nation with subtle socialism than with overt socialism? Because the free market breathes new life into the infected nation, giving it strength to endure and last longer than otherwise.
I say this not based on economics. I say it based on the principles of human dignity. In the early 1900's the US began undermining human dignity by turning to the government to unnecessarily regulate the free market, undermining subsidiarity by hindering the ability of people to enter freely into contracts with each other.
It's now so common place we don't realize the government doesn't belong as a third wheel controlling how any free interaction takes place. The government sitting on each person's hand looks right to us. It's not.
If the government is involved, increased regulation is needed to keep the government in check while it regulates the interaction (otherwise, the government is tempted to become a player in a sandbox that's it's regulating). When abuse happens, we daftly trust the government to fix it by adding more regulation (brilliant deduction! I'm off to wipe the sardonic off my face) and instead of doing the right thing to uphold human dignity (remove regulation and government involvement), we add more of both, compounding the problem.
Now, we've given up on even the facade of subtle socialism and our government is deciding which companies get bailout finding (gee, no chance for further waste there!).
Unless we take drastic action to remove the insidious cancer of socialism from all aspects of government -- cutting it's role back to only the most basic and necessary functions to protect our population and define and uphold the rules of the free market -- our great nation will crumble under the weight of our own bungling weight, and human dignity will be squashed just as equally as it was under overt socialist USSR.
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Let's try everything except nothing!
Everything Seems Reasonable without Principles to Stand On
Treasury Secretary Paulson today changed strategies in the financial bailout. I don't pretend to understand what he's now proposing (and I'm far from convinced he knows either), but what I do know is that we have strayed far and wide from what the proper role of government is: upholding and ensuring the rights of the people to life, liberty, and property (see The Law, by Frederic Bastiat).
Treasury Secretary Paulson today changed strategies in the financial bailout. I don't pretend to understand what he's now proposing (and I'm far from convinced he knows either), but what I do know is that we have strayed far and wide from what the proper role of government is: upholding and ensuring the rights of the people to life, liberty, and property (see The Law, by Frederic Bastiat).
Och! How very much our government has become the legal plunderer rather than the protector.
The government has two right and proper roles in the free market (which I call the sandbox):
- Define the sandbox and its rules
- Uphold and enforce the rules
Bully in the Sandbox
Of course it is hardly content with only those two roles, and so it steps into the sandbox to play, often in the name of "fairness". Except that as make, enforcer, and now player in the sandbox, there is nothing to stop the government. And we just elected leaders who want to play even more in the sandbox.
Of course, the problem with a bully in the sandbox is no other kids are quite sure they want to play because anything they play might get taken away. So of course we still have a credit crisis. You hold on to your toys when the bully's around, especially when he says "Go ahead, play!"
Mini-Revolution
Time for a mini-revolution to return government back to being by the people and for the people.
Our one option: vote them out! They clearly won't get out of the way. We are the only ones who can stop the government. Not entirely. It has a right and proper role. It's just that right now it's doing everything except its right and proper role, and in so doing harming those it is supposed to protect.
Tuesday, November 11, 2008
Christmas Abundance in Today's Economy
I thought I'd share how we're responding to the much tighter budget this year as we prepare for Christmas.
We talked with our daughters and explained that this year we will be making our presents for each other. We've long read about the Christmases Laura Ingles Wilder had growing up -- and they really like the idea of Christmas gifts being made by us for each other and family and friends.
So our wee house of elves is busy at elven activity! The joy it brings to be doing that is a wonderful gift in itself! It looks to be a wondrously industrious and joy-filled Advent as we prepare for Christ's Mass!
How will your family find abundance this Christmas? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
We talked with our daughters and explained that this year we will be making our presents for each other. We've long read about the Christmases Laura Ingles Wilder had growing up -- and they really like the idea of Christmas gifts being made by us for each other and family and friends.
So our wee house of elves is busy at elven activity! The joy it brings to be doing that is a wonderful gift in itself! It looks to be a wondrously industrious and joy-filled Advent as we prepare for Christ's Mass!
How will your family find abundance this Christmas? Share your thoughts in the comments section.
