tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post1120071637999266242..comments2024-03-21T04:02:46.799-07:00Comments on Little Catholic Bubble: Subsidiarity: Why haven't I heard this before?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comBlogger67125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-4771768328663677472011-11-08T00:21:34.184-07:002011-11-08T00:21:34.184-07:00Welcome to Subsidiarity Leila!
Another interestin...Welcome to Subsidiarity Leila! <br />Another interesting Quote <br />"No one can be at the same time a sincere Catholic and a true Socialist" Quad. Anno, Pius XI, 1931Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-13467087534073240492011-11-01T17:16:44.887-07:002011-11-01T17:16:44.887-07:00I find it interesting that the principle of subsid...I find it interesting that the principle of subsidiarity (as in the formal naming and definition of subsidiarity as a Catholic concept) came up in a time when the world was shrinking rapidly due to communications advances. In 1891 when this was first introduced, the telephone was breaking onto the scene (though it was still highly impractical for most home use), efficient train routes were allowing mail to travel faster than ever in larger quantities than ever, and the telegraph could transmit information across a continent nearly instantly. In short, this was the first time that *not* abiding by subsidiarity could be actually feasible.<br /><br />And I'm pretty sure that I'll shock some people when I say this, but I learned about the principle of subsidiarity and the principle of solidarity in school. Public school world history, to be specific.A True Amateurhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12437030079312780957noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21845820121359443382011-11-01T09:12:46.422-07:002011-11-01T09:12:46.422-07:00@Leila - Ah, OK... that is a older law though. I ...@Leila - Ah, OK... that is a older law though. I do not believe that was a part of this current crisis.<br /><br />That act doesn't appear to have been designed to force particular loans, it just prevented banks from refusing to do business in certain areas... That being said I do not know near enough about it to either defend it or disparage it.<br /><br />But yes, certainly the point is made that the federal government routinely insinuates itself in all sorts of things.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-16922804543095894412011-11-01T08:25:08.557-07:002011-11-01T08:25:08.557-07:00robbie, that article on the Penn professors' s...robbie, that article on the Penn professors' statement was very interesting!Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-23852797752104219462011-11-01T08:17:40.631-07:002011-11-01T08:17:40.631-07:00robbie, I agree, I hear time and time again from s...robbie, I agree, I hear time and time again from small business owners that the hardest thing for them is to find workers who are willing to work! <br /><br />Nicholas, I agree that banks were greedy, but I'm thinking of the Community Reinvestment Act? And yes, Fannie and Freddie turned into a nightmare. I see the student loan bubble coming and it won't be pretty. The federal government's "good intentions" routinely make things worse, in my opinion. It always sounds good and "compassionate" but real life outcomes? Bad!<br /><br />For the record, I was against bank bailouts. And car company bailouts.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-7407678477147811092011-11-01T07:51:19.313-07:002011-11-01T07:51:19.313-07:00I don't recall the government ever "forci...I don't recall the government ever "forcing" banks to give high risk loans to poor people... If anything they did that voluntarily because the boom made it seem like the sky was the limit.<br /><br />It is possible that semi-private operations like Fannie/Freddie were "forced" to do something, but I do not recall hearing much about that.<br /><br />Banks got greedy, and started making the subprime loans because they were making so much money off the sliced and diced mortgage derivatives that they needed more mortgages to slice and dice.<br /><br />If anything, after the bailouts the government gave the banks money and begged them to make loans and instead the banks just either sat on the capital, used it to pay back the government ASAP, or gave themselves bonuses :-pNicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-54384874704745256942011-11-01T07:41:12.433-07:002011-11-01T07:41:12.433-07:00Didn't the government force banks to give high...Didn't the government force banks to give high risk loans to poor people would could not afford to pay them back? <br /><br />And as a mom of college students... don't get me started. The availability of free money from the government makes it advantageous for the universities to hike tuition endlessly (our state school was 20% last year!!). They know the kids will get the government loans, and the kids (not the schools!) will be the ones with the burden of the debt. Take away the free money for schools (carried on the backs of students), let the universities bring down their tuition, and the kids will be able to pay for their tuition again.<br /><br />The whole system now is unsustainable.<br /><br />Stacy, you have convinced me that DOMA is about subsidiarity. It's like the fundamental right to life. It has to be protected at the federal level. That is one of their few responsibilities. <br /><br />I'm sure the Founders could not have imagined that one day "marriage" would include two grooms and no bride!! Or that sodomy would be the act of Holy Matrimony! Since the fundamental unit of society (and the first rung of subsidiarity) is the family unit (based on marriage), I can see the need for the federal protection of that first, essential rung.