+(,121/,1(

Citation: 48 Jurist 298 1988

Content downloaded/printed from

HeinOnline (http://heinonline.org)
Mon Jan 11 12:16:37 2016

-- Your use of this HeinOnline PDF indicates your acceptance

of HeinOnline's Terms and Conditions of the license
agreement available at http://heinonline.org/HOL/License

-- The search text of this PDF is generated from

uncorrected OCR text.

-- To obtain permission to use this article beyond the scope

of your HeinOnline license, please use:

https://www.copyright.com/ccc/basicSearch.do?
&operation=go&searchType=0
&lastSearch=simple&all=on&titleOrStdNo=0022-6858
TIRE JURIST 48 (1988) 298-349

SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH:

THE STATE OF THE QUESTION

JOSEPH A. KOMONCHAK
The Catholic University of America

I was asked to draw up a statement of the status quaestionis with

regard to the application within the Church of the principle of subsi-
diarity. After a brief description of the principle as recommended for
civil society, this essay will first review the discussion of the applica-
bility of subsidiarity in the Church as it developed in the teachings of
recent popes, in the debates at the Second Vatican Council and in
several meetings of the Synod of Bishops. After a brief historical review
of the emergence of the theme in the theological and canonical liter-
ature, I will attempt to identify the chief practical and theoretical issues
which are at stake.
SUBSIDIARITY IN CIVIL SOCIETY
Although scholars dispute how ancient the reality and the notion of
subsidiarity are as elements of social philosophy,' for our purposes we

I Arthur-Fridolin Utz maintained that both as a reality and as a formulated prin-

ciple, subsidiarity is a modem development, possible and necessary only in reply to the
claims made for the modem liberal state; see Das Subsidiaritatsprinzip,ed. A.-F Utz
(Heidelberg, 1953), cited by Franz Klaber, Katholische Geselischaftslehre,vol. I (Osna-
bruck: A. Fromm, 1968), p. 878n; "Der Mythos des Subsidiarittltsprinzips," in Ethik und
Politik: Aktuelle Grundfragen der Gesellschafts-, Wirtschafts- und Rechisphilosophie,
ed. H. B. Streithofen (Stuttgart: Seewald, 1970), pp. 339-349. Trutz Rendtorff criticized
subsidiarity as a Catholic response to liberalism, designed to secure the particular rights
of church institutions and associations; see the discussion of his argument by Anton
Rauscher, "Subsidiaritlit-Staat-Kirche," Stimmen der Zeit 172 (1963) 124-137. Al-
most all other commentators trace its roots farther back in western social theory, for
example, in Aristotle, Thomas Aquinas, Dante, medieval German Genossenschafisrecht,
Calvin, Montesquieu, Schlegel, de Tocqueville, Abraham Lincoln, etc. Oswald von Nell-
Breuning says flatly, "Die Sache ist uralt"; "Subsidiaritttsprinzip," Staatslexikon, 6th ed.
(Freiburg: Herder, 1962), 7:826. It appears that the historical question greatly depends on
the definition one gives to the principle and what implications are considered to flow
from it. I believe that Utz's position should be taken seriously.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

may begin with the classic expression of the principle given in Pius XI's
encyclical, Quadragesimoanno:
It is true, as history clearly proves, that because of changed
circumstances much that formerly was performed by small asso-
ciations can now be accomplished only by larger ones. Never-
theless, it is a fixed and unchangeable principle, most basic in
social philosophy, immoveable and unalterable, that, just as it
is wrong to take away from individuals what they can accom-
plish by their own ability and effort and entrust it to a com-
munity, so it is an injury and at the same time both a serious evil
and a disturbance of right order to assign to a larger and higher
society what can be performed successfully by smaller and lower
communities. The reason is that all social activity, of its very
power and nature, should supply help [subsidium] to the mem-
bers of the social body, but may never destroy or absorb them.
The state, then, should leave to these smaller groups the set-
tlement of business and problems of minor importance, which
would otherwise greatly distract it. Thus it will carry out with
greater freedom, power, and success the tasks belonging to it
alone, because it alone is qualified to perform them: directing,
watching, stimulating, and restraining, as circumstances suggest
or necessity demands. Let those in power, therefore, be con-
vinced that the more faithfully this principle of subsidiary func-
tion is followed and a graded hierarchical order exists among
the various associations, the greater also will be both social
authority and social efficiency, and the happier and more pros-
perous too will be the condition of the commonwealth.2
While the reality intended by subsidiarity can be found in Leo XIII's
encyclicals, 3 as a formulated principle it has a distinctly German gene-
alogy. Bishop Ketteler and Heinrich Pesch stressed the subsidiary char-
acter of the state.4 Quadragesimo anno was written by Oswald von

