Acton Institute criticizes USCCB's lack of focus on subsidiarity
#1  Thought some here would find this interesting.
Here's the correct link:
Exalting subsidiarity is just as much an error as ignoring it.

Just sayin'
Don't know what "exalting" subsidiarity means.  But now adays, that certainly is not a problem, nowhere's close.  The Bishops have been ignoring it for the past 50 years.

Anyhow, looks like Acton got snookered in by the modern Hegelian definition of subsidiarity put out by JPII.  I posted a correction.  They should appreciate it.

To summarize, there is nothing about "coordinating" in the Traditional definition.
Fortunately, he didn't exalt it.  In fact, he pointed out that centralization is sometimes necessary, as in the case of national defense.  He simply pointed out that a handful of bishops suggested that subsidiary-based solutions to health care access are being ignored and should be considered as part of the mix, but that the USCCB seems never to have heard of the word.
Article was definitely good.
They posted your remarks, and would not have expected them to with the the JPII hegelian remark. Subsidiarity is a word no longer in common usage and its meaning is lost in antiquity.
Conservative websites are usually more open about comments than leftist ones.
I think what Luvenalis is saying is that some people twist the principle of subsidiarity. Instead of things being handled at the lowest possible level, they twist it to mean everything should be handled at the lowest level 
That may be true (though I can't say I've seen it).  But to bring that up in response to a particular article implies that the article goes to that extreme, which this one doesn't.

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)