Saturday, October 18, 2008
Compassion and Why Institutional Handouts Rarely Uphold Human Dignity
Compassion is the source motivation which drives people to engage in social justice. Compassion is a beautiful gift that allows us to see the potential in others, despite their poverty, we hope we have ourselves. We need more compassion in our world. Compassion motivates us to advocate for the needs of our neighbor, be they next door or across the world.
Compassion is necessarily most effective when most personal. Indeed the more institutionalized a compassionate act becomes, the less effective it becomes. To illustrate this, I turn to Les MisĆ©rables by Victor Hugo (the book or play suffice). Jean Valjean is a newly released convicted thief who can not find work or lodging because of his past. Bishop Myriel takes him in, giving food and shelter. Valjean steals the bishop’s silverware and vanishes into the night, only to get caught. The police drag him before the bishop, who informs them that he gave Valjean the silverware and that he forgot the silver candlesticks as well. Bewildered by the bishop’s unexpected forgiveness and generosity, Valjean takes to heart the bishop’s command to become an honest man and do good deeds for others. That moment becomes transformative for Valjean, who takes the wealth to start a business under a new identity and he does help many.
Would that moment have been nearly as transformative if it hadn’t been so personal? No. It took being beholden to the bishop’s startling forgiveness and additional generosity to motivate Valjean to stand up and strive to become who God created him to be. No institutional handout could have accomplished the same thing. Valjean has many personal levels of poverty in addition to his financial poverty. These can only be addressed personally, in relationship.
I’m often asked, “Why do the doers of social justice need to know this model? Can’t they just ‘love their neighbor’?” If all they will ever do is act individually, perhaps. But if they will ever advocate for social justice by voting or speaking to others, or extrapolate from their experiences to any larger scale (which nearly everyone invariably does), then it is essential they understand the natural law of this model of Catholic Social Teaching.
Compassion is necessarily most effective when most personal. Indeed the more institutionalized a compassionate act becomes, the less effective it becomes. To illustrate this, I turn to Les MisĆ©rables by Victor Hugo (the book or play suffice). Jean Valjean is a newly released convicted thief who can not find work or lodging because of his past. Bishop Myriel takes him in, giving food and shelter. Valjean steals the bishop’s silverware and vanishes into the night, only to get caught. The police drag him before the bishop, who informs them that he gave Valjean the silverware and that he forgot the silver candlesticks as well. Bewildered by the bishop’s unexpected forgiveness and generosity, Valjean takes to heart the bishop’s command to become an honest man and do good deeds for others. That moment becomes transformative for Valjean, who takes the wealth to start a business under a new identity and he does help many.
Would that moment have been nearly as transformative if it hadn’t been so personal? No. It took being beholden to the bishop’s startling forgiveness and additional generosity to motivate Valjean to stand up and strive to become who God created him to be. No institutional handout could have accomplished the same thing. Valjean has many personal levels of poverty in addition to his financial poverty. These can only be addressed personally, in relationship.
Why explain this? Because many people begin their social justice careers by doing compassionate things as a grass roots level. They see that compassionate giving of aid helps people. They logically presume that what works on a local scale could simply be magnified if they did it on a large scale. What is often missed is that larger scale generally means less personal, and the tranformative aspect of the compassionate act is stripped away. No longer is there 1) mutual agreement, 2) relationship, or 3) personal responsibility -- the very things that help overcome the intangible poverties.
I’m often asked, “Why do the doers of social justice need to know this model? Can’t they just ‘love their neighbor’?” If all they will ever do is act individually, perhaps. But if they will ever advocate for social justice by voting or speaking to others, or extrapolate from their experiences to any larger scale (which nearly everyone invariably does), then it is essential they understand the natural law of this model of Catholic Social Teaching.
We need to realize that compassion is transformative and requires personal involvement and sacrifice. Somehow, our structures for social justice need to promote and support individual acts of compassion if we are to be as effective as possible.
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Dialogue Begins
Note: I've learned that Ramon Tulio is a literary device by a blogger to humorously discuss Catholic Social Teaching. I've decided to leave this interaction up because it is reflective of interactions I've had with real people in various areas of social justice, from Pax Christi to a real professor at Regis University. However, I will not knowing engage in dialogue with fictional persona. Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Thank you, Ironic Catholic, for the chance to have a hearty laugh at myself! Grin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Prof. Ramon Tulio here. Dcn Patrick, I like this attempt to visualize the principles here. I do have one comment. Although many, including myself, would agree with you regarding the centrality of the life and dignity of the human person, I think there may be a reason the Compendium has four principles. Perhaps the source and summit, as you say, is ultimately Eucharistic...not just in systematic theology but also Catholic Social Teaching. Our life in the world is a step into the paschal mystery, if you take discipleship seriously...the paschal mystery is the pattern of our lives and the imitation of Christ in our various states of life.
