This week we are with colleagues on the road in the Victorian regional cities of Geelong, Bendigo and Ballarat.

At the dinners I am explaining some of the elements of what I like to call the “Thomas More Redux” movement.

A few puzzled people have asked, “Why have you started these talks in the country?”

Are we taking a romantic “flight from the cities” approach to rebuilding Thomas More?  Well, no.

The reality of living in these locations is more complex. These cities are not strictly “the country” but they are set within rural hinterland, and at each of our dinners we have supporters and interested people “coming in” from their rural towns and properties, along with the “townies”.

Each of these cities is the largest outside Melbourne and each could be described as “university” centres – with quite busy and active industries, healthcare centres, educational opportunities, infrastructures and cultural life.

Each of these regional cities and their hinterlands is growing – attracting retirees, artisans, families and younger people who are in search of affordable housing, a change in their work, educational and other opportunities and the growing desire for a certain sense of social and personal independence. This of course has been aided by contemporary online and digital connectivity, which makes it possible for some labour hours and workplaces to be wholly or partly “virtualised”.

In our discussions about reviving the Thomas More Centre, we somewhat paradoxically (it might seem) resolved to “de-centralise” our activities and organisation into local and regional hubs where that was possible. We are attempting to establish “hubs” which are placed both regionally in the States of our Federation and beyond this into organic communities at local places.

We see that one of our key “formational” roles is to introduce – in invitational ways – key principles of sound social teaching and particularly to revive within the great and often misunderstood tradition of Catholic social teaching. We also think we should model what we promote – and walk the talk.

One of these key principles is to keep together the strong community dynamic of “solidarity” with the identity-respecting “subsidiarity”.

One of the most articulate proponents of this need for balance in social order, economics and culture, as well as the power of “creative minorities”, was Pope Benedict XVI (of blessed memory).

He wrote his great and (in this country at least) largely untapped fifth encyclical letter, Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth – June 29, 2009).

This document synthesises and deepens the tradition of Catholic social teaching, integrating elements of earlier papal documents and the personalism of his Polish predecessor, Pope St John Paul II. One important and constant theme for Pope Benedict is the idea of “integral human development” – a holistic view of anthropology within “Creation”.

In paragraph no. 58 of this document, Pope Benedict insists that all forms of “common good” – whether global, national or local – must recognise that:

The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa… 

He adds very helpfully that subsidiarity respects the individual talents and gifts of each person, while solidarity recognises our need for interpersonal communion.

Hence, subsidiarity without common good or solidarity “gives way to social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist social assistance that is demeaning to those in need”.

There is much for us to mine in this coupling of key principles. How helpful it is in the wake of “The Voice” referendum. We know that our forthcoming events in Brisbane will really assist us in a greater understanding and enacting of social teaching.

Stay tuned!

Anna Krohn OAM
Executive Director
Thomas More Centre