Subsidiarity is a fancy term for a fundamental principle of governance. It is a principle that derive s from Jesus' teaching about servant leadership. It is a principle that optimizes the balance between in dividual responsibility and individual freedom and initiative. It recognizes that man is a social animal and that social groups combine naturally to support a common purpose. It is directly related to the con cept (of neo-Calvinist origins) of sphere sovereignty, which, in turn, is ultimately derived from Christ's teachings .[fn]See Subsidiarity#Political_theory for further details.[/fn]

But Jesus called them to him and said, "You know that the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them, and t heir great men exercise authority over them. It shall not be so among you; but whoever would be great am ong you must be your servant, and whoever would be first among you must be your slave; even as the Son of man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many."         [Matthew 20:25-28][fn]See, also, the account of Jesus washing the feet of his disciples in the 13 th chapter of John's Gospel.[/fn]

Given that history, you may still wonder how the Church came up with the term "subsidiarity". Althoug h the kernel of the idea can already be found in Pope Leo XIII's encyclical, Rerum novarum ["on New things"], when he discusses the role of the state in serving the common good[fn]See, i n particular ¶ 32 and following.[/fn]. The ideas are further elaborated in a follow-on encyclical b y Pope Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno[fn]So named because it followed Pope Leo's encycli cal by 40 years.[/fn]. In particular, we find in ¶ 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: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occas ion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a gr aduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of "subsidiary f unction[fn]Emphasis added. The term subsidiarity derives from this mention of subsidia ry function. Notice the use of quotes in the original document, indicating that the Pope either bor rowed the term or recognized its unusual use. See Subsidiarity (Catholicism) for further historical detail.[/fn]," the stronger s ocial authority and effectiveness will be the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.

We can define subsidiarity loosely as the principle of governance that recognizes the compara tive independence of subsidiary domains of operation within a larger polis, state or nation. If we trace the etymology further we connect to the following:

• Subsidy: from Latin “subsidium”, meaning “assistance.” [OED]
• Subsidiary: from Latin “subsidiarius”, “serving to help.” [OED]
• -ity: suffix forming nouns denoting quality or condition. [OED]
• Cf: presidium, from Latin “praesidium”, “protection, garrison”. [OED]
• Cf: preside, from Latin “praesidere” = “prae” (before) + “sedere” (sit)
• Ergo: “subsidere” = “sub” (under) + “sedere” (sit) … to sit under.

Thus, subsidiarity can be defined as a principle of governance characterized by servant leadership, as defined by Jesus Christ, who either knelt or sat beneath his disciples as he washed their feet. He did so to set an example of humble service to the people he wanted his disciples to serve. The opposite of subsidiarity is, therefore, “supersidiarity” a form of master (not servant) leadership.

Subsidiarity, as a principle, is a thing of beauty. In practice, there are many requirements for its successful implementation. It may be helpful to contrast the operations of subsidiarity and supersidiarity.

Subsidiarity

Supersidiarity

Routine

Support and Advise

Micromanage

Exceptions

Correct, according to law.[fn]For example, when there is domestic violence in the home, the municipality may need to step in and apply correction in some form that may be escalated according to the degree of violence and the damage inflicted. More on that below.[/fn]

Hammer, according to whim.[fn]When the state wishes to make an example of the miscreants in order to cow the masses.[/fn]

Attitude toward the led

Respect

Contempt

Attitude toward leadership

Humility[fn]Leaders like Cincinnatus and George Washington stand out.[/fn]

Vanity, even arrogance

Attitude toward service

A desire to serve

A desire to profit or addiction to power

This is all my extrapolation from scripture and tradition, including some secular traditions on leadership. At this point, I will identify official Roman Catholic teaching that is specific to this issue. We start with the Catechism of the Catholic Church.

• ¶ 1883: Socialization also presents dangers. Excessive intervention by the state can threaten personal freedom and initiative. The teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which "a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good."
• ¶ 1885: The principle of subsidiarity is opposed to all forms of collectivism. It sets limits for state intervention. It aims at harmonizing the relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the establishment of true international order.
• ¶ 1894: In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, neither the state nor any larger society should substitute itself for the initiative and responsibility of individuals and intermediary bodies.
• ¶ 2209: The family must be helped and defended by appropriate social measures. Where families cannot fulfill their responsibilities, other social bodies have the duty of helping them and of supporting the institution of the family. Following the principle of subsidiarity, larger communities should take care not to usurp the family's prerogatives or interfere in its life.

These paragraphs are very helpful in identifying what subsidiarity is about at a practical level. It strikes me, however, that something is lacking. It is not quite up to the level of a protocol.

As I pondered this issue, I noticed another principle identified by the Catholic Church, a principle which, with some caveat, it has elevated to a doctrine. This is the just war doctrine specified in ¶ 2309. I mention this because it provides a useful template for a protocol of subsidiarity. Let's take a look at ¶ 2309...

What defines/constitutes a "Just War"?

¶ 2309: The strict conditions for legitimate defense by military force require rigorous consideration. The gravity of such a decision makes it subject to rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy. At one and the same time:

1. the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;
2. all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;
3. there must be serious prospects of success;
4. the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated. The power of modern means of destruction weighs very heavily in evaluating this condition.

These are the traditional elements enumerated in what is called the "just war" doctrine.

The evaluation of these conditions for moral legitimacy belongs to the prudential judgment of those who have responsibility for the common good[fn]Note: in some presentations, this becomes a 5th criterion, and I have adapted it as such in my analysis of just intervention in a governing framework of subsidiarity.[/fn].

Note that all four paragraphs of the Catechism relating to the principle of subsidiarity highlight the need for higher authorities to avoid interfering with lower-order communities, with the family called out as a special community not to be interfered with. As I noted in the table contrasting subsidiarity with supersidiarity, the "routine" relationship of higher authority to lower level communities should be limited to offering advice, perhaps identifying what it considers to be "best practices", yet leaving the conduct of the community to its own devices. The "exception" is when fundamental human rights (identified in natural law, or in a founding document - such as the Bill of Rights. In that instance, interference may be justified. This is where it is essential to ensure that the proposed intervention not make things worse - leading to something like the "just war" protocols.

It is this consideration that led me to the following[fn]I presented this material, and most of the above, at the 2019 LifeTech Conference.[/fn]...

Justified Invasive Intervention, in a context of governance via the principle of subsidiarity

Intervention may be justified if the following criteria are met...

• Without intervention, there is a serious prospect of grave and/or lasting damage: physical, psychological (e.g. emotional trauma), or moral.
• Less invasive interventions (such as giving advice) proved ineffective.
• There is a serious expectation that the intervention will be successful in ending the damage.
• The intervention, of itself, must not produce equivalent or greater damage.
• As far as possible, norms should be established to cover anticipated cases, such as domestic violence or child abuse.

In a future article, I will focus on the application of this principle to other natural groups.