Subsidiarity

I was watching the Bill Moyers and Company episode this morning entitled Nun's, Faith, and Politics.  The thrust of the show was about the theory of Subsidiarity and it's role as espoused by Rep. Paul Ryan.  Bill had two guests on, one was Sister Simone Campbell, leader of NETWORK, a Catholic policy and lobbying group, and the other was Robert Royal, founder of the Faith and Reason Institute and author of The Catholic Thing.  The discussion centered on Rep Ryan's budget that was passed by the House and it's effects on the poor and disadvantaged.  Sister Simone felt that the House's budget was and is a betrayal of all that Jesus had taught about taking care of the poor and most vulnerable of our society.  Robert Royal fell on the side of Subsidiarity.  Merriam-Webster defines Subsidiarity as a principle in social organization: functions which subordinate or local organizations perform effectively belong more properly to local organizations than to a dominant central organization.  Wiki states it like this:  an organizing principle stating that a matter ought to be handled by the smallest, lowest, or least centralized authority capable of addressing that matter effectively.   It was a very interesting discussion that touched on many issues including poverty, disparity of wealth, and what is the proper role of government.  What seemed to me to be lacking in the discussion during this hour long episode, and in the national debate that seems to be raging, is the very real issue of what I term the "facade of family".  We place a great deal of emphasis on "family".   Religious traditions have coined the phrase "family values" using it to herald their doctrine just as politicians use it to muster votes.  Lobbyists, especially the religious right, find it an effective tool, using it as a litmus test for anyone running for office, political or judicial.  But it is not this surface definition(s) that I am concerned with, it is the underlying facts that lay beneath the facade of "family".  What are the true facts, the very reality of what "family" is in this country.  We all hear what the politicians, religious leaders, lobbyists, and pundits want us to believe, but so very often it does not bear witness to what we experienced.  They want us to acknowledge the so carefully crafted definition that they hold so dear and they want us to bear witness to it every day but that is not our reality.  In our heart of hearts we know this whether we want to admit it or not, we know the realities of what our familys were and are.  Know that I acknowledge that my childhood issues play a part in how I view these things.  I have voiced my opinion about it many times in conversations, on FB posts, and in my blogs; however, I also acknowledge that recently I have been able to move past many of my experiences in such a way that I am no longer held prisoner by them.  This I find to be essential in giving me the ability to see reality more clearly.  And I find that clarity to be an amazing thing.  Knowledge is power as I always say.  To understand how the chains of our formidable years imprisons us is to know how to unlock them.  Transformation is a very powerful vehicle for change, both individually and collectively.  This brings me to the very crux of my writing today.  Family, in this country, is at the very base of how we see ourselves and how we relate to others.  Our families of origin form and shape us effecting how we than form our associations with people around us and more importantly how we create and define our adult lives.  Family is at the very core of who we are.  However, as nurturing or not as our family's of origins can be, we are effected by the less than ideal conditions of our upbringings.  The theory of Subsidiarity is a great example of this.  Rep. Ryan's definition is rooted solidly, as he continues to say, in his religious teachings of his upbringing.  He has justified his budget proposals to slash social programs by referring to this theory and is more than happy to say it is all about his religious beliefs and little else.  Many others including Robert Royal state the same thing, only not so blatantly.  Sister Simone and her Nuns on a Bus espouse the opposite.  That we, as a society, have an individual and collective responsibility to use the power of the government purse, among other vehicles, in an effort to support and help the most vulnerable and needy.  I propose that Robert Royal Ryan, Rep Ryan, and Sister Simone are basing their responses, however laudable, in part or in full on their formidable experiences as children.  I'll admit that this is just a theory on my part, based only on my experiences and that of others that I have witnessed on my journey in recovery, but I will say this; that the transformational part of my recovery has been the ability for me to move past my experiences and undo the ties that have bound me.  I see the suffering all around me and it literally pains my heart not to help when someone asks for money, something that happens almost daily.  My neighborhood, at the moment, seems to be where the vulnerable and needy are moving to.  I see the painful expressions as our eyes meet when we pass,  I see the vacant look of the elderly as the sit in the window of the transient hotel up the street,  I see the young walking next to their parents looking up for any validation or attention, and I see their parents, restless, angry, and lost, looking for help, adult versions of the very children that stand next to them.  And I wonder, what is their story, what have their experiences been, what are their chances are in a society that is increasingly turning its back on the poor and needy.  As I see it, the missing link here is how society is or is not responding to the needs of our most vulnerable within the very definition of family as it relates to their childhoods.  I feel the basic question should be asked: what was their formidable family experiences?   How did those experiences form who they are today?  Are they still imprisoned, bound by the invisible chains of their early years?  What is even more important here is how does society, individually and collectively, respond to this when the questions are answered.   Many ask is it right to, as some love to say, throw money at them thereby creating a perpetual dependency?  Is it right to do everything within our power to effect a better life by exercising the powers of the government purse?  I feel that neither of these are entirely right or just.  I firmly believe in social justice.  I firmly believe we are duty bound, whether it be by government purse, charity, or noblesse oblige or any combination thereof, to help not only the needy and most vulnerable, but of all that are bound by the individual chains of their respective childhoods.  I'll step way out on a limb here and you can get out your collectives saws and start cutting if you wish, but I feel strongly that unless we address the reality of "family" and its influences in our adults lives, we are destined to be forever bound by the chains that imprison us.  First and foremost, we need to start by challenging and then dismantling the facade of "family values" wherever it rears it's ugly head, calling it to account in print, in voice, and in our hearts.  Next it is essential that we admit to ourselves in the deepest recesses of our souls, the truth of our own lives and of our own behaviors, calling ourselves to account for our deeds.  For some this could be defined as a religious experience, for others a spiritual one.  For me, it doesn't really matter as long as we do it in full honesty and truthfulness.  In the Wizard of Oz, the Great Oz, pulling levels from behind the curtain, creates such fearsome displays of fire and smoke, until a little dog reveals him.  Then he protests, "Don't pay any attention to the man behind the curtain" he says.  But the facade falls of its own accord when the truth is revealed.  The fire and smoke stops and what is revealed is the truth.  We need such a transformational experience in society.  We need to pull back the curtain on our own fears, our own smoke, are own secrets, so that we can just stand there and be revealed for who we are.  I admit it can be very scary to be that vulnerable.  Believe me when I say I know.  That is one of my greatest challenges.  To be truly vulnerable and visible.  But I do it, very day of my life.  And I believe that when we do emerge, that when we reveal ourselves, the chains do fall, slowly at first, but they will fall, and when they do, that is when we will see a change in society.  The essential piece for all of us is to be free. And I firmly believe that our new found freedom will change the very basis on how we respond to not only the most needy and poor around us, but to everyone.  We will begin to see that giving money is not enough, that government programs are not enough, that charities are not enough without addressing the essential issue of how our formidable experiences shape us as adults.   The definition of Family is key here.  Not family values, but family.