One
definition of subsidiarity is “a principle of social doctrine that all social bodies exist for the sake of the individual so that what individuals are able to do, society should not take over, and what small societies can do, larger societies should not take over.”
 |
| Not really all that funny. . . . |
That’s correct — up to a point . . . and it leaves a lot
out, such as a legitimate role for the “larger” social bodies. This is particularly a problem in our day and
age when the Nation-State has achieved such — we’ll call it prominence — in
individual and family life that people tend to divide into two camps, 1) those
that deny any role to the State (and who thereby end up in a totalitarian
society), and 2) those who deny any role to anyone or thing other than the
State (and who thereby end up in a totalitarian society).
Translation: people hear what they want to hear (surprise).
 |
| Rev. William J. Ferree, S.M., Ph.D. |
What
should they be hearing, however? Why don’t we let someone who actually knew
what he was talking about, CESJ co-founder, the late Father William J. Ferree,
S.M., Ph.D., “America’s greatest social philosopher,” explain the concept of
subsidiarity? Here’s an extract from
Father Ferree’s unpublished manuscript fragment, Forty Years After, written around 1984-1985:
Fifth Law:
Higher Organizations Must Never Displace Lower Ones
Another law of Social Justice
which stems from the institutional character of the Common Good is that no
organizations in the vast hierarchy which we have seen can “take over” the
particular functions which an institution or person below it can adequately
perform. This is well stated in paragraph 80 of Quadragesimo Anno:
“80. The supreme
authority of the State, ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle
matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its
efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and
effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do
them. . . . Therefore those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a
graduate order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the
principle of ‘subsidiary function,’ the stronger social authority and
effectiveness will be and the happier and more prosperous the condition of the
State.”
In his encyclical Summi Pontificatus Pope Pius XII applies
this principle to the State both as regards its subordinate institutions, and
as regards the whole family of which it is a part.
 |
| Pope Pius XII |
“60. If, in fact,
the State lays claim to and directs private enterprises, these, ruled as they
are by delicate and complicated internal principles which guarantee and insure
the realization of their special aims, may be damaged to the detriment of the
public good, by being wrenched from their natural surroundings, that is, from
responsible private action.”
Then again to show the relation of
the State to the whole human community:
“60 (cont’d). The
idea which credits the State with unlimited authority is not simply an error
harmful to the life of nations, to their prosperity, and to the larger and well
ordered increase in their well-being; but likewise it hinders the relation
between peoples, for it breaks the unity of supra-national society, robs the
law of nations of its foundations and vigor, leads to the violation of others’
rights, and impedes agreement and peaceful intercourse. A disposition in fact
of divinely sanctioned natural order divides the human race into social groups,
nations or states, which are mutually independent in organization and in the
direction of their internal life. But for all that, the human race is bound
together by reciprocal ties, moral and juridical, into a great commonwealth
directed to the good of all nations, and ruled by special laws which protect
its unity and promote its prosperity.”
This is evidently Pius XI’s “Law
of subsidiarity function” even though the name is not mentioned. It is
particularly interesting because it brings together the two parts of the Law of
Social Justice which Pius XI himself was content to treat separately.
One part, “The Law of Subsidiary
Function” is treated in the passage we are commenting; the other part comes
later on, being summarized in paragraph 109 of Summi Pontificatus:
 |
| "Shameful confusion of the functions of public authority." |
“109. The ultimate
consequences of the individualist spirit in economic life are those which you
yourselves, Venerable Brothers and beloved children, see and deplore! Free
competition has destroyed itself; economic dictatorship has supplanted the free
market; unbridled ambition for power has likewise succeeded greed for gain; all
economic life has become tragically hard, inexorable, and cruel. To these are
to be added grave evils that have resulted from an intermingling and shameful
confusion of the functions of public authority with those of the economic
sphere — such as, one of the worst, the virtual degradation of the majesty of
the State, which although it ought to sit on high like a Queen and Supreme
Arbitress, free from all partiality and intent upon the one Common Good and
justice, is become a slave, surrendered and delivered to the passions and greed
of men.”
It can thus be seen that the Law
of Subsidiarity has two parts: First, that no higher organization may arrogate
to itself a function which a lower organization can adequately perform; and
secondly, that no lower organization may “capture” a higher one for its own
particular purposes.
 |
| "Like this Ferree and CESJ know what they're talking about." |
Many people who profess great
interest in the Law of Subsidiary Function don’t want to hear about the second
part of the Law of Subsidiarity. This leads to such outlandish formulations as
one I ran into personally in trying to dialogue with some students in the
hectic passage from the Sixties to the Seventies: this earnest young man was
even condescending in the patience with which he tried to explain to me that
“the lower level was always right!”
Perhaps the best way to handle the idea is to
think of a single “Law of Subsidiarity” which has both a “Subsidiary Function”
and a “Sovereign Function.”
* * * *
So, if we are to believe Father Ferree, subsidiarity doesn’t
mean automatically doing things at the lowest level, or at the highest level,
but at the most appropriate
level! (What a concept!)
Thus, matters that are appropriate to the individual should
be handled by the individual. Matters
that are appropriate to the family, by the family, and so on, up to the highest
level of organized society.
The problem today is that the State has taken over so much,
and people have so little power, that subsidiarity is, to all intents and
purposes, a meaningless concept. The
definition of subsidiarity that goes “the State does whatever the individual
cannot do for himself” (and we’ve seen it and had it quoted to us) reads like
the Nazi program in which all intermediate organizations have either been
abolished or absorbed into the State.
And charity? We’ll
look at that tomorrow.