This is all a long way to say that I'd rather keep that Eucharistic center in the middle of it all, and allow the four principles the Compendium allows.
It's interesting that the Compendium has these four principles...whittled down from the seven principles in the USCCB's Sharing Catholic Social Teaching...whittled down from popular articulations of 10 or more!
I agree the principles need to be held in balance.
More later (re: the above posts), Thanks for all the work on my favorite subject!
--Professor Tulio
Dear Professor Tulio,
Thank you for engaging in this dialogue. It is well worth celebrating the common faith and mission we share -- for it is within that common ground that we exchange these ideas.
If I'm understanding what you wrote above, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you make two primary points: Eucharist as the center of it all and the subsequent flattening of the four principles -- the elimination of the three-legged stool concept. I see the first as excellent but incomplete, and the second as mistaken.
To your first point, Jesus our Christ is at the center, is the source and summit, of all Catholic teaching. Eucharist and human dignity are inseparable from who Jesus our Christ is. The act of Eucharist and the anthropology of being both divine and human (a simple way of defining human dignity) are unique revelations that are essential for knowing who Christ is by nature and who we are called to be by grace.
Your first point is well taken: I could say it better than I do and will change that in my paper.
Which brings me to your second point. If I am understanding you correctly, you are pushing back against the notion that human dignity is the preeminent principle among the 4 permanent principles. The Compendium itself refutes this: human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Indeed, the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" states: "These principles build on the foundation of Catholic social teaching: the dignity of human life. This central Catholic principle requires that we measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity, especially for the poor and vulnerable." Clearly upholding human dignity is the central principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
You mention these four principles have been whittled down from the seven given by the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" (and from other, larger lists of principles). There is one problem with this: subsidiarity is not among those seven (which are: Dignity and Live of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community, and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers, Solidarity, and Care of God's Creation). It is mentioned once, in passing, under "Care for God's Creation." Frankly, I'm puzzled by the document's neglecting to highlight one of the four permanent principles.
These four are not whittled down from anything. Saying so is like saying breathing, eating, and drinking are a whittled down list of biological activities. Hardly. They are the essential structure upon which all other principles of Catholic Social Teaching must be positioned. Without any one of them, Human dignity dies. All Catholic social teaching principles serve to uphold human dignity, and all principles outside the permanent four must meet the demands of each of the three pillars in order to uphold human dignity. Indeed, I don't believe we can discuss any principle or assess an action in regards to Catholic Social Teaching without mentioning how it either relates to or upholds human dignity and meets the three pillars of common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.
If I'm understanding what you wrote above, and please correct me if I'm wrong, you make two primary points: Eucharist as the center of it all and the subsequent flattening of the four principles -- the elimination of the three-legged stool concept. I see the first as excellent but incomplete, and the second as mistaken.
To your first point, Jesus our Christ is at the center, is the source and summit, of all Catholic teaching. Eucharist and human dignity are inseparable from who Jesus our Christ is. The act of Eucharist and the anthropology of being both divine and human (a simple way of defining human dignity) are unique revelations that are essential for knowing who Christ is by nature and who we are called to be by grace.
Your first point is well taken: I could say it better than I do and will change that in my paper.
Which brings me to your second point. If I am understanding you correctly, you are pushing back against the notion that human dignity is the preeminent principle among the 4 permanent principles. The Compendium itself refutes this: human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Indeed, the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" states: "These principles build on the foundation of Catholic social teaching: the dignity of human life. This central Catholic principle requires that we measure every policy, every institution, and every action by whether it protects human life and enhances human dignity, especially for the poor and vulnerable." Clearly upholding human dignity is the central principle of Catholic Social Teaching.