2 Pius XI, Quadragesimo anno, AAS 23 (1931) 203.

3 Ewald Link, Das Subsidiarititsprinzip:Sein Wesen und seine Bedeutungfuir die
Sozialethik (Freiburg: Herder, 1955), pp. 27-34.
4 See Kljber, Katholische Gesellschaftslehre, p. 878; Link, Das Subsidiaritisprin-
zip, pp. 34-38; see also Elmar Fastenrath, Bischof Ketteler und die Kirche: Line Studie
zum Kirchenverstindnisdes politisch-sozialenKatholizismus (Essen: Wingen, 197 1), pp.
105-106. In a rather different sense, Catholic associations and congresses are defended
 THE JURIST

Nell-Breuning, who has described the powerful influence upon his ideas
of Gustav Gundlach and other members of the "K6nigswinterer
Kreis." 5 On subsidiarity in particular, he writes:

Both the name, "principle of subsidiarity," and the formula-

tion in which it is expressed in Quadragesimo anno came from
Gundlach. Its material content was acknowledged long before,
but it was Gundlach who first formulated this non-rational in-
sight into a principle and gave it the name under which it has
since become so famous .... 6
Josef Pieper thus had reasons for calling subsidiarity an "iibrigens
deutsch-rechtichen Grundsatz."7
Since Pius XI introduced it, the principle has been championed as a
first principle of civil society by Popes Pius XII, John XXIII, Paul VI,
and John Paul 11.8 It was also invoked in this sense in three passages

as "subsidiary cohorts" in C. Piccirillo, "Il primo Congresso Cattolico in Italia," La

Civiltd Cattolica 9/3 (1874) 5-36.
5 See "The Drafting of Quadragesimo anno," in Readings in Moral Theology No. 5:
Official Catholic Social Teaching, ed. C.E. Curran and R.A. McCormick (New York:
Paulist Press, 1986), pp. 60-68; Johannes Schwarte, Gustav Gundlach S.J (1892-1963)
(Milnchen: Schdningh, 1975), pp. 36-43.
6 Quoted in Schwarte, Gustav Gundlach, p. 41. Nell-Breuning is also quoted as
saying that "the Encyclical is quite saturated with Gundlach's thought" (p. 39).
7 See Link, Das Subsidiaritatsprinzip, p. v. The German genealogy, as we will see,
continues under Pius XII and accounts, it seems, for the rise of the question of the
application of the principle within the Church. Certainly it seems that it is in Germany
that the principle has received most attention as a norm for society; I cannot speak for
other European countries, but in the United States the term is almost unknown except
among Catholics and is not even included in the latest editions of American dictionaries.
8 For subsidiarity in Pius XII's teaching, see Aujbau und Entfaltung des gesell-
schaftlichen Lebens: Soziale Summe Pius XII, ed. A.-E Utz and J.-F Groner, 3 vols.
(Freiburg: Paulusverlag, 1954-1961), nn. 231, 252, 1780, 2683, 3255, 3433, 4094, 5034,
5040-5041, 5644, 5747, 5992, 6094, 6143. For John XXIII, see Mater et Magistra, nn.
51-58, 117, 152; Pacem in terris, nn. 140-141. Paul VI refers to the idea, but without the
name, in Populorumprogressio, n.33, and in Octagesimo adveniens, n. 46. For John Paul
II, see Insegnamenti di Giovanni Paoli I(Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1979),
pp. 210-212; subsidiarity does not appear to have been invoked in the encyclical Laborem
exercens. One of the few attempts to trace the development of the principle in the
Church's social teaching was made by Pio Pampaloni, "I1principio di sussidiarieti nel
diritto canonico," Studia Patavina 16 (1969) 260-270. He refers to an article unavailable
to me, L. de Rosa, "I1 'principio di sussidiarietA' nel'insegnamento sociale della Chiesa,"
Aggiornamenti sociali 13 (1962).
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

