The Principle of Subsidiary: Baptized Libertarianism, or Sometime More?

One of the cornerstones of discussions on political philosophy are debates on the exact extent or limit of the government’s authority. Most systems of political thought (besides, of course, the various forms of anarchism) agree that the government does, in fact, play a role in maintaining stability and unity in society and promoting the common good. Yet, where does the power of the government to promote the common good end, and personal responsibility begin? Or - to put it in terms that tended to dominate most of the early modern political discourse - where does government authority end and the freedom of citizens begin?

This is, of course, a pivotal question. Firstly, for practical reasons: the government lacks the resources or manpower to do it all. If the government has limited resources or manpower, what should it be focusing its attention most on? What should or must it be using its sources for? What should its main priorities be? Or should the government be collecting as many resources as it should and become the primary mechanism by which all social, legal and economic issues are resolved?

Secondly, this question is of the utmost importance for more general moral reasons: How much authority is one comfortable delegating to the government? Any authority, no matter how limited or vast, can be abused. How do we reduce the possibility of abuse as much as possible? There are a few different approaches. A society could, hypothetically, set strict and well-defined parameters for the governments authority (if politicians and bureaucrats know their place in society, and cannot go beyond a certain limit, there is less of a possibility of the government using its authority to do or regulate something it ought not). Another approach may be to not so much limit the governments authority as much as recognize the reality that the more authority the government has, the more possibilities for the abuse of power; hence, if one has a broader vision of the extent of the governments authority, they could hypothetically suggest some sort of mechanisms to prevent abuses of power. Or, one could do a certain amount of both, as was the case in most democratic societies, particularly those of a more federalist bent: not only could one organize society around a political philosophy that emphasize personal freedom over government authority, and therefore favor a more limited or decentralized government, but one could establish a specific set of legal and political mechanisms built into the structure of government, such as the division of the government into multiple branches or a balance between federal and local authority, which kick in or can be invoked as a way to counterbalance any potential abuses or government overreach.

These questions have been a part of discourse on political philosophy for as long as scholars and politicians have been debating topics surrounding the nature of the government. Yet, since the start of the modern era, there has been an ever growing strain within Western political thought, as exemplified by Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism, which systematically placed the importance of personal freedom above government authority, and which sought to create a balance between government authority with the rights of the citizen, which it did by conceptualizing government authority as being at the service of personal freedom: according to the mythos of Classical Liberalism, government was established as means enforcing a commonly agreed upon set of rules whereby individuals are prevented from infringing upon each other’s rights, something that was a constant threat in a state of nature; yet, there are also certain strict limits on the government’s authority which are meant to prevent the government from itself becoming a source of oppression and the violation of rights. The reason why one would accept such a vision of society is because supporters of such socio-political theories sees the government as deriving its authority from the consent of the governed. In a word, the government was established only because the citizens of a particular society chose to establish it in the first place, and continues to exist only insofar as the citizens continue to acknowledge its authority. As a result of this, supporters of Classical Liberalism and Libertarianism have pushed, many times successfully, for governments organized along democratic lines.

Such an ethos has been an extremely potent force in American politics, to no small degree because the American government, from its inception, was based upon Enlightenment political values (and since no large-scale political change takes place in a vacuum, it can be easily argued that American culture was, almost from the ground up, built upon certain narratives, ideologies, and ways of life that made colonial American society conducive to such political values). The general train of logic that “We need small government in order to preserve the rights of the people” is one of the unquestionable, axiomatic elements of American culture. This, combined with the historicist undertones of American political philosophy (by “historicist” I mean the notion that many Americans see history having a certain specific flow to it, one which inevitably unfolds in the creation of freer societies and more just governments) leads to the almost dogmatic adherence of many Americans to the basic tenants of 17th and 18th century Liberalism, seeing the prevailing elements of American political thought as self-evidently true (something clearly seen in the thought of the Founding Fathers themselves). Americans, like the more naive adherents of religion, are thus always on the look for any piece of evidence that could be used to validate their political opinions, even if it means, as is usually the case, examining or reinterpreting all political opinions through the lens of their own ideology.

