What do you make of these two:
1894 In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor the larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
1895 Society ought to promote the exercise of virtue, not obstruct it. It should be animated by a just hierarchy of values.
Sounds to me like each individual is responsible for developing virtue and both society and the individual ought to be “animated by a just hierarchy of values.”
Doesn’t that imply that not all issues are “non-negotiable” but that our individual responsibility, exercise of virtue and a well-formed conscience should help us make decisions with regard to issues based upon a “just hierarchy of values.”
The word “hierarchy” implies an order and that some values take precedence over others. It also implies that part of our responsibility as citizens in a society is to exercise good judgement based upon that hierarchy of values. How is it possible to exercise good judgement if we believe all values are “non-negotiable” and of equal consideration? That would seem to lead us to an impasse and paralyze any judgement because we would be unable to distinguish between higher and lower values in terms of their significance relative to any particular political judgement or situation.
Or what do you make of this one…
1940 Solidarity is manifested in the first place by the distribution of goods and remuneration for work. It also presupposes the effort for a more just social order where tensions are better able to be reduced and conflicts more readily settled by negotiation.
So if, according to the Catechism itself, tensions in the social order are to be “settled by negotiation,” how does insisting that everything in the Catechism and all Church teaching is “non-negotiable” help to settle tensions between Catholics and the wider society? Seems just a tad problematic, no?