Já fiz um post aqui sobre a diferença e complementaridade entre subsidiariedade e solidariedade no Catecismo da Igreja Católica. Mas Peter Brown discutiu o assunto em um artigo escrito no The Catholic Thing e isto alavancou o debate de novo nos Estados Unidos. Brown centra sua análise no atual debate sobre o plano de saúde de Obama.
O monsenhor Charles Pope escreveu um texto hoje que relata o argumento de Brown e clarifica a discussão. Vejam abaixo:
Subsidiarity and Solidarity – Not Necessarily What You Think They Are
This is a very thought provoking article over at The Catholic Thing by Peter Brown on an issue I have also struggled to present here (far less capably than Mr. Brown). And that is the issue of finding the proper balance or interplay between two principles of Catholic Social teaching: subsidiarity and solidarity.
Precise meanings have been lost – The
problem that has emerged is that Catholics, and others, have taken
these terms into the political arena and, as might be expected, these
rather careful and nuanced Catholic terms have been reduced more to
slogans, and are fast losing their truly Catholic meaning. Thus,
subsidiarity becomes shorthand for smaller government, and solidarity is
shorthand for expansive government. They are also losing their
interconnectedness and taking on a more polar opposite quality.
Interrelatedness is lost – To
be sure, these terms do exist in some tension with one another, but
they also compliment and depend on each other. Yet, much is lost as they
become slogans and shorthand terms. Also ignored in this rather bipolar
world are other principles of Catholic Social Teachings such as
distributism, complementarity, charity, and the universal destination of
goods.
A few thoughts on the two principles in question by your truly and then a look at Peter Brown’s Article.
Subsidiarity - The Catechism of the Catholic Church says of Subsidiarity –
The human person
needs to live in society. Society is not for him an extraneous addition
but a requirement of his nature (1879)….A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them (1880)….but the human person
is and ought to be the principle, the subject and the end of all social
institutions. (1881)…..Excessive intervention by the state can threaten
personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has
elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which “a
community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life
of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions,
but rather should support it in case of need and help to co- ordinate
its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a
view to the common good.” (1883)…..The principle of subsidiarity is
opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state
intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between
individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true
international order (1885).
Note the careful, interplay
between levels of a society that subsidiarity envisions. It is clear
that subsidiarity opposes the imposition of top-down solutions, and
insists that problems should be handled at the lowest level possible,
thus respecting individuals, families and local communities. But higher
levels do have an obligation to support lower levels and to
provide a coordinating function, where necessary, between various and
numerous lower levels. So subsidiarity does oppose “excessive
intervention” by the state, but also envisions some role of support in
case of need, and coordination that respects the common good.
Hence what subsidiarity seeks,
it would seem, is the lowest reasonable level to solve a problem.
Sometimes the lowest level is in fact the family, Church, or local
community (disciplining a child, providing food and shelter), at other
times it is at the state level (building state roads), at still other
times the Federal Government is the appropriate and lowest level (e.g.
in building interstate roads, stabilizing national monetary policy,
repelling international enemies and so forth).
It will
therefore be noted that, even before examining the principle of
solidarity, subsidiarity already admits of nuance and the need for
prudential judgement as to what the most appropriate level to
solve a problem is. Reasonable men and women may differ on the exact
level and combination of levels to problem solve.
It does seem clear however that we have come through a time of heavy Federal and State intervention
and that greater scrutiny is needed to avoid violating the intrinsic
demand of limits to governmental involvement and collectivist solutions.
Solidarity - Here too the Catechism teaches:
The principle of
solidarity, also articulated in terms of “friendship” or “social
charity,” is a direct demand of human and Christian brotherhood
(1939)…Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution
of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a
more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced
and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation (1940). Socio-economic
problems can be resolved only with the help of all the forms of
solidarity: solidarity of the poor among themselves, between rich and
poor, of workers among themselves, between employers and employees in a
business, solidarity among nations and peoples….(1941).
This principle, it will be noted is far more sweeping,
almost poetically so, in its vision. It is less restrictive and more
proscriptive. In short we are to see everyone as our brother or sister
and be prepared to stand with them for a more just social order.
Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere. Hence we are
summoned to become more keenly aware of the injustice that others
suffer. If we are part of that injustice, then we are summoned to
repent. In all cases we are called to know and love our brethren more.
Solidarity implies above all else, a relationship.
It is more than writing checks or making occasional protests. It is
coming to know others and sharing their hardships as well as their joys.
It is also sharing our hardships and joys with others.
It will be noted that little is said of Government in these quotes from the Catechism on solidarity.
For solidarity includes subsidiarity even as subsidiarity includes
solidarity. (Peter Brown will make this point well in the quote below).
Rather, solidarity is about interpersonal relationships, and of
individuals joining together in mutual support.
As such, groups often develop political involvement,
as they have the right to do. In recent years it is clear that many
such groups, that have come together for solidarity among themselves,
have adopted a stance that is more insistent on political and legal
solutions. But this is a trend in our society not an intrinsic demand of
solidarity.