You mention these four principles have been whittled down from the seven given by the USCCB's "Sharing Catholic Social Teaching" (and from other, larger lists of principles). There is one problem with this: subsidiarity is not among those seven (which are: Dignity and Live of the Human Person, Call to Family, Community, and Participation, Rights and Responsibilities, Option for the Poor and Vulnerable, Dignity of Work and Rights of Workers, Solidarity, and Care of God's Creation). It is mentioned once, in passing, under "Care for God's Creation." Frankly, I'm puzzled by the document's neglecting to highlight one of the four permanent principles.
These four are not whittled down from anything. Saying so is like saying breathing, eating, and drinking are a whittled down list of biological activities. Hardly. They are the essential structure upon which all other principles of Catholic Social Teaching must be positioned. Without any one of them, Human dignity dies. All Catholic social teaching principles serve to uphold human dignity, and all principles outside the permanent four must meet the demands of each of the three pillars in order to uphold human dignity. Indeed, I don't believe we can discuss any principle or assess an action in regards to Catholic Social Teaching without mentioning how it either relates to or upholds human dignity and meets the three pillars of common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity.
Tuesday, September 23, 2008
Freedom Primary to Human Dignity
Freedom to choose who we associate with, what we do and how we do it, so long as we do not usurp the rights of others is foundational to the human experience. That's why subsidiarity is so critical to upholding human dignity. The largest usurper of individual freedoms is our government.
Catholic Social Teaching tells us we should be extremely leery of any institution larger than the family taking to it power that rightly belongs to the family or the individual. Advocates of social justice often extoll a larger government role for addressing our poor through government programs, or interference with individuals rights to freely negotiate contracts with each other (minimum wage laws). What they fail to realize is that such actions infringe on our fundamental freedoms, including the freedom of our poor (they also, as near as I can tell, tend to have the opposite, negative, effect on our poors' economic status). This undermines human dignity and only serves to repress equal opportunity rather than promote it.
The chart below shows that the larger the institution the less power it ought to have, affording individuals the maximum amount of freedom (as shown by the green triangle). However, there is a strong tendency for larger institutions to take to themselves rights, privleges, and responsibilities that justly belong in the free market, private organizations, family, or individuals (as shown by the dashed triangle).
We should be deeply concerned anytime additional power is sought by any institution larger than family. We should also be fighting to return all rights, powers, and responsibilities to the free market, private organizations, family, and the individual that can be owned at those levels.
As we come to truly understand how many of the solutions Catholics often currently advocate actually undermine human dignity, then we can begin to look for actions that can more fully uphold human dignity. Only through mutual collaboration and dialogue will we advance human dignity as much as possible.
Subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity is one of the 4 foundational principles of Catholic Social Teaching. Of the four, it is the black sheep. It's there, but no one really ever talks about it. Why? I don't know. It's absolutely essential to upholding human dignity.
In theological geek speak subsidiarity is the responsibility of society to realize the fullest potential of the smallest
groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and
practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon
their local authority, but it is the responsibilownership at smaller levels as required.
In common speak, subsidiarity is "power to the people."
Misconceptions of subsidiarity abound. Among them, I focus on three:
One misconception of subsidiarity is that if a needed responsibility is not being met by society,
including the free market, then the state, as owner of last resort, has permission and moral
mandate to take ownership of meeting the collective responsibility. Wrong. Subsidiarity requires
the state to take measures to encourage and support ownership at a lower level. An example of
this misunderstanding is our current system of social welfare is bloated, impersonal, and
ineffective in empowering people beyond poverty, and it actually undermines human dignity
because it fails to meet the test of subsidiarity, which states that the more local and freely entered
the solution, the more fully human dignity is upheld. It is the State’s responsibility to promote
and support ownership at the smallest feasible and practical (practicable) level. In general, this
means creating and supporting free choice endeavors within the free market. The state has at its
disposal a variety of tools (many of which are likely underdeveloped and poorly understood for
lack of experience and require further development) including: tax incentives and voucher
systems.
Another misconception of subsidiarity presumes a false dichotomy: either we meet society’s
responsibility via the State or we leave it to individuals to choose to overcome the obstacles
before them. This erroneous dichotomy has led to the classic belief that all people who oppose
social welfare programs are crudely saying our poor “should pull themselves up by their own
boot straps.” Again, wrong. There are a vast number of unexplored possibilities for meeting our
collective responsibility and they are to be found somewhere between the State and the
individual.
