Though published more than two centuries ago, Madison’s words have been proven true time and time again.

Indeed, if we really were a society build on love and charity there would be little need for many government-run programs.

Unfortunately, this is not the world we live in.

To be sure, churches, non profits and local charities have helped and continue to help those in need. But over the past fifty years, our country has grown in size and stature, and so have our problems, especially our moral failings. Fortunately, many of those problems have been ameliorated by effective state-run initiatives.

But many have not. And many programs have only worsened the situation.

Here’s what I mean.

Most Americans support the idea behind Social Security. They may disagree about the most effective way to operate it, but most of us think it’s an important program that helps senior citizens.

In many ways, Social Security has been a successful federal-run program.

However, there have been many federal initiatives that – though well intentioned – are not only ineffective, but disrupt the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state.

One principle that is often overlooked when trying to understand the appropriate relationship between the individual and the state is the Catholic social principle of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity is the belief that if something can be accomplished more effectively by a lower level of government then higher levels of government should not get involved. For instance, if the state of New York is better at delivering healthcare to its citizens than the federal government, then the federal government has no business telling them how to do it. In other words, nothing should be done by a larger and more complex organization which can be done just as well by a smaller and simpler organization.

Now, there are areas where local government is inadequate and higher levels of government are necessary. Indeed, it would be unwise to think that a county or local municipality could do a better job at protecting credit card owners than the Consumer Finance Protection Bureau.

True as that may be, it is often the case that many federal programs are established by politicians more concerned with prolonging their career than respecting the principle of subsidiarity. What inevitably happens is that lower forms of government end up getting pulverized.

Without respect for the important role churches, non profits and local government play in the lives of ordinary citizens, politicians end up destroying what was once a thick and robust buffer between the individual and the federal government.

When these mediating institutions are cast aside, the federal government assumes unto itself the responsibility of providing, among other things, shelter, food, and material well being for its citizens – a not so inexpensive venture.

Indeed, we see this take place all too often in our politics. And my home state of Michigan is no exception.

Republican Governor Rick Snyder recently paid a visit to a school in Grand Rapids that reportedly provides breakfast, lunch and dinner for its students during their summer vacation.

Now, no one wants children to go hungry, but can anyone seriously defend the idea that the state, and not the mother and father of these children (or a local charity), should be the ones providing them with meals during the summer? Whatever happened to the family unit? Whatever happened to relying on our neighbors and churches for help?

The fact of the matter is that when the state takes on responsibilities formerly reserved to the family, it obfuscates the importance of civil institutions and plunges us into an ever-deepening reliance on programs and initiatives from a far away bureaucracy that will not and have not accomplished their stated ends. Namely, win the war on poverty.

Subsidiarity is a big idea from the Church. Hopefully our video can give you enough information to understand basically what it is and why it is important. But a few minutes is not enough time to thouroughly explain the philosophy. So, if you would like to learn more about Subsidiarity, and other ideas the Church teaches about how we can best structure a just society, please use the following links to help in your exploration.*

The Catholic Church on Subsidiarity:

• The Catechism of the Catholic Church: 1883, 1885, 1894
• Papal Encyclical of Pope Leo XIII – Rerum Novarum
• Papal Encyclical of Pope Pius XI - Quadregesimo Anno
• Papal Encyclical of Pope John XXIII – Mater et Magistra
• Papal Encyclical of Pope John II – Centesimus Annus
• Papal Encyclcial of Pope Benedict XVI – Caritas in Veritate
• Pastoral Constitution Pope Paul IV – Gaudium Et Spes
• Proceedings of the 14th Plenary Session of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences (Large, 6.9mb):  Pursuing the Common Good: How Subsidiarity and Solidarity Can Work Together

Catholics on Subsidiarity:

