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 Misérables 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.

Bad Bailout, Government Bully, and Nasty Coconuts

A few weeks ago the cry came from the White House that we were in huge economic crisis and that we needed that the answer was for the government to unclog the system with another bailout -- this time equalling the total of the previous recent bailouts to the tune of $700B.

If "the Man" says there is a problem that's one thing. That's their job. "Danger! Conditions are right for quick sand to form in the free market sand box!" It was said by some, but not in a way or a forum that it was heard or understood or reached most people. And if it had, would we have listened?

But "the Man" did more than declare danger a few weeks ago. Bloated government can't help but want to do more than it's rightful, just, and noble job. Now the government saw the opportunity to be the knight in shinning armor riding in to save the nation's economy, all the while utterly ignorant that it is actually a gangly, clumsy, oaf with a tin pot for a helmet clunking coconuts together for a steed.

I think many people saw the knight for the fool he is. Most Americans opposed the bailout before it passed. But the delusion of grandeur spread through congress. And it will continue to spread, because economic hardship is a vast and prevalent dragon throughout the land. After all, a knight in shining armor can hardly refuse to help more hapless citizenry in need. The delusion will grow and grow, we will pay and pay, until it can no longer support itself and then we will have real collapse and the "must avoid disaster" of the free market self-correcting will look mighty desirable. I pray our leaders look in the mirror sooner than that and wise up.

But I've digressed to dire predictions based on nothing but principles. (By the way, never trust a person who claims "I'm against this in principle, but in this crisis we have no choice but to blow off principle and do what feels good.").

How did our government's declaration to save the day prevent the free market from self-correcting? Because no one was exactly sure what the answer would be, only that government would overstep it's bounds. There was an answer coming. It's not our job to address it.

And the very mechanisms that could and should have helped get things moving again stood still because there was too much risk (of what the government would do) and not incentive (because the government might diminish any profit) to step into the breech, take a risk, and buy up the bad debt at basement prices. So no one wanted to buy. No one wanted to sell because the government was likely a better buyer.

It's the much the same thing that has happened with charity. The government takes care of it so we don't have to. We pay taxes and that takes care of everyone, right? Wrong. The principle of subsidiarity (via Catholic social teaching) states that ANY social entity that takes to itself roles and responsibilities which can be done by more local entities (closer to the family and the individual), undermines human dignity. Undermines human dignity. Wow. How much is our government doing that can be done by anyone else? A lot. That's a lot of trampling on human dignity.

Our current crisis began with a noble and ill advised sentiment -- that everyone should have a house. Government mandates made it so lending institutions had to give loans to people who couldn't afford them. This came to include not only poor people, but middle income people who thought they could turn and flip houses. That works when values keep growing. It's disaster when value shrinks. This was compounded by the Mark to Market rule which caused mortgage securities to appear valueless when they had substantial value. Bungling idiot, this knight in shining armor! And we reward such idiocy by giving our knight more responsibility and tools to mess with new and different aspects of our free market sandbox. Whose the greater idiot? The idiot himself, or the one who follows? 

We have to start calling him what he is. Bully! Get out! This is our sand box! You are just the maker and enforcer of the rules, not a player in the sand. Get out! And take these sand-encrusted coconuts with you!

The government fix we need

Is there a problem? Absolutely. Does the government need to do something to fix it? Absolutely. What does government need to do? Get out of the way.

How do I justify this as a Catholic theologian (and not one with a degree, at that)? Quite simple. The free market is the best economic tool we (humanity) currently have for upholding human dignity in interactions between individuals and organizations through the freedom to contract.

Why has our money supply suddenly become constricted? As near as I can tell because of combination of bad or inept regulation, including:

1) government mandated mortgages to "empower" poor people to buy a home
2) government mandated current list pricing for mortgage securities, which in a stalled market is impossible to assess, resulting in the appearance of a lot more "bad" loans than are really there.
3) quasi/government banks (Fannie and Freddie May) showing exactly why government has no place participating in the free market because there is no one to watch for abuse in the free market when the government is involved. (so why would we EVER turn to the government to do more of the same with a bailout?)

The crisis seems to lie in the regulation usurping people's ability to freely make contracts. Government, get out of the way. Human dignity demands no less.