Finally, a third misconception of subsidiarity confuses applying subsidiarity to the method of
selection vs. to the potential solutions themselves. For example, in Colorado’s November 2006
elections we had a statewide initiative increasing taxes and increasing the state’s social welfare
programs. When I asked a well formed Catholic leader of the initiative how subsidiarity applied,
they informed me that it had been applied, as it was being voted on by the people. This is an
example of applying subsidiarity to the method of selection (voting by the people) but not to the
potential solutions themselves. In effect voting had passed the test of subsidiarity but it had never
been applied to potential solution of a tax increase. By this way of thinking, any measure on the
ballot, including a shift to totalitarian dictatorship, passes the test of subsidiarity. Clearly, this is
an example of confusing the process of selection with the the proposed action itself.
These three misconceptions illustrate both the lack of development and understudying of
subsidiarity within Catholic theology and part of the reason for such lack. Herein lies the greatest
challenge to both this model and to people’s willingness to explore and understand it:
Subsidiarity has a lot to say about solutions we currently support as socially just, but which
subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we need to let go
of some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we needof some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.
In theological geek speak subsidiarity is the responsibility of society to realize the fullest potential of the smallest
groupings, down to the family and individual, by placing ownership at the smallest feasible and
practical level. Indeed, not only is it the responsibility of smaller groupings to claim and act upon
their local authority, but it is the responsibilownership at smaller levels as required.
In common speak, subsidiarity is "power to the people."
Misconceptions of subsidiarity abound. Among them, I focus on three:
One misconception of subsidiarity is that if a needed responsibility is not being met by society,
including the free market, then the state, as owner of last resort, has permission and moral
mandate to take ownership of meeting the collective responsibility. Wrong. Subsidiarity requires
the state to take measures to encourage and support ownership at a lower level. An example of
this misunderstanding is our current system of social welfare is bloated, impersonal, and
ineffective in empowering people beyond poverty, and it actually undermines human dignity
because it fails to meet the test of subsidiarity, which states that the more local and freely entered
the solution, the more fully human dignity is upheld. It is the State’s responsibility to promote
and support ownership at the smallest feasible and practical (practicable) level. In general, this
means creating and supporting free choice endeavors within the free market. The state has at its
disposal a variety of tools (many of which are likely underdeveloped and poorly understood for
lack of experience and require further development) including: tax incentives and voucher
systems.
Another misconception of subsidiarity presumes a false dichotomy: either we meet society’s
responsibility via the State or we leave it to individuals to choose to overcome the obstacles
before them. This erroneous dichotomy has led to the classic belief that all people who oppose
social welfare programs are crudely saying our poor “should pull themselves up by their own
boot straps.” Again, wrong. There are a vast number of unexplored possibilities for meeting our
collective responsibility and they are to be found somewhere between the State and the
individual.
Finally, a third misconception of subsidiarity confuses applying subsidiarity to the method of
selection vs. to the potential solutions themselves. For example, in Colorado’s November 2006
elections we had a statewide initiative increasing taxes and increasing the state’s social welfare
programs. When I asked a well formed Catholic leader of the initiative how subsidiarity applied,
they informed me that it had been applied, as it was being voted on by the people. This is an
example of applying subsidiarity to the method of selection (voting by the people) but not to the
potential solutions themselves. In effect voting had passed the test of subsidiarity but it had never
been applied to potential solution of a tax increase. By this way of thinking, any measure on the
ballot, including a shift to totalitarian dictatorship, passes the test of subsidiarity. Clearly, this is
an example of confusing the process of selection with the the proposed action itself.
These three misconceptions illustrate both the lack of development and understudying of
subsidiarity within Catholic theology and part of the reason for such lack. Herein lies the greatest
challenge to both this model and to people’s willingness to explore and understand it:
Subsidiarity has a lot to say about solutions we currently support as socially just, but which
subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we need to let go
of some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.subsidiarity shows us actually leaves human dignity tottering on a two-legged stool. The
challenge before us is to become willing to take a new look at social issues to which we thought
we knew the solutions. If we want to uphold human dignity as fully as possible, we needof some of our current answers and venture into unknown territory in search of answers.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Tests for Each Leg of the Stool
(Click a picture to see it full size)
The above are tests I propose (which are inherently subjective and a tool for dialogue, not a tool for finality) for assessing if a given action upholds each aspect of human dignity. Their primary usefulness is as a dialogue tool, providing a common foundation from which to begin talking with someone who disagrees with you about raising minimum wage, so you can begin to understand where and why you disagree, why there are holes in your approach or theirs, and perhaps to begin seeing what needs to happen to create an action that more fully upholds human dignity than we currently have.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
How Does this Stool Help?
