We have witnessed in our time the increasing amount of regulation with which we must contend. Anyone in business or a profession knows that there is now a vast array of regulation with which they must be familiar and are required to meet. This great increase in regulation is a result of efforts by authorities to meet complex social demands. Often there is an ethical issue underlying the matter – respect for individual rights, protection from harm, ensuring justice. Where a problem is identified, a set of regulations are developed to manage the problem. Governments respond to community concerns about an issue by developing a set of regulations. By their nature these regulations are detailed and exacting.

 

In an increasingly complex and interrelated world, regulation becomes necessary to ensure the smooth running of society. There is now a new vocabulary in vogue: ‘governance’, ‘compliance’, ‘risk management’, ‘work, health and safety’.

As the compliance industry develops it has become more sophisticated and at the same time, more subjective. No longer can an organisation be certain of compliance by ensuring that, as they say, the boxes are ticked, now the matter of compliance has moved from the letter to the spirit. Compliance is now seen as a matter of culture in an organisation, which is much harder to measure and even harder to prove.

People are expected to embrace the spirit of the regulatory regime.

Individual commitment is expected to its values and not just obedience to its requirements.

What if an individual disagrees with the new cultural norms imposed by an organisation? This has become a serious issue as all manner of corporations now embrace DEI (Diversity, Equity, Inclusion). DEI is promoted as an organisational framework which seeks to promote fair treatment and full participation of all people, especially groups that have been historically seen as underrepresented or subject to discrimination on the basis of identity or disability.

The idea on the surface appears attractive and reasonable. From a Catholic perspective we would be led to affirm this approach. We would want people to be accepted and included. Thus, it is understandable that many Catholic organisations readily espouse the ideals of DEI.

However, the terms carry other elements that have arisen from identity politics. DEI assigns benefit not to the individual as a person, but to the individual based on their group identity. In this regard the promotion of DEI can be the promotion of a certain ideological position which is at variance with the Christian understanding of the human person.

Thus, to impose inclusivity for minority groups can lead to exclusion of others. It can divide rather than unite. This was one of the key considerations during the recent “Voice” debate.

People can be promoted not on merit but because they belong to a group which has been disadvantaged. This can be unfair and promote unjust discrimination.

We need to be able to discriminate in certain circumstances – for example female-only bathrooms and change rooms need to be exclusive to uphold the higher priority of privacy and safety. When hiring staff for a religious organisation we should be able to discriminate (be non-inclusive) in order to maintain the integrity of the organisation, like a Catholic school. When hiring staff, we should be choosing the best qualified candidate not the most diverse choice or not to fill quotas.

Catholic teaching recognises that human beings are profoundly different from each other, yet of equal value. Each person is corporeally unique and has value precisely because of this uniqueness.

This uniqueness is what should be celebrated and promoted, rather than what social identity they may have.

We recognise that all have a common dignity. As St Paul said in Galatians (3:28): “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus”. There is diversity but all are “one in Jesus Christ”.

In the face of the rise of Socialism in the late nineteenth century Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, said: “It is impossible to reduce civil society to one dead level.  Socialists may in that intent do their utmost, but all striving against nature is in vain.  There naturally exist among mankind manifold differences of the most important kind; people differ in capacity, skill, health, strength; and unequal fortune is a necessary result of unequal condition.”

Our belief in the innate dignity of each person lies as the foundational principle of Catholic social teaching. Every person, regardless of race, sex, age, national origin, religion, sexual orientation, employment or economic status, health, intelligence, achievement or any other differentiating characteristic, is worthy of respect. It is not what a person does or what they have that gives them a claim to respect; it is simply being human that establishes our personal dignity.

Given that dignity, the human person is never a means, always an end.

What is becoming apparent is that regulation and compliance is about changing and directing behaviour. It can so easily move into control of people’s lives and limit human freedom. It can actually promote division within society.

This development in our global culture stands in stark contrast to the Christian approach to the human person. Christianity upholds the equal dignity of each person. Christianity is not about control or manipulation. The focus of Christianity is to teach the truth about the dignity of the human person and then encourage a response at the moral level. In the end, it recognises that each person must be free to make their own decisions, and then be responsible for the choices they make.

It cannot be about enforced adherence to imposed dictates about how to behave.