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-3673321402685241812011-11-01T07:12:04.726-07:002011-11-01T07:12:04.726-07:00Without doubt the college system in this country a...Without doubt the college system in this country also needs an overhaul, and needs to start seriously decreasing the amount of non-marketable degrees being pushed out. Costs also need to come into line, as education does appear to be the next "bubble" - tuition prices are way too high for the value that is received in many cases.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-26085898891282365472011-11-01T06:56:00.125-07:002011-11-01T06:56:00.125-07:00I think Stacy is right on with the idea that there...I think Stacy is right on with the idea that there is work out there for those who want to find it. Not saying there are jobs for all people in all places; but there are plenty of jobs that aren't filled. Locally, a new Super-Walmart was built. For the first two months or longer their stock was terrible. I enquired from several workers and a manager as to why the brand new store was so pathetically empty. They all pointed out that they were unable to find enough employees to work the (ginormous) store. Also, the employees they hired had a tendency to show up only when they felt like it, or only for a day or two before never coming back. <br /><br />Further, how many of the OWStreeters have overpriced college educations? How many of them have marketable degrees? Kids are encouraged to go to the school of their dreams and do whatever they want, but the fact is that these things may not be economically advisable. And Wall Street is to blame for that economic disparity? It sounds like a bunch of my kids: "That's NOT FAIR!" No, baby, it isn't. That's LIFE. Great article about this at FrontPageMag http://frontpagemag.com/2011/10/24/penn-professors-double-down-on-occupy-wall-street/<br /><br />There is an awesome little essay written by Alexis de Toqueville called Memoir on Pauperism. He finds that people develop an entitlement mindset (OWS) in a welfare state--in other words when subsidiarity is not practiced. He makes a good case, and this was in early 19th century England. I think we're there. You can read it here: http://www.civitas.org.uk/pdf/Tocqueville_rr2.pdfrobbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01300185429785054438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-76124240632561052812011-11-01T06:46:29.542-07:002011-11-01T06:46:29.542-07:00True, and I don't entirely agree with the prot...True, and I don't entirely agree with the protesters... However, we have free speech and free assembly, and if they have nothing better to do than to camp out in some small parks in downtown areas, I don't have a problem with that.<br /><br />If anything, I think the amount of unnecessary police violence has been the real black eye in this whole business, and is what is getting them whatever limited credibility they have achieved.<br /><br />I'm a tad more liberal than most posters here, I would expect, in that I do find it troubling that the income and wealth gaps in the US are so pronounced, but more so that they keep growing at such an incredibly fast rate.<br /><br />And I do think that it is a problem that Wall St banks like Goldman Sachs can essentially just make stuff up that "creates" wealth out of thin air -- until it falls apart. The ridiculous derivatives and other so-called "exotic" products that Wall St was bandying about before the housing crash that really no one understood and essentially turned out to be toxic and worthless, necessitating the major bank bailouts...<br /><br />The problem that I see, (and which I think the Occupy Wall St people are also trying to talk about but are terribly inarticulate at) is that in the wake of all that, the big banks are fast on their way back to business as usual, and fighting tooth and nail against any changes that would prevent them from going back and doing the same kinds of things that led us to the economic woes we have experienced over the last few years.<br /><br />I don't know what the answer is. I'm not a economics genius. I understand that regulation has its own problems as well... But doesn't something need to change?<br /><br />And that is how I see Occupy Wall St. They know that something is wrong, but they don't know what to do about it. And they are hoping if they keep a spotlight on the problem long enough, we as a society will do something to fix it.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51013498497218193542011-11-01T06:30:27.242-07:002011-11-01T06:30:27.242-07:00Thanks for elaborating. There is corruption, but &...Thanks for elaborating. There is corruption, but "occupying" public places and doing nothing really doesn't address it. I don't get the impression the "occupy" people know what they are actually protesting, nor do they understand the 1%. I just wondered your take on it. Bank bailouts -- were bad.<br /><br />Regarding the apple orchards, work is work. I do get frustrated with the people who continuously find excuses not to work. <br /><br />The principle of subsidiarity holds that policy decisions should be made by those who are most affected by these decisions, but higher authority may correct these decisions for the sake of the common good. However, authority should enable the lower unit to continue to make its own decisions in conformity with the common good.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-61760824116786093862011-11-01T06:18:42.574-07:002011-11-01T06:18:42.574-07:00@Stacy - By cut both ways I simply meant that it c...@Stacy - By cut both ways I simply meant that it could as easily apply to things we do not like :-p<br /><br />As for corruption, how about the bank bailouts? We talk a good game about capitalism, but when you privatize the gains but socialize the losses, that isn't capitalism.<br /><br />I can't speak to a specific WSJ article, but yes, transient agriculture has been something that has a hard time finding workers... but how many people actually live near these farms?