• How To Understand Catholic Social Teaching: Subsidiarity & Solidarity - Joe Heschmeyer
• Subsidiarity and Solidarity: Not Necessarily What You Think They Are, by: Msgr. Charles Pope
• Subsidiarity as a Principle of Governance: Beyond Devolution, by: Rob Vischer
• The Limits of Subsidiarity, by: Peter Brown
• NCRegister – Subsidiarity Defined: Downsizing Social Programs, by: Benjamin Wiker
• NCRegister – The Church and Capitalism: What Subsidiarity Tells Us, by: Benjamin Wiker

Practical Applications of Subsidiarity:

• The Acton Institute – The Principle of Subsidiarity, by: David Bosnich
• Crisis Magazine – Private Charity versus Government Welfare, by: Rev. C. J. McCloskey III
• The Acton Institute – Health Care Reform: Government Subsidy or Restoring Subsidiarity?, by:Phillip DeVous
• The Acton Institute – School Choice and Parental Duty: Returning Subsidiarity to Education, by: Joseph Klesney

During the Democrat National Convention today a video played in which the speaker said, “government is the only thing we all belong to.”

Here’s the clip:

Urgh.

Lots of people went a little nuts over this line, and I can’t say I blame ‘em. But on this one I’d say that they’re protesting over the wrong thing.

If you listen to what the voiceover says, what he means is really more like “we all belong to this country club” rather than “all your yous are belong to us!”

Now, that doesn’t mean I’m okay with the line. It’s still problematic, just not for the reason most think.

Country clubs are voluntary, while involvement in the government in this country is not voluntary if you live here—even if indocumentado. Especially when we’re all expected to live the Life of Julia. shudder.

The Good Samaritan did not wait for the state to come by and help out.

See, the mindset that believes we “belong” to government such that the government is the primary means we are in contact with each other and help each other out conflates society and the state. We’re all members of the society of Americans, the people who are designated by “We The People” at the opening of the preamble to the Constitution, and while that society gives rise to the government set up by that constitution, it simply is incorrect to say we belong to the government.

We Catholics recognize this difference in our social justice. We recognize that we the people of society are morally obligated to help each other, but that does not mean we are required to do this through the agency of government. Indeed, according to the teachings of subsidiarity and solidarity, we are supposed to help people as locally as possible, relying first on our own efforts and those of the local community—e.g., neighbors and civic organizations—before ever looking to government programs. Relying first or even primarily on government as the explicit means to make “charitable” support happen is an abrogation of our duty. Through our history this has worked: the Catholic Church has been the world leader in establishing schools, hospitals, orphanages, social service agencies, and the like.

When government takes over social justice roles such as these it is because the society has failed to provide them organically. Even when government does take these over for disaster relief purposes—happenings which would tax the ordinary capabilities of societal social relief resources—that takeover should be temporary. That, at least, was the take of Blessed John Paul II in Centesimus Annus.

So this is the problem with what the Dems seemed to mean with that voiceover. They seemed to mean that the government presently in place precedes the society that chose it; that we are all members of the government first before we are members of the society. That we are member of the government before we are inheritors of the common history and the cultural legacy that gave rise to the government. That is exactly wrong.

It has always been wrong. The people do not “belong” to the government in any sense if it is a consensual government as ours is: the people precede and give rise to the government. When that balance legitimately goes the other direction there is a major problem.

It’s a typical problem of the Left: to identify state and civil society, have the state swallow the role of the society, thus blurring (at best) the line between what is owed to God and what is owed to Caesar, and see the state arrogate to itself powers and responsibilities that are not properly its.

Bottom line: I am my brother’s keeper. My responsibility for that does not end when my tax dollars go to supporting another program, no matter how much the government purports to do for my brother.

Too often Republicans or conservatives talk about overregulation only in terms of dollars and sense. “Such and such regulation will cost boat manufactures $1.6 katrillion…”

They forget about the big picture and how it affects people in their everyday lives.

But Rep. Mike Kelly? He gets it.

Rule of thumb: When you're to the left of Cardinal Mahony, you're too far to the left.