So, we've got this three-legged stool. what do we do with it?
For starters, we can now see that we need all three legs for the stool to remain standing - to uphold human dignity.
Common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity form a trinitarian means of assessing and refining an actions ability to uphold human dignity. The more fully each is present, the stronger the upholding of human dignity. Each principle is its own person in upholding the one goal of human dignity. Each interrelates with the other two, yet is distinct from them. We cannot truly talk about one without referencing the others (though it is possible, and even common, to neglect one, generally subsidiarity).
The stool helps because it becomes a tool for dialogue on any given possible social action and how well it actually upholds human dignity. The stool becomes helpful because it begins to show us the shortcomings of the solutions we often advocate in the name of social justice. It becomes useful in that it can challenge us to find new and better ways to uphold human dignity rather than ignorantly supporting actions which actually undermine human dignity.
A Three-Legged Stool to Uphold Human Dignity
I believe Catholic social teaching is wondrously rich and deep and offers us far more moral guidance than we perhaps think it does. However, to unlock this richness, we have to understand the inherant structure of the various principles involved and how they relate with each other.
We have the teaching of Jesus our Christ, the many and various writings of our Saints and papal encyclicals from relatively modern times. These are the source of our beautiful, living, breathing Catholic social teaching.
The Compendium offers us a first glimpse at what an underlying structure of these many principles might be. Catholic Social teaching has four “permanent principles”: human dignity, common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. These are “the very heart of Catholic social teaching” and human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Clearly, any systemic approach to Catholic social teaching must have human dignity as its foundation and any social action must have the upholding of everyone’s human dignity as the measure of its goodness. To borrow a phrase from Eucharistic theology, human dignity is the source and summit of Catholic social teaching and praxis.
That leaves us with the three permanent principles: common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Understanding how these three relate to each other and to human dignity is the obvious next step to creating a systematic understanding of Catholic social teaching.
Based on my understanding of these concepts and the overall way in which they are presented, albeit largely, if not entirely, independent of one another, I believe these three remaining permanent principles are mutually essential to the upholding of human dignity. Like the three legs of a stool holding up the seat upon which a person rests, these three pillars of human dignity are each required if a particular action is to uphold the dignity of the human person. Should any one be missing to any degree, the stool falls, and we've failed to uphold human dignity.
If this model is true, then any and all understanding and application of Catholic Social Teaching must show how it upholds all three pillars in order to show it upholds human dignity. The natural result of this is highly subjective, and requires a lot of dialogue.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
The Compendium offers us a first glimpse at what an underlying structure of these many principles might be. Catholic Social teaching has four “permanent principles”: human dignity, common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. These are “the very heart of Catholic social teaching” and human dignity is “the foundation of all other principles and content of the Church’s social doctrine” (Compendium, #160).
Clearly, any systemic approach to Catholic social teaching must have human dignity as its foundation and any social action must have the upholding of everyone’s human dignity as the measure of its goodness. To borrow a phrase from Eucharistic theology, human dignity is the source and summit of Catholic social teaching and praxis.
That leaves us with the three permanent principles: common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Understanding how these three relate to each other and to human dignity is the obvious next step to creating a systematic understanding of Catholic social teaching.
Based on my understanding of these concepts and the overall way in which they are presented, albeit largely, if not entirely, independent of one another, I believe these three remaining permanent principles are mutually essential to the upholding of human dignity. Like the three legs of a stool holding up the seat upon which a person rests, these three pillars of human dignity are each required if a particular action is to uphold the dignity of the human person. Should any one be missing to any degree, the stool falls, and we've failed to uphold human dignity.
If this model is true, then any and all understanding and application of Catholic Social Teaching must show how it upholds all three pillars in order to show it upholds human dignity. The natural result of this is highly subjective, and requires a lot of dialogue.
Care to participate in that dialogue? Feel free to dive in in the comments section. For the whole schtick, please see my Model of Catholic Social Teaching.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
