There& #39;s a lot of it & I read it about a month ago, but I do want to talk about Jones& #39;s article. I enjoyed reading it, but I do think it still drops the ball on subsidiarity. I think Jones is making distinctions where Pius XI never made them. https://newpolity.com/blog/what-states-cant-do">https://newpolity.com/blog/what...

"it is an injustice... a grave evil & disturbance of right order to assign to a greater & higher association what lesser & subordinate organizations can do." -QA 79

Pius XI does not make a distinction between moral authority & coercive power as Jones does ( aproblem w/image?).

First thing is that Jones doesn& #39;t really define what "coercive power" is. I& #39;m not sure how to distinguish that from moral authority, given all law is directed towards securing rights, justice, & the common good.

Also, free actions greatly outweigh anything coercive in number.

More on the image:

I& #39;m taking the width of triangle to mean "more powerful." It could mean "number of powers," but that is much more problematic (Nat& #39;l state has most coercive power?); it would be contrary to Pius& #39;s clear defn of subsidiarity.

To wrap it up, I could be mistaken. But, right now, it seems Jones is wrong to parse subsidiarity into moral authority & coercive power, when Pius XI define the function in light of "every social activity" (QA 79). The actual defn is extremely general too.

Here& #39;s what I would to show what subsidiarity is like. I take "power" to mean a specific faculty.

I may write an article in response to Jones; it would be constructive! Definitely, you guys should read the article (in first tweet).