of the Second Vatican Council (Gravissimum educationis3 and 6, and

Gaudium et spes 86). 9
While the magisterial references to the principle are reasonably clear,
the same cannot be said about the efforts of commentators and schol-
ars of the Church's social teaching to explicate the meaning of subsi-
diarity or to draw out its implications in civil society.' 0 The differences
here are often fundamental, concerned with questions about the rela-
tionship between the individual person and society or state, the notion
of basic human rights, the idea of the "common good," etc. It is not rare
for these differences to be imported, sometimes unconsciously, into the
discussions about subsidiarity in the Church.
It is, therefore, somewhat risky to attempt a short description of the
meaning and implications of the principle. The following elements,
however, are commonly found:
1. The priority of the person as the origin and purpose of so-
ciety: civitas propter cives, non cives propter civitatem.
2. At the same time, the human person is naturally social, only
able to achieve self-realization in and through social rela-
tionships-what is sometimes called the "principle of soli-
darity."
3. Social relationships and communities exist to provide help
(subsidium) to individuals in their free but obligatory as-
sumption of responsibility for their own self-realization. This
"subsidiary" function of society is not a matter, except in
exceptional circumstances, of substituting or supplying for
individual self-responsibility, but of providing the sets of con-
ditions necessary for personal self-realization.
4. Larger, "higher" communities exist to perform the same sub-
sidiary roles toward smaller, "lower" communities.

9 In its "Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation," the Congregation for the
Doctrine of the Faith refers vaguely to "subsidiary groups" (n. 84) and twice to the
"subsidiary function" of the State (nn. 85, 94).
10 From his reading of the objections to applying subsidiarity within the Church, Jan
Krucina found around twenty interpretations of the principle; see "Das VerhAltnis von
Gesamtkirche und Ortskirche im Lichte des Subsidiarititsprinzip," Coilectanea Theo-
logica 45 (1975, fasc. specialis) 121-133, at p. 126. A.-F Utz attempts to sort out some
of the differences in Formen und Grenzen des Subsidiaritltsprinzips(Heidelberg: Kerle,
1956).
 THE JURIST

5. The principle of subsidiarity requires positively that all com-

munities not only permit but enable and encourage individ-
uals to exercise their own self-responsibility and that larger
communities do the same for smaller ones.
6. It requires negatively that communities not deprive individ-
uals and smaller communities of their right to exercise their
self-responsibility. Intervention, in other words, is only ap-
propriate as "helping people help themselves."
7. Subsidiarity, therefore, serves as the principle by which to
regulate competencies between individuals and communities
and between smaller and larger communities.
8. It is a formal principle, needing determination in virtue of
the nature of a community and of particular circumstances.
9. Because it is grounded in the metaphysics of the person, it
applies to the life of every society."

SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

Pope Pius XII

The first magisterial statement that subsidiarity applies within the
Church occurs in Pope Pius XII's address to newly created cardinals on
February 20, 1946, a text which is always cited but hardly ever placed
in context. The speech, written less than a year after the end of the
Second World War, uses the occasion of the pope's internationalization
of the college of cardinals to stress the importance of the Church for
the foundations of human society. A sustained contrast is drawn be-
tween modem imperialism and the Church. It consists, first, in the fact
that the Church begins from the depths of the human person and only
from there has a broader and fuller influence, while modem empires
use things and force to spread their power and so are inherently un-
stable.

I1For this description, see Kltiber, Katholische Gesellschaftslehre, pp. 867-895;

Schwarte, Gustav Gundlach, pp. 375-380; Oswald von Nell-Breuning, "Subsidiaritat,"
pp. 826-833; idem, "ErwAgungen zum Subsidiaritfitsprinzip," in Wirtschaft und Gesells-
chaf, I. Grundfragen (Freiburg: Herder, 1956), pp. 67-78; Johannes Messner, Social
Ethics: Natural Law in the Western World (St. Louis: Herder, 1965), pp. 209-217; Arthur
Utz, Ethique sociale (Fribourg: Ed. Universitaires, 1960), pp. 189-203; Jean-Yves Calvez
and Jacques Perrin, The Church and Social Justice: The Social Teaching of the Popes
from Leo XIII to Pius XII (1878-1958) (Chicago: Regnery, 1961), pp. 328-337.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