A question without an answer is that question, “how much government intervention in caring for the less-fortunate is the right amount?” Catholic social teaching gives us a framework by which to evaluate whether the government is doing too much or not enough to help those in need, but the Catholic Church does not—cannot—set precise policy prescriptions for the “correct” rates of taxation, forms of welfare, rules governing eligibility, etc. Those considerations reside in the prudential judgment of the body politic. In the U.S., that means you and me as voters selecting representatives, and it means those whom we elect to pass and enforce those laws they deem good and necessary.

There can be no disagreement, mind you, about whether or not the people as a whole have a responsibility toward one another and the environment. But on a whole host of issues good Catholics can disagree about the precise involvement (if any) a given level of government has in the concerns of the needy.

But there certainly can come a time when those who, in general, think the government ought to do more rather than less get bit by that government We have come to that time, and those socio-politically liberal Catholics don’t like having been bit.

In a Wall Street Journal column today William McGurn looks at the reactions of some Catholics who supported Barack Obama in one way or another to the HHS contraceptive mandate.

U.S. Senator Robert Casey, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Cardinal Roger Mahony, Notre Dame President Father Tom Jenkins, Bishop Robert Lynch of St. Petersburg, and others, have expressed their dismay at this ruling—even after so many in the Church championed the passage of Obamacare as a justified and necessary measure in providing health care for all.

Ensuring that all have access to needed health care (among many other expected luxuries our modern society surrounds us with) certainly is in the realm of what Catholic social teaching compels us to consider.

But access to health care does not legitimize massive government control and coerced violation of one’s conscience and religious beliefs. Charity is not charity if it is coerced, and it certainly is not charity if it violates moral norms in itself or requires another to violate his conscience (even if poorly formed).

With regard to the topic at hand, a more market-based system (including but not limited to greater portability of health insurance coverage, the ability for companies to sell plans across state lines, and—especially—disconnecting health insurance from employment) would have entirely precluded the possibility of the government ordering Catholics to violate their consciences or get out of the business of caring for those in need. A more circumspect approach that may have included an actual reading and analysis of the entire bill before passage would likely have prevented this.

But too many people, including too many prominent Catholics, were too eager to let Obama, Pelosi, and others who desire pervasive centralized control to write the thing and pass it.

Subsidiarity became a punch line, when it was mentioned.

Truly a tragedy that it had to come to this. But perhaps at least now all good people who value freedom of conscience, religious liberty, and/or the great services provided over the centuries by the various organizations of the Catholic Church (hospitals, schools, orphanages, soup kitchens, thrift shops, shelters, hospices, job training and placement services, crisis pregnancy clinics, maternity homes, adoption services, counseling services, etc.) will come together to help push back this illegitimate power grab.

If it is not pushed back, this country has fundamentally changed from one that values and defends religious liberty and personal freedom to one that requires compliance with the diktats of the central planners, pure and simple.

Even if you think contraception is a legitimate form of health care you ought to be able to encompass the problem with this regulatory mandate. If not, you are a fan of central planning, and you have lost the right to complain when (not if) the central planners require you to violate your own conscience under penalty of massive fines.

Now that Santorum has registered a strong tied-for-first finish in Iowa and is the talk of the chattering classes, far-left Catholics have woken up and swooped in for the attack.

The most notable example of this attempted theological assassination is by John Gehring of Faith in Public Life, who previously worked for Catholics in Alliance for the Common Good, a lefty Catholic group. His article, “The Catholic Case Against Rick Santorum” is helpfully cross-posted at the ultra-lefty blog DailyKos and described by the National Catholic Reporter (that north star of orthodoxy) as a “very useful analysis.” Oh really? Let’s take a look.

… it’s a political delusion to think Rick Santorum is a standard-bearer of authentic Catholic values in politics. In fact, on several issues central to Catholic social teaching – torture, war, immigration, climate change, the widening gap between rich and poor and workers’ rights – Santorum is radically out of step with his faith’s teachings as articulated by Catholic bishops and several popes over the centuries.

