You wrote:
“So, as you correctly point out, why stress the need for susidiarity to mitigate something that there will not be more of?”
You are conflating two separate things. In this encyclical, the pope expressed no desire for more bureaucracy. What he would like, however, would lead unintentionally to more bureaucracy. That is entirely different than saying: “If the pope is not naive and understand the ‘pitfalls’ of bureaucracy, why then does he want more of it?” I do not assume people start to smoke because they actually WANT lung cancer. You apparently would assume that.
“Since he is proposing something that he knows will create more bureaucracy then it is fair to say that he wants more bureaucracy, or at the very least is willing to tolerate more bureaucracy.”
No, it is not fair to say he wants more bureaucracy. If he did then he would not mention subsidiarity at all. I think it is much more fair to say he is willing to tolerate more bureaucracy.
“It is as simple as that. Logically speaking, more bureacracy > the amount of present bureaucracy, or less bureaucracy. Therefore the Pope wants more bureaucracy, regardless of whether he is merely willing to tolerate it or thinks it a necessary ‘downside’ or not.”
No. Again, to be willing to tolerate something is far different than wanting it. When someone needs chemo for cancer, they are not hoping to get sick from it. They are wiling to tolerate the chemo and the accompanying downside sickness so that they beat the cancer.
But doctor, the patient isn't sick in the first place, except for all the "cures" that he is forced to take.
Now, what if we don't want to take the prescription? I presume we're just supposed to sit down, shut up and take it anyway?
Cordially,