<br /><br />In our society, a day labor situation with no benefits is certainly far from ideal, and I doubt there are convenient public transportation routes to farms. But the presence of some low skill, no benefit transient jobs doesn't mean there aren't other serious problems with our systems.<br /><br />Stacy, where you say "I think subsidiarity does actually apply. The highest levels are right to define such things for the common good of society, just like Church councils put forth common doctrine for all the faithful." -- Isn't that more or less the opposite position of the original article?<br /><br />I read the original article as saying that "social justice" oriented Catholics who are in favor of Federal intervention type programs should take a good look at subsidiarity and see that these programs are really things that should be handled at a lower level. But certainly they would see themselves in the exact position you described - looking to protect and define the common good.<br /><br />I don't have a problem with that concept in general, but again by "cut both ways" it would say if we are keeping to the lower levels to handle things appropriately, our appealing to the higher levels would be equally inappropriate.<br /><br />But I would argue that both sides routinely appeal to the highest levels (eg Congress) because in today's terrible political climate, that is the only avenue that seems effective.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-53052405766341177892011-11-01T04:33:56.053-07:002011-11-01T04:33:56.053-07:00Nicholas,
"But the general idea that the sys...Nicholas,<br /><br />"But the general idea that the system that we have is corrupt? There is some truth there."<br /><br />Could you elaborate? What is corrupt? <br /><br />In the WSJ yesterday (I think it was) there was an article about how apple orchards are advertising $150 a day for people to pick apples, they are in NEED of workers. But all those unemployed people aren't interested. Too hard?Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-83007180262713644372011-11-01T04:29:17.986-07:002011-11-01T04:29:17.986-07:00Nicholas,
DOMA defines marriage for federal agenc...Nicholas,<br /><br />DOMA defines marriage for federal agencies, not state agencies. It (obviously) hasn't prevented some states from legalizing "gay marriage." <br /><br />I think subsidiarity does actually apply. The highest levels are right to define such things for the common good of society, just like Church councils put forth common doctrine for all the faithful. <br /><br />Nicholas, subsidiarity can't cut both ways, it's unidirectional. When the higher levels don't do their job, the lower levels become confused and bad things happen. With abortion, the federal government ruled that no state could defend unborn human life with laws to restrict abortion...and look at what is happening to our nation almost four decades later. Some people say its decline is not related to abortion, but the people who were predicting such decline back then, and ever since, saw it coming. Gosnell was only a matter of time, and he's almost certainly not the only one. There's really no way to even know if abortions are done later than 24 weeks or if staff members are killing the babies before or after they are separated from their mothers any more.Stacy Trasancoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14638075878905614981noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-85690560229128982292011-10-31T21:41:33.064-07:002011-10-31T21:41:33.064-07:00Nicholas, I think the Department of Education was ...Nicholas, I think the Department of Education was begun under Carter? Along with several other departments of questionable value. <br /><br />As for DOMA, well, DOMA does not put a program in place or do anything at all. It just restates the definition of marriage as it's always been. No bureaucracy, nothing. So, I'm not sure subsidiarity even applies. No function is being "taken over" by a higher authority.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-63483631634164604512011-10-31T08:11:22.495-07:002011-10-31T08:11:22.495-07:00So, Devil's Advocate... Does this mean that w...So, Devil's Advocate... Does this mean that we are OK with allowing the Defense of Marriage Act to go away?<br /><br />Marriage has been a State level matter forever. Was it after the first state legalized gay marriage that we decided to move up to the Federal level to try and stop state level actions?<br /><br />Subsidiarity is a good rule of thumb. It also cuts both ways.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-21463743373356496462011-10-31T06:39:57.172-07:002011-10-31T06:39:57.172-07:00I am also going to say that I have some sympathy f...I am also going to say that I have some sympathy for the Occupy movement. Is it perfect? Certainly not. Like most liberal protests it suffers from being unfocused and unclear in its goals.<br /><br />But the general idea that the system that we have is corrupt? There is some truth there.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-9701102918066885302011-10-31T06:36:25.673-07:002011-10-31T06:36:25.673-07:00Generally speaking the issue here is what is the l...Generally speaking the issue here is what is the lowest level where things actually work?<br /><br />Part of the problem that we have had continuously is how to measure, enforce, grade, and understand what is going on and what to do about it.<br /><br />Public education has been traditionally a State and County level operation for years, but was recently nationalized (under Bush I believe) with the whole "No Child Left Behind" legislation, trying to create some kind of national standards attached to Federal spending.<br /><br />In the arena of social justice, just throwing subsidiarity out there doesn't actually change anything... You'd still need to argue specifically what you think could and should be moved down the ladder.