Notice the bracketing going on: Gehring will only talk about Santorum’s record on the “social issues”, and among those, only the social issues lefty Catholics prioritize.

Gehring’s first charge is that Santorum is out of step with the U.S. Bishops when it comes to Immigration. On this issue I do think Santorum has room to grow, but let’s pause for a moment and contrast Santorum’s proposals with the achievements of the current administration on the issue. That’s right — zero. Democrats haven’t done a darn thing to fix the immigration issue, after three years. Ghering attempts to find fault with Santorum for saying that the current immigration laws ought to be enforced, something the Obama administration has a spotty record on. I don’t see the U.S. Bishops saying America ought to break it’s own immigration laws, I see them advocating that the laws need to be reformed. I don’t see where in that picture Santorum is saying something different. In fact, Republican proposals to address immigration piece by piece have been opposed by Democrats. Next topic.

On the issues of poverty, inequality and financial reform, the stretch is even wider. Ghering’s biggest whopper is to claim that Santorum is “completely unfamiliar” with the concept of the “preferential option for the poor.” It’s ironic when lefty Catholics suddenly become Catechism teachers and bemoan that someone doesn’t understand the totality of Catholic teaching, while naively continuing in their own ignorance. And in fact, the claim about Santorum’s “ignorance” is based on a leading, ambush-style interview they sprang on him. Proof of Santorum’s theological incompetence? Hardly. Proof of Faith in Public Life’s agenda? Yep.

On Workers’ Rights, Ghering’s chief critique is that Santorum has said public employees should not be able to unionize to negotiate preferential wages and benefits. This is a complex topic which I don’t expect Ghering to present objectively. I think there’s a good argument that allowing government workers to unionize undermines their responsibility to be servants of the common good. And I’m sure Ghering understands all the ins and outs of that core social teaching. He seems to care very much that we understand all of Catholic social teaching, after all.

On Climate Change and the Environment, Santorum apparently wants young babies to be poisoned with mercury, reading Ghering’s selections. I wish this was what the environmental movement was all about (preventing such things), but it’s not. Currently it’s about using the EPA to impose industry-killing regulations on some of America’s core manufacturing sectors, a problem that Santorum is very sensitive to. Santorum’s proposals to boost manufacturing and lower the regulatory and tax burden on these industries is anethema to Ghering, but I’m happy if Ghering continues to spend time criticizing Santorum for wanting to help companies overcome burdensome regulations in order to create jobs and increase prosperity. I’m all for that.

On Torture and War, Ghering really goes to town. Conspicuous again is how Ghering attacks Santorum with the same line of attack typically used against President Bush during his presidency but which the left has almost universally refused to use against President Obama, a glaring double-standard. Two things about Santorum’s views on pre-emptive war and the use of “torture” are clear: Santorum cares most for the safety of American citizens and interests. While Bush allowed enhanced interrogation to be used, Obama uses drones to assassinate terrorists overseas. And I have yet to hear a progressive Catholic explain how Iran getting a nuclear weapon increases the global cause of peace one iota, or how we are to prevent such an eventuality in some cases without the use of military force. There is more to be said but suffice it to say the problems Ghering raises with Santorum are problems that could equally be raised about Obama in many cases and remain a moral problem that deserves serious discussion, not political exploitation.

… and that’s it. What is actually most notable is what Gehring chooses to ignore about Santorum’s record. Namely, his strong pro-life, pro-family, pro-subsidiarity convictions and policy, etc. Ghering must know these critical topics are the elephant in the room, because he ends this way:

Catholic politicians across the spectrum will all find aspects of Church teaching that challenge their ideological agendas in discomforting ways. But for too long Catholics in public life have only been scrutinized when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage. This does a disservice to voters, ignores the Catholic social justice tradition’s broad moral agenda and lets Catholic candidates like Rick Santorum off the hook even when they consistently disregard their faith’s teachings on key moral and political issues.

