Many people seem to misunderstand the meaning of subsidiarity. They think that because the Catholic Church rightfully places one’s locality and community as the central place where social interactions should take place, this means that the Catholic Church teaches that every ill should be solved in, and is best solved by, one’s locality. If everything was handled on the local level, many, if not most, societal problems would vanish. While there is truth to the fact that the services are to be distributed at the local level, does this mean that there is to be no cross-locality management involved?
Now, here is an important question. Do they view the Catholic Church and its institution the way they look at the political institution? Strangely enough, many of the people who push for subsidiarity in government push for the reverse in ecclesial manners by believing in an ultra-montanist universalism for the See of Peter. They show little to no deference to their bishop, and they believe that ecclesiastical problems come from the fact that there is too much authority given to the local bishop.
What gives? Why is there such a contradiction?
Interestingly enough, the principle of subsidiarity comes from ecclesiology and the structure of the Church. It explains the relationship the bishops have one with another and with the See of Rome. Each bishop is local, and the people’s communion with the Catholic Communion comes from their bishop’s unity with Rome. Any adherence to subsidiarity must be understood in relation to how the Church views the relationship of the bishops with the Pope of Rome. Is there some central authority which helps make sure the Church is unified? Yes, and it is very important and needed. Without it, the Church’s effectiveness in the world would be hindered. If they can see that fact here, why cannot they see this fact in the political situation?
It probably has to do with the fact that they do not even practice subsidiarity when it comes to politics. They use it as a rallying cry to fight against practices of social justice of which they are opposed to, but they will be the first to try to rally federal support for laws and positions they feel strongly about. Imagine, if you will, what it would be like if the military was run according to their claimed political mandates. It just would not work. Nor do they think subsidiarity is the solution to military problems. All in all, subsidiarity, therefore, is a catch word they use without real adherence to it; it is a red herring. It has little to no real meaning in the debate. All in the discussion agree with the fact that whatever universal practice is put into effect, it must be enacted in the local level, where the local authorities are given flexibility in how it is practiced because, to borrow an analogy, one size does not fit all. But that is the point of subsidiarity and why pressing for it really doesn’t deal with the questions being asked by either side of a given political debate about social welfare.
Ad-Free & Subscriber Log-In