<br /><br />I also don't see what this has to do with abortion at all?<br /><br />I think the issue is more that the Federal government has claimed jurisdiction over EVERYTHING over the years such that Congress becomes the de facto arena of choice.Nicholashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10142475137957516460noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-89594935410032172252011-10-31T05:34:41.913-07:002011-10-31T05:34:41.913-07:00Regarding income disparity and Occupy Wall Street-...Regarding income disparity and Occupy Wall Street--why isn't anyone occupying Hollywood? Or the NFL? How many millions did superstars (actors or athletes) make last year? For a priest to sympathize with the occupy group is just plain sad. Has he read any of the reports about the garbage that is going on with these protests?LeAnnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01298332424776044565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-45495195584288787582011-10-30T18:20:45.567-07:002011-10-30T18:20:45.567-07:00robbie, it's a great question. I am as perplex...robbie, it's a great question. I am as perplexed as you. I've had the same thoughts and I don't know the answer. Anyone?Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-67509164032821914652011-10-30T18:16:43.514-07:002011-10-30T18:16:43.514-07:00Timely discussion, since our priest just last week...Timely discussion, since our priest just last week sympathized with the "occupy" people camping out on Wall Street--"They are there because there is too much income disparity. People are fed up!" So I started reading Rerum Novarum, and while it is interesting and informative, I was really hoping to find something that would speak to our current situation as Americans. While there is certainly a very poor segment of our population, I think most welfare clients (much less the "occupiers") have no comprehension of the abject poverty that exists elsewhere in the world. So my question is: how do we, as Americans, minister justly to the poor and needy? I've been in soup kitchens where the guys had diamond stud earrings and more expensive brand clothing than my own kids. I don't want to find excuses to avoid serving the poor, but I do want to serve the poor--not the people who didn't feel like working. Maybe the two can't be separated. And sadly, I'm wary of Catholic Charities as an option because I'm not really sure of their social justice bent. We live in an area that has been terribly influenced by a liberal seminary/college, and their influence is everywhere. Ugh. <br /><br />I think I'm rambling, but this is really something that's been on my mind a lot lately.robbiehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01300185429785054438noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-24421166453176650652011-10-29T14:55:51.520-07:002011-10-29T14:55:51.520-07:00Do Not Be Anxious, then you set me up much too hig...Do Not Be Anxious, then you set me up much too high. I am ignorant of many, many things. :)<br /><br />Lauren reproduced the CCC definition here in the comments. I almost included it in the post, but it restated JPII's quote and I wanted to give his full statement.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-51415767696213217262011-10-29T13:17:00.347-07:002011-10-29T13:17:00.347-07:00Leila, when I stumbled across your blog, I was imp...Leila, when I stumbled across your blog, I was impressed by your knowledge and manner of explaining things. You dropped one-half notch in my admiration of your knowledge. Perhaps it's just because I've always read so much, but the principle of subsidiarity is old news to me. The CCC has as a good a definition as any other (although I don't have access to chapter and verse at the moment).<br /><br />You can't really discuss what is going on with this country and the calls for the government to do just about everything without understanding this principle. We are called to grow in holiness and love our neighbor --- and that 'we' starts in the mirror, not with the government.Do Not Be Anxioushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04607616214486933423noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-22886734141472111602011-10-28T12:11:47.289-07:002011-10-28T12:11:47.289-07:00Lucky 7, hilarious! Elizabeth, I love Thomas Sowel...Lucky 7, hilarious! Elizabeth, I love Thomas Sowell.Leila@LittleCatholicBubblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09357573787143230160noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-240447238522390484.post-78521969861578934222011-10-28T11:01:19.447-07:002011-10-28T11:01:19.447-07:00I would venture to guess that a lot of them would ...I would venture to guess that a lot of them would agree with this concept, because it works even outside of the context of Catholicism. That is part of the beauty of Catholicism -- It articulates truth for all of nature and mankind, regardless of whether or not one chooses to believe that reality. A person does not have to believe in gravity, but it still exists and applies itself indiscriminately across the globe. We can choose to ignore it because maybe we think life would be better without it, but bad things tend to happen.<br /><br />Just as one example, I would bet Thomas Sowell wholeheartedly agrees with this concept based on his ideas outlined in a myriad of books. He is not Catholic. I also know of atheist libertarians and, while they are still on their own spiritual journey, would doubtfully have any trouble embracing this concept. Many conservatives already embrace the concept even if they've never heard of the term. <br /><br />Now a Marxist would not care for this concept at all. To suggest that people are capable of functioning and should function without the help of centralized bureaucracy for most areas of life puts a damper on their (historically tragic) philosophies.Elizabethhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03625746219907319100noreply@blogger.com