When subsidiarity is not linked to solidarity, it ends up becoming merely the protection of particular interests; when solidarity is not supported by subsidiarity, it degenerates into a form of welfare….
-Pope Leo XIV
The northeasternmost region of the Democratic Republic of Congo, along with neighboring areas of Uganda, are suffering a daunting Ebola outbreak which is currently the third-largest ever and may well overtake the 2014-16 outbreak as the most lethal of all time. While the media of the Global North are not treating of the matter with nearly the intensity and prominence as they would, were a comparable outbreak of any lethal contagious illness taking place in Europe or North America, there has nonetheless been no shortage of competent reportage on the crisis. Where Peter Is obviously has no resources to investigate the situation independently[1]; however, I would like to point out a couple of systemic considerations drawn from Catholic Social Doctrine which bear heavily on the issue.
Ordinarily, as the quote above from Magnifica Humanitas implies, there is a certain creative tension between solidarity and subsidiarity. However, by last year’s closing of the United States Agency for International Development (USAID), withdrawing from the World Health Organization, and restructuring and downsizing the President’s Emergency Plan for aIDS Relief, the government of the United States seriously violated both subsidiarity and solidarity, not only in a national context, but also – and especially – worldwide.
We live in a globally interconnected society, where goods, services, and expertise are distributed among individual nations, international organizations such as the WHO and the UN, non-governmental organizations like Catholic Relief Services and Mèdicins Sans Frontières, and private corporate entities. This, with all its inherent advantages and disadvantages, is the real state of affairs today, independent of any ideological stance one may adopt, for or against.
Dislodging the United States from the rest of the world was obviously detrimental to solidarity: even were it somehow advantageous for the country, or even for all parties involved, for the U.S. to “go it alone,” the mentality that this policy reveals is one to which considerations of solidarity are (as it were) foreign, or even offensive.[2] That these moves compromise subsidiarity might seem less obvious; at first glance, challenging the focal-point authority of a single global multinational organization such as the WHO seems at least plausible. However, even aside from evident practical issues such as politically motivated public health (e.g. China concealing – or the U.S. administration downplaying – the early stages of the COVID-19 pandemic) and voids of authority due to regional social chaos (as in the current Ebola outbreak), true subsidiarity often requires the kind of eyes-on, localized response that cannot be orchestrated by any civic political authority, and least of all from an imperial-scale nation state on the opposite side of the world.
In the case at hand, the caregivers on the ground (local doctors and some charitable organizations; as recently as a year and a half ago, USAID personnel would have been integrated into the local infrastructure) are the right-level agents for subsidiarity – and they knew the needs of the moment: PPE, disinfectant, even clean water. Meanwhile, on entering the fray, the U.S. State Department set about building “up to fifty” treatment centers – a much more expensive and remote way of addressing the outbreak. The failure of subsidiarity correlated directly with two things: the lack of a presence on the ground, and the importation of American notions of relief into a situation in which they were radically out of alignment with reality.
Nor are these virtues proper to Catholic Social Doctrine in any way abstract or notional; an intangible but indispensable good flowing from human solidarity exercised with appropriate-level subsidiarity is trust. An NPR report from Gabrielle Emanuel described how cultivating a relatable presence, fostering cooperation with local leaders, and respecting the cultural values of persons affected are saving lives on a daily basis.
For Catholics – indeed, for anyone of good will – what are we to do in the face of this disaster, scattered to the four corners of the earth as we are? It is important – especially for those of us who grew up in the American conservative Catholic diaspora – to make an effort to bracket our enculturated suspicion of the United Nations and other international organizations and recognize the facts at hand.[3] True, in many of their specific choices and areas of focus, such organizations do not reflect the values of our faith; we must recognize that with clarity of vision and of conscience. However, in their missions and objectives, these organizations are liable to be far closer to the spirit and mind of the Church than any nation-state could ever be – and this already virtually self-evidently, insofar as one examines how much the demands of governance, including national security and even public administration, quite legitimately stand in the way of a view-from-nowhere practical wisdom, which is so necessary in cases such as the current outbreak. WPI contributor David Wemhoff’s recent piece is enlightening on the unique role of the United Nations in the world of today.
Most importantly, we can pray – with seriousness, looking beyond geographical distance and cultural difference, to honor the infinite dignity of the human person instantiated in the poorest and most vulnerable of the world. One instance: in makeshift camps by a garbage dump on the outskirts of Bunia in Ituri Province, over ten thousand refugees from the fulminating warfare that has pervaded the region for years exist with one water tap and no sanitation – not even soap. These people have been instructed to protect themselves from the encroaching outbreak by washing w6ith sand or oatmeal. These are our brothers and sisters in the human community. If there is any way to help them materially, it presents itself as an unqualified obligation; if not, we must pray for them as we would for ourselves.
Image: Wikimedia Commons – EU documentation on the current outbreak c. May 20, 2026.
[1] I did reach out to my Congolese spiritual director, who is from the opposite side of the country, in the vain hope that he might have some contacts through the Church who could help.
[2] The same mentality was on display in the Administration’s domestic responses: the ban on non-citizen travel from the region and the particularly outlandish plan to treat United States citizens with Ebola at a field hospital in Kenya (with backup treatment in Europe), rather than in facilities in the United States, such as the famed Nebraska Biocontainment Center, which are immeasurably more sophisticated and more secure.
[3] Consider, for example, how the recent response to the Holy Father’s current encyclical from Jacob Phillips in First Things seeks to temper a largely positive take with a swipe at the United Nations’ “positions on abortion and gender ideology.”
Dr. Paul Chu is currently a philosophy instructor for CTState, the Connecticut Community College, and has previously taught philosophy in college, university, and seminary settings. He also served as a staff writer and editor for various national publications. He is co-founder of Sacred Beauty, a Private Association of the Faithful in the Diocese of Bridgeport dedicated to honoring the beauty and holiness of God through artistic and intellectual creativity founded in prayer, especially Eucharistic contemplation. He contributes regularly to https://questionsdisputedandotherwise.substack.com/.
Popular Posts