The Morality of Fracking: A Catholic Approach

As our modern world gets more complicated and contentious, it's good to know that Catholics have unchanging moral principles to guide us. Of course, learning to apply those principles is more an art than a science, which is how explicit Catholic social teaching got started -- Pope Leo XIII wrote Rerum Novarum to help Catholics, and others of good will, see how those unchanging principles applied to the peculiar conditions of the modern, industrialized world, and subsequent CST documents have also addressed topical concerns of their day.

No, thanks, Dave, I'd rather rely on
Catholic Social Teaching for guidance.

Environmental concerns often reveal the deep divide between the Catholic worldview and the view of those who fail to recognize any inherent dignity or transcendent value of human life (often privileging the needs and "rights" of animals, and even plants, over those of humankind). The resulting politicization of such concerns often obscures the moral principles at stake.

This recent article in Our Sunday Visitor addresses the moral conundrum in "fracking" (hydraulic fracturing) to extract natural gas from shale deposits, something occurring all over the U.S. these days (in my part of north Texas, for instance). It cites several Catholic dioceses that have gotten involved in the fracking debate:

“Our responsibility is to care for the ecology of the earth,” said Bishop Jeffrey Monforton, whose Steubenville, Ohio, diocese lies in the midst of Ohio’s fracking boom. “In any participation by the Diocese of Steubenville in the leasing of land for natural gas or oil exploration, care for the ecology of the earth is a benchmark concern.”

Bishop Montforton goes on to point out that there are social, as well as environmental, concerns to be taken into account, and states that he takes guidance from a 1981 document produced by the U. S. Council of Catholic Bishops on “the moral dimensions of energy policy."

Fr. Ron Lengwin of the Diocese of Pittsburgh says his diocese relies on principles enunciated in Pope Benedict XVI's encyclical, Caritas in Veritate (“Charity in Truth”).

In the encyclical, Pope Benedict XVI called the environment “God’s gift to everyone” that entailed a responsibility “towards the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole” (No. 48). The pope stated that the environment can be used “responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation” (ibid). 

Aside from environmental questions, other kinds of problems can arise when a fracking operation moves into a community, as a representative of the North Dakota Catholic conference notes:

“We have a lot of good going on here,” [Chris] Dodson said. “But we also have an increase in crime, we have roads that are terrible, we have probably incidents of human trafficking going on.”  

The article goes on to quote a spokesperson for the Diocese of Rochester (NY), who points out the way such operations can affect the cost of living of local low-income residents. She says that "the state ultimately should respect the Catholic principle of subsidiarity, and allow communities to look at the potential impact on their economies and then hold a referendum or a vote on whether to frack or not to frack."

This last point -- the impact on the community -- is probably the one most often overlooked in debates about economic benefits and environmental concerns. It's good to know that Catholic dioceses are not leaving the discussion to the environmentalists and economists, but scrutinizing the practice of fracking in the light of Catholic social teaching.

Subsidiarity, Justice, and the Common Good

I've been very busy this week and haven't yet gotten around to writing my commentary on the middle section of Rerum Novarum, but we've already seen that one of the key doctrines developed in the encyclical is the doctrine of subsidiarity. Like many key doctrines, it is too often over-simplified and consequently misconstrued. As we read later documents, we'll be able to see how this doctrine gets elaborated as the social teaching tradition develops, but those who can't wait to know more might read a paper recently published online by Patrick McKinley Brennan of the Villanova University School of Law, entitled  “Subsidiarity in the Tradition of Catholic Social Doctrine,” which will soon be published as one chapter in Subsidiarity in Comparative Perspective, edited by Michelle Evans and Augusto Zimmermann.

In his abstract, Brennan says:

Subsidiarity is often described as a norm calling for the devolution of power or for performing social functions at the lowest possible level. In Catholic social doctrine, it is neither. Subsidiarity is the fixed and immovable ontological principle according to which the common good is to be achieved through a plurality of social forms. Subsidiarity is derivative of social justice, a recognition that societies other than the state constitute unities of order, possessing genuine authority, which which are to be respected and, when necessary, aided. Subsidiarity is not a policy preference for checking power with power. This chapter traces the emergence of the principle of subsidiarity to the neo-Scholastic revival that contributed to the Church's defense against the French Revolution's onslaught aimed at eliminating societies other than the state.

It seems to me he makes an important point: that social justice demands that all authentic societies (associations among people which “constitute unities of order”) be respected. The State's duty toward such societies is not to subsume them into itself, but to aid them when necessary.)We see this indicated very clearly in the middle section of Rerum Novarum.) These smaller societies -- including the family and the local community -- are themselves necessary to the common good, just as is the State itself.