A second contrast concerns cohesion and balance in society. The

Church makes a contribution here because it deals with man's inner
reality, a fact which the pope illustrates vividly: "If the ravages of time,
which have not spared so many recently built monuments, have re-
spected the magnificent Gothic cathedrals of the thirteenth century, if
these continue to rise serenely over the ruins around them, it is because
their buttresses provide only an accessory, if precious, contribution
from without to the intrinsic strength of the jointed structure in a
pleasing style of architecture as solid and finished as it is daring and
graceful." 2 This is the context in which the pope introduces the prin-
ciple of subsidiarity:
Thus it is with the Church. She acts in a person's most inti-
mate sphere, in his personal dignity as a free creature, in his
infinitely more exalted dignity as a child of God. The Church
forms and educates this person, for he alone, in the harmony of
his natural and supernatural life, in the orderly development of
his instincts and inclinations, of his rich qualities and his various
dispositions, is at once the origin and the purpose of social life
and thus also the principle of its balance.
This is why the Apostle to the Gentiles, speaking of Chris-
tians, proclaimed that they are not like "children tossed about"
uncertainly in the midst of human society. Our Predecessor of
happy memory, Pius XI, in his encyclical on the social order,
Quadragesimoanno, drew from this same idea a practical con-
clusion; indeed he stated a principle of general validity, that is,
that what individuals can do by themselves and with their own
abilities must not be taken from them and given to the com-
munity. This principle applies equally for smaller and inferior
communities vis-A-vis larger and superior communities. For, as
the wise Pontiff went on to say, all social activity is by its nature
subsidiary: it must serve as a support for the members of the
social body and must never destroy or absorb them. These are
truly enlightening words which apply to social life at all of its
levels and also for the life of the Church, without prejudice to
her hierarchical structure. 3

12 Pius XII, Consistorial Allocution, February 20,1946: AAS 38 (1946) 144. There is
an English translation of this speech in The Catholic Mind 44 (April, 1946).
13 Pius XII, pp. 144-145.
 THE JURIST

While this passage is often cited in the debate on subsidiarity in the

Church, the paragraph that follows, unfortunately, is not:
And now, Venerable Brethren, to this doctrine and practice of
the Church compare in their reality the imperialistic tendencies.
Here you will not find any principle of internal balance, and
thus the solidity of human society suffers a new and great injury.
For if such gigantic complexes have no real moral foundation,
they necessarily evolve toward an ever greater centralization
and an ever tighter uniformity. For that reason their balance,
their very cohesion are maintained only by force and the exter-
nal constraints of material conditions and juridical expedience,
of events and institutions, and not in virtue of the inner alle-
giance of people and their willingness and readiness to take
initiatives and assume responsibilities. Their so-called internal
order is reduced to a simple truce among the various groups,
with the continual threat that their balance will be upset by any
variation either in the interests at stake or in the proportion
among the respective forces. Since they are so fragile and un-
stable in their internal constitution, these complexes are all the
4
more likely to become dangerous to the whole family of states.
The pope then went on to contrast imperialism's tendency to ethno-
centrism with the Church's respect for the equality of all people which
leads her to approach them as they are, in "the normal economy of
common human life" and to apply "her vital law of continual adap-
tation."" When people come to the Church, they do not have to leave
their homelands, another contrast with modern empires. And this leads
the pope to conclude:
The Church living in the heart of man and man living in the
bosom of the Church, this, Venerable Brethren, is the most pro-
found and effective union conceivable. With this union the
Church raises man to the perfection of his being and vitality in
order to give human society men so formed: men established in
their inviolable integrity as images of God; men proud of their
personal dignity and their sound freedom; men rightly jealous of
their equality with their fellows in everything that affects the
innermost depths of human dignity; men firmly attached to