This can be seen with the concept of subsidiary. An important part of Catholic theology ever since the great Popes and theologians of our era began systematize certain basic principles of Catholic social and moral thought in light of the political, social and economic challenges of the contemporary era, the concept of “subsidiary” means, in essence, that anything that can be done by either a higher authority or a lower authority should be done by the lower authority. If one were to stop there, one could easily see subsidiary as being a variant or precursor to one of the foundational tenants of American political thought - the notion of limited government - and thus as simply creating a barrier against government overreach.

The tendency to interpret the doctrine of subsidiary in such a way was only solidified by two realities: firstly, certain trends in 20th century American conservative thought, and secondly, the alliance in American culture between the political right and the religious right. Since the middle of the twentieth century, the term “conservative” began to take on a very specific meaning: many of the thinkers within more conservative schools began to create an alliance between social conservatives and political libertarians, which has thus led the popular American imagination to see a strong adherence to capitalist thought and a desire for a much more limited federal government and, on the other hand, a support for more traditional social and moral views, as going hand-in-hand. Some of the thinkers who forged this interpretation of conservatism - for example, William Buckley - were Catholic.

Another factor to consider is that both those with more traditional religious views and those of a more conservative political persuasion were equally outraged at the changes associated with the cultural revolution, thus leading to an alliance between political conservatives and theological conservatives. This thus created the view that to be theologically conservative is to inevitably vote for conservative politicians. Yet, the form of conservatism that conservative Christians have signed up for tends to be the very specific version of conservatism that dominates the political and intellectual circles of American society, in this case those that have developed since the middle of the 20th century.

Thus, the concept of subsidiary is often interpreted along the lines of a generic conservative belief in “limited government.” Yet, there is much more to this doctrine than that. The Compendium of Catholic Social Thought (hereafter referred to as CCST), paragraph 186, says the following in defining the principle of subsidiary: “…[A]ll societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (subsidium) - therefore of support, with respect to lower-order societies. … Subsidiary…[is] understood…as economic, institutional, or juridical assistance offered to lesser entities…that require[s] the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller essential cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted.”

That is to say, the structures that govern society, when considered on the highest levels - particularly the State - must support the existence, functioning and preservation of lower-level or more local social structures. This doesn’t meant that the Catholic Church is opposed to the existence of these higher-level social structures, even when they exist in a highly centralized form (as can be seen in the Church’s support of monarchy for most of its history, and the existence of supporters of monarchial restoration even among the ranks of the traditionalist movement). Rather, what the Church is saying is that the State’s authority should not become so vast so as to supplant or leave no room for the existence or functioning of lower-level social institutions, and in fact should give them the freedom to take responsibility for and make decisions for those immediately under their care.

Part of why the principle of subsidiary is so strongly emphasized in the Catholic tradition is due to the fact that intermediary social institutions prevent the over-accumulation of power, and therefore abuse, on the part of higher-level social or political structures (cf. CCST #187). Yet, there is another reason for the Church’s commitment to the principle of subsidiary, beyond merely a fear of government overreach, and it is this reason that separates Catholic social thought from generic conservatism. The moral principle at stake in defending the principle of subsidiary is the realization of a profound anthropological fact, namely that the development of the human person, and thus the maintaining of human dignity, takes place within the context of - and is therefore best preserved by making use of - institutions such as the family, local community organizations, local cultural customs: in a word, what the CCST refers to as “that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which make it possible for them to achieve effective social growth” (#185). The preservation of local communal entities is thus meant to preserve that which is most uniquely human.