I also find interesting the fact that he sees this doctrine emerging from the aftermath of the French Revolution (1789-99). The French Revolution, of course, infamously attempted to destroy all unities of order (such as the Church and the aristocracy) that might compete with the authority of the secular State, perhaps the first time in the Christian era that such a thing was attempted. I look forward to reading Brennan's paper.

Subsidiarity and our public schools

There was a time when our government(s) had more respect for local solutions, as indicated in this article from Accuracy in Academia.

Subsidiarity Due For Comeback

Malcolm A. Kline, November 27, 2012

The Catholic principle of subsidiarity, whereby that level of government closest to the problem is the one best-equipped to deal with it, may be viewed as quaint but in public education, its inverse could be seen as disastrous. “The 20th century was marked by dramatic consolidation of school districts in the United States,” Tom Loveless and Katharyn Field of the Brookings Institution found. “As the number of districts shrank from 117,000 in 1940 to 15,000 in 2000, the size of districts ballooned.”

“The average district served 217 children in 1940, as opposed to 3,000 in 2000.” Their research is quoted in a new report by the Heartland Institute, written by Joseph L. Bast and Joy Pullmann.

“In a 2012 poll conducted by Braun Research, Inc., 37 percent of parents said they would prefer to send their children to private schools yet fewer than 10 percent of parents do,” Bast and Pullmann write. “Seventy-one percent of mothers and 56 percent of Americans favor school vouchers.”

“In the Washington, D. C. area, almost three-quarters of those polled support the local voucher program, and it had a parental satisfaction rate of more than 90 percent.”
Malcolm A. Kline is the Executive Director of Accuracy in Academia.

If you would like to comment on this article, e-mail mal.kline@academia.org.

By the way, it should be noted that the principle of subsidiarity does not apply only to government, it applies to any person or agency who can address a problem of need in the community. The principle of subsidiarity requires that the need be addressed by whoever is closest to the needy person and able to help them. If the immediate family can't address the needs of one of its members, they should look for help first among those closest -- extended family and immediate neighbors, then the larger local community, and so on. This is why the principle of subsidiarity supports homeschooling. It is only because not all parents are equipped to school their own children that we need public schools.

Rerum Novarum §1-25: Analysis

The first thing to notice is that, although this document is addressed to the Bishops of the Church (as all encyclicals are), it clearly is intended for the world at large. Here Pope Leo is not instructing merely the Bishops or the Catholic faithful, but all those who recognize the problems between workers and capitalists and are concerned to find a feasible solution. The second thing to notice is that the Pope is directly refuting socialist theory – this document reads like a point-by-point refutation of The Communist Manifesto. All of the key claims and proposals of the Manifesto are shown to be erroneous and unjust: the idea that class warfare is inevitable, the proposal to eliminate private property, the notion that the State should control of the family. So the encyclical begins by saying, in essence, “Yes, there is a problem concerning the condition of workers, and something must be done, but the socialist project is not the solution.”

The second thing to notice is that the first twenty paragraphs of the encyclical base this counterargument entirely on natural law, not religious doctrine. One does not have to be a Christian to recognize that Socialist theory contravenes natural law and natural justice, and therefore cannot be expected to succeed in the long run.

The encyclical goes on to claim that ownership of private property is a natural right, basing this claim on a natural anthropology which acknowledges that what distinguishes Man from Beast is his rational nature – the ability to look toward, and plan for, the future, to think not only of his own needs but those of his posterity. One of the problems of socialism is that it tends to think of man in materialistic terms, to reduce him to an animal whose physical needs must be met without considering his moral and spiritual needs. In such a materialistic view, the family is not an intimate society but a collection of discrete individuals who cling together simply out of mutual need; if the State can meet their needs, the family can be dissolved. Leo reasserts the idea that the family has its own integrity and value.

It is worth noticing how this case is made: man (the individual) is prior to the State – this means both that there are individuals before there is any organized State, and that the individual “takes priority” over the State. When a man marries and generates children, he creates the most basic kind of society: father, mother, and children. This is “natural society,” which, again, is prior to the State, both with respect to time (there are families before there is any larger, organized society) and with respect to importance (the State serves a larger society made up of families). The claim of a “natural right” to own property is based on this understanding: a laborer’s work for wages is motivated by his desire to provide for himself and his family, not just for their present subsistence, but for their continued well-being; also, property allows a man to “make his mark,” to impress his own effort and personality on the land he cultivates, thus truly making it his own, and something that will be an inheritance for his children. To interfere with this right is to act both unnaturally and unjustly, as it would also be for the larger community (the State) to interfere with the internal governance of more basic society (the family) – except in those rare cases when the family is experiencing troubles that it cannot deal with on its own.