…. hooey. Ghering’s carefully-crafted pablum of relativism makes a mockery of the Church’s social teaching. Deconstructed it amounts to little more than: “Catholics ought to choose the candidate they want by selecting the moral and political issues they feel are most important. Have fun with that.” But this is not how the Church’s social and moral teaching operates. We owe a great debt to Blessed John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI for representing the preeminence of certain “issues” over others, such as the right to life and the responsibility of law to reflect the natural goods of marriage and family, because all other social and political issues in fact flow from these central realities.

Frankly, it takes real guts to claim that focusing on the Church’s central social and moral teachings is a “diservice to voters.” Who of us honestly believes it is a diservice when laws protect the dignity of the unborn and the sanctity of marriage? Does Ghering? If so, I would suggest the problem he has isn’t with Santorum, it’s with the Church’s teaching.

Let’s go deeper still because the more I think and reflect about it the more I relish a Santorum candidacy precisely to gin up ridiculous attempts like this by lefty Catholics to tear him down. It’s amusing to watch Ghering and others tie themselves up in in logical knots trying to claim Santorum is a poor example of a Catholic politician.

Take, for instance, Gehring’s inexplicable refusal to acknowledge Rick Santorum’s strong whole life ethic, which values the dignity of the unborn along with the dignity of work, an essential linkage in Santorum’s politic vision which he touched on in his victory speech in Iowa last night. Santorum’s unifying of the social and economic issues on this front could well be a stake driven into the heart of the progressive Catholic movement which has always attempted to set the pro-life, pro-family agenda and the pro-union, solidarity agenda against each other, when they should really go hand-in-hand. If we want to talk about disservice, we should talk about the Catholic left’s agenda to set workers against one another, and mothers against their infants in the womb, to name just two examples.

Finally, how can someone honestly talk about the Catholic Case “Against” Rick Santorum without mentioning his valiant efforts to pass the federal ban on partial-birth abortion? If that piece of legislation doesn’t come from the heart of the Church’s social teaching than I just don’t know what does. Or what about Santorum’s efforts to achieve welfare reform? That doesn’t even get a footnote?

My suspicion is that far-left Catholics are surprised and disturbed by Santorum’s ascendency. They fear, even if they don’t realize why yet, a match-up between Santorum and Obama. Can we imagine, for instance, Doug Kmiec making the “catholic case for Obama” against Catholic candidate Santorum? Such a match-up would force lefty Catholics to drop their pretense and force them to argue the paradoxical conclusion of their faulty logic which holds that politicians who most undermine the Church and her teaching must actually, somehow, be the ones who most respect and follow her teaching. Santorum makes that disingenuous effort look like the concocted sham it has always been.

If this is all the Catholic Far-Left has to throw against Santorum, I’ll repeat the first words he delivered in Iowa last night: “Game on!”

UPDATE: Faith in Public Life’s twitter account (@BoldFaithType) apparently blocked me a long time ago (I guess the truth hurts) so please copy and paste this status of mine so they’ll be forced to see my response! With your help we can hopefully coax them out of their shell:

UPDATE 2: Activism in pursuit of open dialogue pays off! Witness:

Fr. Thomas Reese, S.J.

There was lots of reaction to the news reports of “The Vatican” supposedly endorsing the creation of a world centralized bank. CatholicLane.com has an article by Robert Moynihan of Inside the Vatican in which he implores people to actually read the text of the document. http://cvote.to/6I George Weigel says it’s “rubbish” to compare the Vatican to Occupy Wall Street. http://cvote.to/6J But Thomas Peters says that’s exactly what Fr. Reese was implying. http://cvote.to/6L Bill Donohue notes that the terms “supranational Authority” and “supranational Institution” are neologisms that did not appear in the latest Papal encyclical. http://cvote.to/6M Tom Hoopes says this Pontifical Council’s report also recognized Pope Benedict’s emphasis on subsidiarity. http://cvote.to/6N Samuel Gregg wonders why a global central bank wouldn’t have the same problems that a European central bank has. http://cvote.to/6K