Paradoxically it will be noted
that Subsidiarity makes mention of Government while Solidarity (at least
in this Catechism definition) does not. Subsidiarity, while
seeking to limit government and other high level solutions, does
envision some role for higher levels (e.g. Government) in terms of
“support” and “coordination.” The Catechism’s treatment of solidarity
does not make mention of Government (though it does not exclude it).
It is therefore interesting how,
in recent years, subsidiarity has come to be identified with small
government, and solidarity with big government. The catechetical reality
is more complicated and nuanced. As Catholics we do well to be more
careful in our use of these terms.
And now for some words from the Peter Brown article I noted earlier.
Mr. Brown is here referring to the Healthcare debate but makes the same
basic point that “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” ought not be reduced
to bipolar (opposite) notions but are in fact related. As per usual, his
remarks are in black, bold italics, my minor remarks are in red plain text.
These are excerpts, the full article is here: The Limits of Subsidiarity
[T]he
great American health care debate….has even spilled over into theology,
where partisans on either side are armed with cudgels called,
respectively, “subsidiarity” and “solidarity.” …
In
broad outline, “Subsidiarists” are people who are fearful or hostile to
the state provision of social welfare – preferring that charity be
dispensed at lower levels of society: communities and families.
“Solidarists,” by contrast, believe that society as a whole is often the
best administrator of social welfare, and prefer that things such as
health insurance be run by the state. Or so it is said by those who use these terms. But, as Brown notes the reality of these terms is more complex.
Subsidiarists
speak kindly of social arrangements as they were in the old days, when
communities consisted of people who knew and cared for one another and
extended families. Why, in this view, should Catholics support a
distant, impersonal, bureaucratic welfare state, when for most of Church
history Catholics subsisted by taking care of one another?…
In his core conviction, the subsidiarist is not wrong. People did
use to care for each other more and without state provision. The
original risk-pooling arrangement in the West was the feudal society –
with peasants and lords combining resources to take care of the sick
and the dying. …With the emergence of modern capitalism, the feudal
system collapsed. The provision of social welfare was replaced largely
by guilds, trade unions, and friendly societies [e.g. Knights of Columbus]. For
a membership fee and active participation, friendly societies would
visit sick members, while underwriting doctor bills and funeral
expenses. Over time, many of them arranged for long-term support for
the disabled as well. [To this day, the Knights of Columbus has a strong Life Insurance Policy program for its members].
These
societies also practiced solidarity, with regular member meetings
imbued with a specifically religious flavor – prayers, Bible readings,
and fellowship. The Knights of Columbus was originally set up along the
friendly society model. The arrangement seemed a subsidiarist
theologian’s dream. People taking care of one another in families and
communities in Christian charity. What was not to like? [But
note how solidarity and subsidiarity existed together and were quite
interwove. They were NOT competing principles at all, they worked
together].
[But]
friendly societies actually began collapsing well before the emergence
of the modern welfare state…One problem was the vast improvement in
medical care…A small community could provide for the health care that
was available in 1870. It was much harder in 1910. It would be impossible
today with the cost of care for, say, cancer or heart disease easily
running into the hundreds of thousands of dollars….
Another
thing that killed the friendly societies was …social mobility. With
people increasingly moving from farm to city, and from city to city,
the social solidarity that made the societies work fell apart. Solidarity is in fact an absolutely necessary (though not sufficient) condition for subsidiarist arrangements to work. [Again,
note the relationship and interdependence of solidarity and
subsidiarity. They are not competing principles, they are interdependent
ones]. And solidarity simply does not hold up well
in a dynamic labor market. Want to move to Texas to accept that great
job offer? Then someone needs to take care of grandpa and the disabled cousin back home.
The
final blow to the friendly societies was….privately underwritten
insurance. Insurance companies recognized both the rising cost of
medical care, and social mobility; they could offer better rates to
younger, healthier, more mobile people. This left the friendly
societies with the older, sicker and less mobile. …
As the adverse selection problems [i.e. more older and sick policy holders and fewer younger and healthy ones]
inherent in private insurance have grown, the state has assumed an
ever greater role. Subsidiarists have not yet come up with a modern
model that better manages risk. [Is this true? Perhaps the comment box will address this answer].
Consequently, we have a health care system that is not very subsidiarist – or solidarist. …
I do
not know what the ideal health care system would look like. But I do
know that theological terms such as “subsidiarity” and “solidarity” of
themselves provide relatively little insight into where we should go.
There are great dangers in turning power over to the state, but also in
leaving people in modern societies without practical recourse.
On this issue as many others, the complexity of the modern age defies simplistic theological sloganeering [exactly].
Peter Brown is completing a doctorate in Biblical Studies at the Catholic University of America.
Bottom line: Subsidiarity and Solidarity as used in the public debate are not being properly understood or applied. Sadly, it looks like these words have been reduced to bumper stickers. Catholics do well to exercise care in their use, and to grow in a deeper understanding that Catholicism is not easily reduced to simple one-liners. As the photo above shows, sometimes solidarity means withstanding government power and is not necessarily the polar opposite of subsidiarity. Likewise, subsidiarity cannot usually exist without solidarity. Though the political world loves to divide, Catholicism does not easily fit into the political world’s simple categories.