The encyclical continues to apply the measure of nature as it considers the makeup of the larger society, asserting that the Socialists also err when they claim to be able to make all men equal. While people may be morally equal, they are not equal with respect to abilities and talents; the just society must allow each one to contribute according to his abilities and must not impose an unnatural conformity. Not only would this violate human dignity, but it would work against any natural motivation to do well, creating instead an environment in which envy would flourish, whenever any individual did better than others. So the egalitarian society envisioned by the socialists would be, again, both unnatural and unjust.

Having pointed out the absurdity of the socialist project to reduce all men to “one dead level,” the Pope goes on to assert that the natural inequality of men is actually advantageous for society, because a well-ordered society requires many different kinds of labor and talents, allowing each person to contribute what he has been given by nature. Moreover, since hard work is natural and salutary, and suffering is inevitable, it is absurd for socialists to claim that they can build a world in which all will be free from pain and trouble.

One more key claim of the socialists, the inevitability of class hatred, is refuted. In fact, says P. Leo, quite the opposite is true: capitalists need workers, and workers need employers, so the classes are bound together by mutual need, and a just society will acknowledge this and encourage concord and mutual respect between the classes, and remind them of their duties toward each other.

All of this, the encyclical suggests, should be evident to any objective, rational person, so a just and well-ordered society is attainable just by respecting natural law and justice. But P. Leo also wants to make a case for the indispensable value of the Church in modern society, from which it was being marginalized even in his day. While natural law can show that different social classes are bound together by mutual need, only Christian charity can unite them in bonds of brotherly love and motivate them to go beyond mere duty in dealing with one another. When we realize, as Christ has taught us, that our ultimate happiness cannot be served by anything this world offers, we will not cling to wealth, comfort, and social status – the wealthy will be more generous and acknowledge their responsibility toward the less fortunate, the poor will be less envious and grasping when all recognize that Christ himself did not scorn poverty or suffering, and that their true reward is in Heaven.

In this early part of Rerum Novarum, we see that many key doctrines which have since been recognized as the pillars of Catholic Social Teaching do not depend strictly on a Christian viewpoint: subsidiarity, the inherent dignity of the human person, the primacy of the family in society, solidarity with the poor. It also touches on topics being contested in our own day, such as the nature of marriage and the family. This document has persuasive force for Christians and non-Christians alike.

Fr. Robert Barron on Paul Ryan's grasp of CST

Both the Democratic and Republican vice presidential candidates are Catholics, yet they have very different ideas about the kinds of social policies that can be based on Catholic social principles. Some would say that Joe Biden emphasizes solidarity over subsidiarity, while Paul Ryan tends to talk more about subsidiarity. Here's a video in which Fr. Robert Barron evaluates and comments on Republican VP candidate Paul Ryan's grasp of Catholic social teaching, and the proper balance between the key principles of solidarity and subsidiarity.

What's the Big Idea about Catholic Social Teaching?

Here's a video from Catholic Vote that does a good job of explaining the key concept of subsidiarity.

Subsidiarity ≠ Small Government

One of the key principles of Catholic Social Teaching is the principle of subsidiarity. In this article on the Distributist Review web site, Richard Gallenstein argues that Libertarian Catholics sometimes erroneously equate "subsidiarity" with "small government."

Why Libertarians Are Wrong About Subsidiarity Part I

By Richard Gallenstein / 1 October 2012
I find it rather annoying when libertarian Catholic friends of mine get so excited when I say that I know about subsidiarity. It is kind of insulting when they jump on the opportunity to tell me that their economic/political system is the one that upholds subsidiarity the best. Libertarians like to talk about subsidiarity because they think that it automatically and necessarily means small government which they have a pre-conceived ideological dedication to. An ideology that has its roots firmly planted in the enlightenment, not in Catholicism. So they take it, distort it, and thus try to jam the square peg of libertarianism into the round hole of Catholicism. They distort it because they take the definition and they interpret it with two of their previously held (and held higher I might add) ideologies, which are: Capitalism, as understood in the Austrian/Chicago schools of economics, is the best economic system (or is consistent with Catholic Social Teaching), and government is intrinsically bad and has no role in civil society. Here I will refute the first assumption by showing that when we remove the first assumption and replace it with Catholic teaching, we get a very different interpretation of subsidiarity. I will use regulation of business as a helpful example and context for this discussion.  ...

Read more.