Rick Perry is planning a re-boot of his floundering campaign with the unveiling of his flat tax plan on income. The plan sets the income tax at 20% and keeps both the mortgage deduction and the charitable deductions. It increases the standard deduction for individuals and each dependents at $12,500. That would mean a family of four would pay no income tax on their first $50,000. Every dollar above that would be taxed at 20%. The corporate tax would also fall to 20%. Perry pitched the plan in the Wall Street Journal. http://cvote.to/6O

And yet, just as he is focusing on re-booting his campaign, Rick Perry chats up the “birther” talk. Reporter John Harwood said: “In [a] CNBC interview, Perry tells me why he kept Obama birther issue alive: ‘It’s a good issue to keep alive. It’s fun to poke at him.’” http://cvote.to/6W Uh, maybe that’s a joke suited for the White House Correspondents Dinner but not the campaign trail. Perry better not take the birther issue seriously or his campaign is toast.

Quote of the Day

“We are now enemies of the State … We all know what the power of the state can do to its enemies.” – Ed Mechmann, at the Archdiocese of New York’s blog, commenting on Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s calling opponents of same-sex “marriage” as anti-American. http://cvote.to/6Q

Notes:

I promised you the interview with Sen. George LeMieux yesterday. But the news cycle yesterday involving the Vatican prevented that. So, Lord willing, I’ll post it this afternoon.

Christine Schilling will soon be blogging here at CatholicVote.org. Christine is a mother of ten and is married to Rep. Bobby Schilling, R-IL. Stay tuned!

Other articles of interest:

Yuck: A Canadian music station launched a “Win a Baby” contest, offering to pay $35,000 in fertility treatments to a winning couple. http://cvote.to/6R

Pope Benedict XVI proclaims three saints, saying their lives demonstrated that true faith is charity in action. http://cvote.to/6S

Media watchdog Brent Bozell says ABC should report on the widespread anti-Semitism found at Occupy Wall Street protests. http://cvote.to/6T

In New Hampshire, the House Judiciary Committee is set to vote on a bill restoring marriage as a union of one man and one woman. http://cvote.to/6V

Render unto Caesar ...

Elsewhere here, Thomas Peters has one explanation of the Drudge Report headline, under a picture of the Pope, suggesting that the Vatican is ordering up a new world bank.

I got a frightened e-mail from a friend who is a recent convert calling the article  “the most disturbing thing I have read in a long time.”

As I told him, first of all, as with any Drudge scream-line, we need to clarify what the news is. The news here? A Pontifical Council study document quoted and expanded on a suggestion from a 1963 encyclical.

Second of all, we can’ evaluate it. What the Pontifical Council (not the Pope) is suggesting here is not only not crazy, it isn’t even novel: A financial oversight instrument along the lines their new “Note on Financial Reform” discusses will have to be made sooner or later. And when it is made, it won’t be new; it will be a reform of the several previous international financial oversight attempts.

Understand that the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace is not a Congregation of the curia. It is a curial support organization tasked with making “action-oriented studies” of current issues. In the wake of the Greek crisis, the Euro crisis and the waning of America and rise of China in the financial world, it wouldn’t be doing its job if it wasn’t discussing the need for international financial oversight.

But, as the Council’s document puts it: “a long road still needs to be traveled before arriving at the creation of a public Authority with universal jurisdiction.”

To reassure my convert friend that the Church is not trying to take over the world, I shared with him this quote from Pope Benedict XVI’s Deus Caritas Est on what role the Church sees herself having in politics:

“The Church cannot and must not take upon herself the political battle to bring about the most just society possible. She cannot and must not replace the State. Yet at the same time she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the fight for justice. She has to play her part through rational argument and she has to reawaken the spiritual energy without which justice, which always demands sacrifice, cannot prevail and prosper. A just society must be the achievement of politics, not of the Church. Yet the promotion of justice through efforts to bring about openness of mind and will to the demands of the common good is something which concerns the Church deeply.”