(For any puzzled by the theology and Catholic social teaching principles refered to here, please see here for all Catholic social teaching posts.

For an intriguing counter-view see here. Kudos to Fr. Dowd for weighing in, and it's well worth noting that we share a common faith and mission. He does a good job of explaining that our problem is a constricted money supply. He's right. But WHY do we have a restricted money supply? Giving more blood to a patient with clogged arteries won't increase the blood flow. What's needed here is angioplasty.

The Sky Is Falling? The Sky is Falling?

Chicken Little resides in Washington and doesn't seem to understand our free market economy. The sky is falling! We have to spend $700 billion!

Out of political self interest, numerous politicians on both sides in the House said no bailout (HUGE kudos to those who voted on principle!). The market fell, but nowhere near a percentage record. And this morning it rebounds slightly. Predictions of world markets collapsing were greatly exaggerated. The bloated, self importance of our political leaders seems befuddled. I don't begin to understand the details of what is happening or why. I don't really even try. I stay focused on the big picture -- which as near as I can tell is this:

What seems true is our economy needs a cleansing laxative and some good hearty fiber to get things moving again. $700 billion in government bailout is just more clogging fat.

Again, I'm no economist, but from what I've come to understand about Catholic thought dating back to Aquinas and further, the ability to freely enter into agreements with others (regardless of scale) is essential to human dignity and anything that gets in the way of that ability undermines human dignity. Always. (See Thomas E. Woods' "The Church and the Market: A Catholic Defense of the Free Economy";   Michael Novak's "The Spirit of Democratic Capitalism"; and Milton Friedman's "Capitalism and Freedom")

Government's right and proper role is to 1) define the rules of the market 2) uphold the rules of the market. That's it. The government defines and defends the boundaries of the free market sandbox.

If and when the government overplays its role (see above), regardless of how well intentioned, the result is always worse that would would have happened without intervention. This is simple economic science.

A truly free market (which ours is arguably not for an abundance of regulation) organically corrects and adjusts to any given situation -- this one included. This can and does mean the loss and making of fortunes and the reality that many people will loose what they have earned. Risk and reward are inherent parts of the system. We can not have reward without risk in any just system.

This leads me to a few simple questions:

Why did mortgage securities suddenly loose value? Have these homes suddenly been flooded, burned, or destroyed? No. Have tens of millions of people suddenly defaulted on their mortgages? No. 95% of mortgaged home owners are in good standing. The answer lies in regulation: Suddenly no one knows the value of these mortgages securities because of a regulation requiring valuation on the current market. Current markets have stalled, so there is no current value. Yet most of those assets have substantial value and are performing assets. The "bad paper" isn't bad at all -- it just looks bad because of bad regulation.

If our market is so free of restrictive regulation, why aren't people with cash snatching up the undervalued mortgage assets? If I had a few hundred million lying around, I'd happily remove a billion or two of "bad" debt from banks' books to help get things moving again. There is some reason people in such a position aren't snatching these bargains up -- in a truly free market, they would. And our economy would have the cleansing laxative it desperately needs. Instead, something, somewhere (regulation perhaps, or the fear of regulation?) prevents the market from self correcting.  

Perhaps our government is working exactly as it's supposed to

Today the House rejected a $700 billion bailout. 40% of Democrats and 67% of Republicans rejected it. And the argument has become a complex version of more vs. less regulation.

I'm no economist. I'm a theologian. As I've said below, I am highly skeptical of any measure which affords more power to our government. Why? 

One simple question: If this financial crisis is the result of too little regulation, why is it the most regulated institutions/banks who failed? Regulation does not work. The government is great at usurping power and horrible at getting anything done.

Perhaps our government is working exactly as it's supposed to in this financial crisis.  

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.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Ramon Tulio was gracious in responding in the comments below. I thought his comments, and the equally important example of spirited dialogue, worth it's own post.

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.

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.

Tests for Each Leg of the Stool

(Click a picture to see it full size)

The Pillars upholding human dignity are common good, subsidiarity, and solidarity. Here we briefly explore the common good. It's important to realize that none of these principles can be fully understood without the other three.

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.