In my prior post on the principle of subsidiarity, I discussed the history of its use in the Church, identified characteristics that contrasted it from its opposite, supersidiarity, and discussed the protocol necessary for its viable implementation. The primary issue in that implementation was to characterize the need for higher level authorities to intervene in the life of a community and when it might be productive to do so. That intervention should be exceptional when it has the potential to damage the proper function of the community, and only be applied when parts of the community are already enmeshed in the violation of fundamental rights and privileges. The natural analogy appears to be the operation of the principle of "just war".

To delve further into the nature and operation of the principle of subsidiarity, it will be helpful to define its application more carefully. That is the purpose of this post. Here's what I will discuss...

• Further coverage of what the Church says about its application
• How these ideas can be more rigorously defined...
  • What I mean by natural community[fn]Compare with community ecology, or synecology.[/fn]
  • How this notion relates to the notion of sphere sovereignty
  • The proper operation of servant leadership
  • How the foregoing connects to the principle of the common good

By way of summarizing what Church, especially Papal, teaching has declared about the principle of subsidiarity, the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church declared (in ¶ 185)...

Notice, in particular, the highly organic perspective of this statement. It leads naturally to what I am calling organic communities...

Notice, in particular, the highly organic perspective of this statement. It leads naturally to what I am calling organic communities...

Organic Community:

• A community is organic if it forms through natural social interaction, supports a common interest, an d operates autonomously under traditional and/or contracted principles/rules[fn]e.g. Decalog, co mmon law, code of ethics, constitution, charter...[/fn]
• Examples include Family…Clan/Tribe, Village…City…State/Nation, Church…, Political Party, Professional Society, Economic/Social Interest Group (e.g. Unions, Companies, NGOs).

This definition of organic community leads naturally to consideration of sphere sovereignty. As the article in Wikipedia< /em> states, it is about "each sphere (or sector) of life [that] has its own distinct responsibilities an d authority or competence, and stands equal to other spheres of life..."

These are, of course, very broad terms. In an effort to clarify this, I propose the following, three- part, definition...

Sphere sovereignty

1. The right to self-government of an organic community within its own natural sphere of interest.
2. Where such communities have overlapping, peer-to-peer responsibilities, they enjoy the right to negot iate the details of responsibility sharing.
3. Communities with related interests naturally come together in larger spheres without necessarily losi ng their individual sovereignty, but yield to guidance, arbitration or adjudication (as necessary to pres erve peace) when conflicts arise between them.

The astute reader may notice that parts "2" and "3" remove sphere sovereignty from its "islan d" status to integrate it into a larger notion of peace and prosperity under the rule of law. To complet e that thought, however, it needs to be emphasized that such organic communities have a natural right to operate independently as long as the natural rights of others are respected and the common good is preser ved under the rule of a just legal framework. Indeed, these considerations bring us closer to the goal o f a clear definition of subsidiarity...

Sibsidiarity

Subsidiarity is the principle by which organic communities operate in their sphere sovereignty, assisted and regulated by higher level servant leadership as may be essential to the common good.

To fill this out, we need to bring clarity to the last two italicized terms...

Servant leaders undertake the following responsibilities and roles...

1. Oversight of a natural communitys/sovereign spheres, and assisting where necessary[fn]Cf. ¶186 of the Compendium, "On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopts attitudes of help ("subsidium") — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower order societies.[/fn].
2. Oversee commerce between/among communities/spheres[fn]Cf. the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution[/fn].
3. Oversight functions: (noninvasive) monitoring, guidance, arbitration, adjudication, coercive policing (not an exhaustive list[fn]Cf. the Book of Judges[/fn].
4. Interference may be necessary and justified to preserve natural rights of participating individuals or communities[fn]Cf. just war theory and its adaptation to subsidiarity, as I proposed in part one.[/fn].
5. Preside at conventions to negotiate norms of interaction between/among communities. Servant leaders operate according to natural and/or formal authority.

Balancing hope and expectations

The law of entropy (i.e., the 3rd law of thermodynamics, especially as it became broadened to include information entropy robs humanity of any hope of returning to the Garden of Eden under its own power[fn]Cf. Romans 8:9-23.[/fn]. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to hope that, by the grace of God, our labors to improve the lives of people in all communities and polities can promote the common good. This was the hope of the framers of the U.S. Constitution at the convention in Philadelphia in 1787[fn]See the Constitutional Convention.[/fn]. They lived with the understanding that leaders of good character must be chosen among the people, but that an agreed upon framework for the just operation of their leadership was crucial. We, too, can hope to pass on their wisdom, provided that we, too, strive to form ourselves and our dependents in good character. I believe it will also be very helpful if we approach the ideals of servant leadership in a framework of subsidiarity.

We should note, too, the history of how the frontier spirit played out in the first century of our nation. People with a frontier spirit were more self-reliant and creative. They studied nature more closely to learn how to tame it. They formed naturally into communities of interest, so successfully that a French visitor, Alexis de Tocqueville, was motivate to write a two-volume study of Democracy in America that every serious student of American history should read. Note, in particular, Volume I, Chapter 4, in which he stated...

That frontier spirit, a spirit that is replenished by every ambitious immigrant who comes to our shores, is (or, at least, was) deep in our social DNA. It's our unique spark of creativity that flourished under limited government. it's the source of our hope for the future. Recognizing this, the Compendium states (see ¶ 187)...

Therefore, we should keep the following in mind...

• Natural social, political and economic units can, and should be allowed to, flourish or fail independently and according to a just order... 
  • Experience is the strongest teacher (but not always acceptably safe).
  • Common mode failures[fn]A technical term from the field of systems engineering.[/fn] can be avoided.
  • Moral hazard[fn]A technical term from the field of economics.[/fn] can be avoided.
• Guidance is normally helpful and not intrusive.
• Unit abuses can be corrected with minimal damage/intrusion.
• Larger (e.g. multiunit) common interests can be protected.

As the Compendium put it in ¶ 188...

Ideals of minimized intervention in a framework of subsidiarity