In other words, the Church knows her place: She doesn’t start worldwide governing systems. But she also knows that she is in a unique position to see the worldwide ramifications of social justice questions.

But if the Church isn’t making a powerplay, isn’t the Church being naïve? Does she really think a world governing structure will be anything but a bureaucratic bully that sucks sovereignty away from people?

That’s the whole point of the document.

Not only does the Church understand the danger of worldwide governing structures, but Pope Benedict XVI’s most recent encyclical, Caritas in Veritate can be seen as an extended examination of the inherent tension between “solidary” and “subsidiarity.”

“Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to everyone,” he writes (No. 38).

He describes the principle of subsidiarity by referencing the Catechism, which says: “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” (CCC 1883).

In other words, the Catholic principle of subsidiarity says “we owe it to others not to interfere” while solidarity says “we owe it to others to help.”

The Pope sees the need for both, and understands the Church’s social teaching as a reconciliation of the two. “The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need,” he says (No. 58).

Caritas in Veritate describes what the Church sees as an alarming trend: The independence of a very powerful financial system as a global force without any oversight that matches its scope.

If hearing the words “world governing structure” makes you afraid of a global power influencing communities who are powerless before it, then you share exactly the fear the Vatican has about the market.

The new document from the Council of Justice and Peace vigorously decries the unfairness of the system that make poor people suffer the consequences of financial speculators’ mistakes. But the document is also very conscious of the Boss’s emphasis on subsidiarity:

“In the tradition of the Church’s Magisterium which Benedict XVI has vigorously embraced, the principle of subsidiarity should regulate relations between the State and local communities and between public and private institutions, not excluding the monetary and financial institutions,” says the Council’s document.

I, for one, am glad that the Church’s message of solidarity tempered by subsidiarity is one of the leading voices in the ongoing debate about the global response to the international markets.

Vatican Bank President Ettore Gotti Tedeschi

We’re going to be hearing a lot about raising taxes this year and next, and especially about the need to raise taxes on “the rich” in order to force them to pay their “fair share.”

That’s because the American public has woken up to the fact that our government has been outspending itself at a furious pace — and now the debt has come due.

There are two broad solutions to America’s outstanding debt (which already exceeds 14,000,000,000,000 dollars) and America’s annual budget deficits: reduce the size of government or increase how much tax revenue it takes in. Broadly speaking, Republicans favor the former, and Democrats the latter.

Which solution (or combination of solutions) does Catholic social teaching favor? You’ll be hearing plenty about that, too. But the President of the Vatican Bank Ettore Gotti Tedeschi has already pointed us in the right direction, in his brilliant (and mercifully short) editorial for the L’Osseratore Romano (L’OR), the Vatican’s “official” newspaper.

I put “official” in quotation marks because I’ve been careful to point out in the past that the opinions expressed in L’OR do not represent the official position of the Church. Instead, we are to evaluate them by their merits. Nonetheless, I’m very pleased to see that they published this excellent editorial, because this will force liberal Catholics to decide if they actually do feel free to dissent from L’OR when it contradicts their political views. They certainly have spent a good deal of time trying to claim L’OR’s mantle when they perceived it as favoring their political persuasions.

But let’s get to the good stuff: Europe is facing a(n even) worse budget crisis than we are. Europe’s bloated socialist governments have amassed (even) more debt than us, and their over-regulated businesses have (even) less economic output than ours. This means that what’s in store for our near future is already happening there.

