CST has a high view of the state because the state is understood first as an institution that serves the common good. Few things are so clearly expressed in CST as the claim that the state is to protect and promote the common good. Pius XII made the point that "the state, then, has a noble function; that of reviewing, restraining, encouraging all those private initiatives of the citizen which go to make up national life and so directing them to a common end" ("Address to Eighth International Congress of Administrative Sciences," August 5, 1951). John XXIII saw this role as the rationale for the state's very existence: "the whole reason for the existence of civil authorities is the realization of the common good" (Pacem in Terris, #54).

Two norms are especially important: subsidiarity and socialization. Regarding subsidiarity, the classic text is from Quadragesimo Anno. Plus XI wrote: "It is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and a disturbance of right order to transfer to the larger and higher collectivity functions which can be performed and provided for by lesser and subordinate bodies" (#9). Put more concretely, the person in need looks to the family for help; if the family is in need one looks to the neighborhood or local community; if it is the town in need one looks to the county; if the county requires assistance one looks to the state; and if the state cannot meet the need one tums to the national government. Thus, recourse for assistance should not automatically be to the national government but there is no opposition to such recourse if circumstances require it.

Subsidiarity reflects CST's opposition to the reduction of human association outside the family to just one form. Subsidiarity prevents any sort of collectivist or totalitarian outlook that permits the state to dominate all other forms of communal life. It is a norm that warns against any state assuming too great a role in public life, but it also warns a state not to fail in fulfilling its duties to promote the common good.

For this latter reason subsidiarity must be balanced by another procedural norm, socialization, described by John XXIII (Mater et Magistra, #59-67) and adopted by Vatican II (Gaudium et Spes, #25). Socialization notes that the growing complexity of modern life and the experience of various forms of interdependence result in a tendency to form new organizational structures both public and private. A larger role for the state, then, while not without its dangers, is not wrong in principle, Indeed, it may be necessary to achieve "an appropriate structuring of the human community'' (Mater et Magistra, #67). The error is to rely upon a single ideological premise to settle all cases (either a simple opposition to government action or the consistent appeal to national government for intervention). Rather, the proper balancing of the two procedural norms of subsidiarity and socialization is to serve solidarity (see Q. 33).

Not exactly, although some have tried to use it that way, as an argument against government. That would, of course, contradict what has just been said about the state being a highly prized social institution in CST. The Latin root of the word is the noun subsidium which means help, aid or support. In other words, the principle of subsidiarity has to do with the degree of aid or assistance needed in order to accomplish a task or meet an obligation.

In CST the idea is that one should seek assistance at the closest level to the agent or agency in need. When a smaller social unit is either unable or unwilling to meet the obligation it becomes necessary to turn to the larger social unit. Some agents are simply overwhelmed by a need or a problem and require the resources of a larger social entity. For example, it is doubtful that even extended families can address social problems such as street crime or drug trafficking. Larger social institutions must be utlized.

At other times, an agent is able but simply refuses to satisfy reasonable expectations and a larger social agency must intervene. This is precisely what happened in the U.S. civil rights struggle when some southern states refused to enforce desegregation policies. In response the federal government stepped in to correct unjust practices.

In the twentieth century, a line of reasoning that might be called creational has emphasized work as co-creation, that is, it is through work that human beings both shape and build the world. In doing so they fulfill the mandate of Genesis where Yahweh calls humankind to serve as a faithful steward of God's creation. At another level work is also the means whereby persons develop themselves. So also in this way men and women participate in God's ongoing creative activity fashioning both the world about them and themselves. It is in this way that we can speak of ourselves as co-creators; acting in concert with God's grace, humanity exercises a creative role in the historical development of ourselves, our society, our world.

The spirituality of co-creation should not ignore the penitential and eschatological aspects but it highlights two other dimensions of a Christian understanding of work. Through our freedom and self-awareness, God has invited us into a unique relationship that allows us to see our work as more than just meeting our own needs. Humanity's role in the plan of creation is to cooperate with the Creator in fashioning a created order that reflects the grandeur and purpose of God.

Second, our work, whatever it is, has the element of a personal calling, a vocation. We ought to discern, develop and direct our personal talents and gifts so that the work we do becomes both a response to God's call and a means of following Christ. For men and women to be good workers is as much a way of discipleship as being a good spouse, parent or friend.

This expression, a just wage, is also termed within the tradition a living wage, a family wage or just compensation. It is a fundamental teaching of CST for it is closely linked to human dignity. People have a legitimate claim based on their dignity to those essential material goods that meet basic needs for food, clothing, shelter, health, education, security and rest---this is the minimum condition of wage-justice. Ordinarily, it is to be expected that an able-bodied person will obtain the basic goods through labor, either as the fruit of one's work or in exchange for it. This is a long-standing presumption within the tradition.

By the time of Leo XIII, however, this presumption had been undercut due to the working of the labor market in the emergent industrial order. Classical liberalism's defense of free markets included the principle of free contract, that is, a just contract was one that the signees entered into freely. In practice, this meant many workers desperate for a position took jobs for paltry wages that were inadequate for meeting basic needs for themselves and their dependents. Leo forthrightly criticized such an approach and challenged the doctrine of free contract by asserting that justice, not freedom, is the governing norm of contracts. And justice, rooted in human dignity, meant that a just wage is one which allows a worker and family to live in "reasonable and frugal comfort" (Rerum Novarum, #34).