One critique of pop conservatism is that it has evolved into a more sophisticated, political expression of the “get off my lawn” attitude, and thereby essentially promotes an atomized vision of society (one which, in my opinion, creates the framework for the rise of the errors of liberalism, making contemporary conservatism a, albeit unwitting, sustainer of those negative social and ideological trends it seeks to destroy). Yet, humans are by nature social animals oriented towards relationship, and thus a large part of how the individual person harnesses their full range of capacities, realizes their full potential, is within the framework of, and partly under the influence, of the family, culture, and local social structures. Thus, some of the most potent measures to be taken in pursuing or maintaining justice in society takes place on a local level.

This makes sense, considering several factors. Firstly, humans are most impacted by, as well as most deeply in, and have the greatest capacity to influence, things in their immediate surroundings. Together with this is the reality that the thing that most drastically influences the manner or extent to which large-scale social reform unfolds is the state of the local community, particularly how these reforms are received, interpreted and implemented by the local community.

The health of a society is best exemplified in things such as the health of the family, the closeness of the local community, and the state of the culture. The importance of local community can be seen by looking at it in the negative: some of the factors that have served as the most potent means of perpetuating certain negative social trends include the falling apart of the family and local community entities, and the loss of a sense of cultural identity (in particular the replacement of authentic culture with the plasticization of culture). The widespread acceptance of moral relativism, a sense of isolation and the mental health crisis that results from this, widespread sexual immortality, consumerism, are all trends that, in many instances, are either caused or made worse by things like poor family or community relations, lack of participation in institutions or traditions that give life meaning (especially religion), and the lack of any authentic sense of culture.

When put in the positive, while people may (and often do) be able to comprehend and feel strongly about large-scale social issues, people feel the most amount of responsibility for those things that they have the most influence over, or that exist in their immediate orbit, since it is these things that one feels most emotionally invested in. Thus, far from atomizing society, the principle of subsidiary inspires people to do more to push for social justice or political reform, by making changes in their own lives and in their local, or mobilizing people on a local level, to bring about change.

This is something that I noticed when writing an article early last year for my diocesan newspaper in which I analyzed how local Catholic schools responded to the effects of the Covid-19 pandemic. Most schools, both public and private, both religious and secular, saw some level of decline in enrollment in during the Covid-19 pandemic; yet, those schools that saw the highest rise in enrollment in the immediately after Covid were not those that thought in terms of overly-broad institutional policies, but rather those that were most attentive to the needs of their local community. Catholic schools, more generally, experienced a much smoother transition back to some sense of normalcy in the aftermath of the Covid pandemic, especially when compared to public schools. Many experts have asserted that the reason for this is the student-oriented nature of Catholic schools. Because of the strong sense of mission within, and the tight-knight communities surrounding, Catholic schools, many desired the safety of their students. Catholic schools were thus amongst the fist to close during the pandemic; yet, once the initial impact of the pandemic came to pass, they were also amongst the first to reopen and to set up plans to reestablish the pre-Covid norms as much as possible given the circumstances.

The story of Catholic schools in the immediate aftermath of Covid is but one expression of the principle of subsidiary in practice. As a local institution, those who run Catholic schools have a direct relationship with their students and their families. Those who have close relations with those they serve tend to have a greater motivation to help than those who are disconnected from the general populace, something that can easily occur on higher levels of society. Further, local institutions tend to be closer to the ground: they can much more easily discern the set of issues faced by those they serve, and adapt or cater any plans to confront the issue to the actual, concrete circumstances the people find themselves in.

Subsidiary is therefore not simply being left alone by the government to be left alone in your own little sociological bubble (though the principle of subsidiary does in fact help to protect against government overreach); rather, it reinforced those social relations that are the most immediate and most consequential, giving them room to grow and prosper. It serves as a counterbalance not to big government in general, but to a specific view of government (one that defines the modern world in a particularly intense manner) wherein that causes the central government authorities, as some far away and unrelated bureaucracy, to take the place of family, church, and local community and juridical organizations. The principle of subsidiary moves people to be more involved in their community, rather than simply delegating everything to some higher authority with no sense of rootedness in the community. It, if anything, helps to reinforce an authentic sense of community.