I’m going to quote Tedeshchi’s argument in reverse, because after reading his essay carefully I realized he actually writes in reverse – therefore his argument makes more sense “backwards”:

Further forms of taxation would not be synonymous with solidarity but only with greater public spending and, perhaps, a higher debt and more widespread poverty. High taxes penalize saving, generate distrust in the ability to stimulate recovery, hit families and prevent the formation of new ones, as well as creating uncertainty and precariousness in employment. In short, they lay the foundations for another phase of unsustainable development.

First point: increasing taxation by transferring wealth from people, families and businesses to government bureaucracy violates both subsidiarity and solidarity. Economies are built on people who can know with certainty that they will harvest the fruit of their labors — excessive taxation kills this dynamic which focuses creativity and rewards industry. If we want to “stimulate” the economy how can we do so successfully when we constantly deplete it through taxation?

During a prolonged crisis, inheritance taxes, new forms of taxation or similar alternatives reduce or wipe out resources for investments, discouraging the trust of investors, penalizing the cost of the public debt and the possibilities of its renewal at its expiration. In this context, imposing taxes on property and on income is equivalent to a suicidal anti-subsidiarity of the state to the citizen. Those who legally possess assets, on which they have paid the proper taxes, have contributed to creating wealth and, thanks precisely to these assets, continue to produce them with investments and consumption.

Second point: money held in private is not “static” — it is a dynamic force that when spent and invested truly stimulates more production and the creation of new wealth. It is precisely having wealth and “excess” that allows people and businesses to give from that wealth to invest in creating more of it. It is therefore anti-subsidiarity to take what is held by local entities (e.g. individuals, families, businesses) and give it to a centralized authority (the federal government, in this case). This principle does not rule out all taxation, of course, because there are some legitimate roles served by centralized government (see: The Constitution) — but it does rule out over-taxation, especially when taxes go to federal programs and mandates that can frankly be administered better by local, immediate entities (such as private charities, hospitals, etc).

Without a true strategy for growth – which moreover is in contradiction to the tax levy itself – taxation in all its forms only permits further growth in public spending, inevitable if economic interventions are to be permitted in the absence of development. At a time like this, growth is obtained solely by the appropriate use of the available resources in order  to benefit businesses that create wealth and sustainable employment, pay their taxes and thereby make absorption of the debt possible.

Third point: growth is the key concept. Without economic growth there is no government, because there is no economy to sustain its expenses. Governments don’t make money: businesses and people do, the market does. And taxation, raising taxes, and acquiring private property all serve to inhibit growth. Some taxation can be sustained, over-taxation ultimately cannot. And if America and Europe are ever going to climb their way out of the fiscal hole they find themselves in, it will be growth that drags us out, not taxes.

In this, the aim of both Democrats and Republicans should be shared: if Democrats want government to provide social services and the “safety net”, they must allow Republicans to pass (and in cases like Obamacare, repeal) laws that are preventing growth from continuing and increasing, because it is actually economic growth that is keeping the whole engine of government spending running in the first place.

Think about these three core concepts (1. over-taxation violates subsidiarity and solidarity 2. private wealth in fact serves the common good 3. economic growth is the key to recovery) as politicians and parties argue for your vote next November. Ask yourself if it makes sense to tax more the very engine that is fueling government spending, if it wise for government to spend money that private citizens have saved, and if taking money out of the economy can do anything except make it smaller and more anemic.

And while you are at it, read Mr. Tedeschi’s article again. I know I will.

UPDATE — Readers have asked what Mr. Tedeshchi was responding to. I believe he was commenting on a recent Italian proposal to raise taxes on high earners (sound familiar?). Of course, the principles he outlines apply not just to Italy or the European Union. Italy has dropped the proposal, according to the AFP:

Italy dropped Monday a proposal for a levy on high earners approved by the cabinet earlier this month as part of an austerity package aimed at calming the markets by balancing the budget before 2013.

… The temporary tax would have been five percent on revenues of more than 90,000 euros a year and 10 percent on revenues of more than 150,000 euros.

… Italy has one of the highest debt levels in the world and a low growth rate.