14 Ibid., p. 145.
15 Ibid., pp. 145-146.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

their earth and to their tradition; men, in short, characterized by

this fourfold element. This is what gives human society its solid
foundation and confers on it safety, balance, equality, and a
normal development in space and time. This, finally, is also the
true meaning and practical influence of the supra-national char-
acter of the Church ....16
On the basis of this comparison, the pope went on to speak about the
Church's difficult mission. She cannot remain in the sanctuary but
must collaborate in constructing solid foundations for society. This is
an essential mission for her because in this respect "the Church can be
said to be the society of those who, under the influence of grace, in the
perfection of their personal dignity as children of God and in the har-
monious development of all human inclinations and energies, build the
powerful armature of human common life." The primary agents of this
task will be the laity:
In this respect, Venerable Brethren, the faithful and, more
precisely, the laity find themselves in the front lines of the
Church's life. For them the Church is the vital principle of hu-
man society. For that reason they especially must have an ever
clearer awareness not only that they belong to the Church, but
that they are the Church, that is, the community of the faithful
on earth under the leadership of the common Head, the Pope,
and of the bishops in communion with him. They are the
Church, and for that reason, from the first days of its history, the
faithful, with the consent of their bishops, have come together
in particular associations concerned with the most diverse as-
pects of life. And the Holy See has never ceased to approve them
i7
and to praise them.
Read in context, then, the application of the principle of subsidiarity
within the Church is an integral part of the pope's argument. He is not
simply contrasting the social doctrine of the Church to the tendencies
of modem imperialism; he is also contrasting the Church's practiceof
cultivating the inner dimensions of the person and of providing him
opportunities for responsibility and initiative while modern empires

16 Ibid., pp. 147-148.

17Ibid., p. 149. On p. 150, the pope notes that "the complications of the economic
and military order have made society into a gigantic machine, which man no longer
masters but even fears."
 THE JURIST

deprive him of these by centralization and uniformity. It is adult, sol-

idly grounded, responsible individuals that the Church contributes to
society; in fact they, particularly the laity, alone and in associations, are
the Church in the world, the ones through whom the Church is society's
"vital principle." That subsidiarity applies in the Church is thus clearly
not an afterthought, much less a simple hypothesis, but a central point
of the pope's whole argument.
The context also helps one understand the one qualification which
Pius XII placed on the application of subsidiarity in the Church: that
it be done "without prejudice to her hierarchical structure." Giandome-
nico Mucci has recently argued that this excludes the applicability of
the principle to the Church's hierarchical structure."8 But his argument
rests more on assumptions about the model of the societas perfecta
inaequalium he believes underlies Pius XII's ecclesiology than upon the
internal argument. In fact, the speech represents an important correc-
tion of such a model of the Church; and if, as Mucci argues, subsidi-
arity were incompatible with the hierarchical structure of the Church,
the pope would not be able to contrast the Church to imperialistic
tendencies which deprive people of all responsibility and initiative!
The analysis given here on the basis of the internal argument of the
pope's speech is confirmed by learning that it was drafted by Gustav
Gundlach whose analysis of the modern world, of the Church as the
vital principle of society, and of the special role of the laity is faithfully
reflected in it. 19
The only other occasion on which Pius XII appealed to the principle
of subsidiarity was in an address to the Second World Congress on the
Lay Apostolate (October 5, 1957). The context was the pope's remarks

18 Giandomenico Mucci, "I1principio di sussidiarieti e la teologia del Collegio epis-

copale," La Civiltd Cattolica 137/2 (1986), 433-435. Mucci here seems to be answering
the claim of Oswald von Neil-Breuning, "Subsidiarit~t in der Kirche," Stimmen der Zeit
204 (1986) 147-157, that the phrase indicates the compatibility between the principle and
the structure.
19 For Gundlach's role, see Schwarte, Gustav Gundlach, pp. 123, 125; for his idea of
the Church as Lebensprinzip, which he regarded as a corrective of the theology of
Mystici Corporis, see pp. 213-218. Gundlach provided a commentary on the speech in
"Annotationes," Periodica35 (1946) 94-108, translated as "Der tibernationale Charakter
der Kirche und die menschliche Gesellschaft," in Die Ordnung der Menschlichen Ge-
sellschaft, 1:370-387. See also Oswald von Nell-Breuning, "Die Kirche das Lebensprinzip
der menschlichen Gesellschaft," in Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft Heute, I" Zeitfragen
(Freiburg: Herder, 1957), pp. 373-386.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

