I may be misunderstanding the phrase, but the 'principal of subsidiarity' that I'm familiar with and the meaning of the new use of the phrase - seem to be have a subtle but considerable contrast with each other.
The use of the phrase that was familiar to me, in the past, was "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to b…
I may be misunderstanding the phrase, but the 'principal of subsidiarity' that I'm familiar with and the meaning of the new use of the phrase - seem to be have a subtle but considerable contrast with each other.
The use of the phrase that was familiar to me, in the past, was "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority." (taken from another source, not my own, but this is the same)
Being brought up with that concept, it has stuck with me.
But - the phrase (among so many others) seems to have been co-opted by elites, intellectuals and the brightest of the 'academy'. They're using it to become lords over those that rely on the 'smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority'. Instead of relying on that formula, they're using the new meaning to indicate that there must be a higher authority (they're happy to fulfill the roles) that is in control of the matters of great 'import', and they decide what that is. See: EU, EEC, et al
For me, that higher authority was God, not any person, group, establishment or nation.
By use of the widespread redefinition of most of what was an accepted lexicon, those few have weaseled their way into positions for which they have no true qualification and each nation appears to have their own overbearing state that has silently established the 'higher authority' that they apparently believe must be their birthright.
And now, there is dissension among their ranks. Now that they're comfortable in what they believe is their acknowledged authority, they're separating into their own divisions. They're throwing their weight around, trying to convince everyone that the 'other side' is using our beliefs against us. Each of their little groups is using the same tools to mislead and confuse as many of us, the lowly, as they can. They don't seem to realize that we've seen them and recognized them for what they are, but it is difficult to tell which of them are which.
Has there ever been a time when the world was so small and had so many tyrants?
An important contributor to the idea of "subsidiarity" is found in the 1960 work by John Courtney Murray, S.J. "We Hold These Truths." While some would recoil at the idea of a Catholic perspective having standing in the dialogue, I, as a Protestant, find his thinking to be both prescient and valuable, and yes, God is the ultimate authority in our Judeo-Christian heritage now under attack. Perhaps the opening lines will pique interest, "The 'free society' seems to be a phrase of American coinage. At least it has no comparable currency in any other language, ancient or modern. The same is true of the phrase 'free government.'"
I may be misunderstanding the phrase, but the 'principal of subsidiarity' that I'm familiar with and the meaning of the new use of the phrase - seem to be have a subtle but considerable contrast with each other.
The use of the phrase that was familiar to me, in the past, was "Subsidiarity is an organizing principle that matters ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority." (taken from another source, not my own, but this is the same)
Being brought up with that concept, it has stuck with me.
But - the phrase (among so many others) seems to have been co-opted by elites, intellectuals and the brightest of the 'academy'. They're using it to become lords over those that rely on the 'smallest, lowest or least centralized competent authority'. Instead of relying on that formula, they're using the new meaning to indicate that there must be a higher authority (they're happy to fulfill the roles) that is in control of the matters of great 'import', and they decide what that is. See: EU, EEC, et al
For me, that higher authority was God, not any person, group, establishment or nation.
By use of the widespread redefinition of most of what was an accepted lexicon, those few have weaseled their way into positions for which they have no true qualification and each nation appears to have their own overbearing state that has silently established the 'higher authority' that they apparently believe must be their birthright.
And now, there is dissension among their ranks. Now that they're comfortable in what they believe is their acknowledged authority, they're separating into their own divisions. They're throwing their weight around, trying to convince everyone that the 'other side' is using our beliefs against us. Each of their little groups is using the same tools to mislead and confuse as many of us, the lowly, as they can. They don't seem to realize that we've seen them and recognized them for what they are, but it is difficult to tell which of them are which.
Has there ever been a time when the world was so small and had so many tyrants?
The Dunning-Kruger effect is strong in the left.
Yoda?
An important contributor to the idea of "subsidiarity" is found in the 1960 work by John Courtney Murray, S.J. "We Hold These Truths." While some would recoil at the idea of a Catholic perspective having standing in the dialogue, I, as a Protestant, find his thinking to be both prescient and valuable, and yes, God is the ultimate authority in our Judeo-Christian heritage now under attack. Perhaps the opening lines will pique interest, "The 'free society' seems to be a phrase of American coinage. At least it has no comparable currency in any other language, ancient or modern. The same is true of the phrase 'free government.'"