about the responsibility of the laity, who are not a merely passive
element in the Church while the clergy alone are active. Lay people are
called to collaborate in building up the Mystical Body. "All are free
persons and must thus be active." The "emancipation of the laity"
should not degenerate into quarrels among clergy and laity. Each has
its own sphere of action, and if the laity should respect the clergy, "the
lay person also has rights and the priest must in turn recognize them."
For this reason it is wrong to concentrate on differences in social
function:
This is not an end in itself either in general or within the
Church, for the community, in the end, is at the service of in-
dividuals and not vice-versa. If history shows that from the
origins of the Church, lay people have taken part in the activity
which the priest carries out in the service of the Church, it is true
that today more than ever they must offer this cooperation with
all the more fervor, "to build up the Body of Christ," in all forms
of the apostolate, especially in order to make the Christian spirit
2°
penetrate into all family, social, economic, and political life.
The shortage of priests makes this work of the laity "a necessary com-
plement of priestly work."
But even independently of the small number of priests, rela-
tions between the Church and the world demand the interven-
tion of lay apostles. The consecratio mundi is, in its essentials,
the work of the laity themselves, of those who are intimately
involved in economic and social life and participate in govern-
ment and in legislative assemblies. Similarly, the Catholic cells
which must be created among workers in each factory and
work-place, in order to bring back to the Church those who
have departed from it, cannot be established except by workers
themselves.
Ecclesiastical authority should apply here also the general
principle of subsidiary and complementary assistance. A lay
person should be entrusted with the tasks which he can accom-
plish as well as or better than the priest; and, within the limits

20 Pius XII, allocution of October 5, 1957: AAS 39 (1957) 926.

 THE JURIST

of his role and those traced by the common good of the Church,
he should be able to act freely and on his own responsibility.2'
Once again, the appeal to subsidiarity in the Church is more than an
obiter dictum.22 It is at the heart of an argument on behalf of the rights
of the laity and is echoed immediately afterwards by an evocation of lay
people "who know how to assume all their responsibilities," whose
qualities are then described in a direct citation of Pius XII's address to
the cardinals in 1946.23 If believers today are to be able to resist the
temptations of the world, they will have to be people of great personal
strength and maturity. This may require certain precautionary mea-
sures by both Church and State, but "the institutions must be so perfect
that they can themselves safeguard the individual, while the individual
must be formed for the autonomy of an adult Catholic, as if he could
count only upon himself to conquer all difficulties."24
Pope Pius XII again included a qualifying phrase: "within the limits
of his role and those traced by the common good of the Church." But
again this should not be read as eliminating the force of the principle,
since the entire argument of the pope is to identify specific roles and
rights and to insist even that the common good of the Church, as of
society, requires the formation of persons who can assume adult, free,
and responsible initiatives. 25
Pope John XXIII
The principle of subsidiarity does not appear to have been explicitly
applied to the Church by John XXIII. But on at least one occasion, he
did describe what it usually is understood to mean:
It is known that the Church, taught by centuries of experi-
ence, prefers, while maintaining the rights of the hierarchical

21 Ibid., p. 927.
22 This, surprisingly, is the view of Nell-Breuning, although he sees it as an indication
of "how much Pius XII took it for granted that the principle of subsidiarity not only is
consistent with the hierarchical structure of the Church but belongs to this structure";
"Subsidiaritlt in der Kirche," p. 156.
23 Pius XII, allocution of October 5, 1957, pp. 927-928. It is surely not accidental that
this description is cited from the same 1946 speech in which Pius XII first evoked the
principle of subsidiarity.
24 Ibid., p. 928.
25 I have no external evidence of Gundlach's role in the drafting of this speech, but
the similarity between several of the pope's arguments and Gundlach's thought, as well
as the explicit citation of the 1946 address, suggest that he had a hand in the writing of
this speech also.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

authority established by God himself and the principle of ec-

clesiastical discipline, to leave to her children and to the orga-
nizations which flourish within her that reasonable freedom of
movement which is the source of abundant energies and initi-
26
atives also within human society.
The Second Vatican Council
As will be noted below, appeals to subsidiarity began to appear in the
theological and canonical literature in the years before the Second
Vatican Council and particularly after Pope John's announcement.
Whether it was mentioned or not in the vota presented to the Ante-
preparatory Commission only a further study can reveal; but it is not
included in that commission's summaries of proposals for decentrali-
zation. Early in 1961, however, Cardinal Konig mentioned it in the
context of his hopes that the council would enhance the role of bish-
ops, give a greater role to episcopal conferences, and promote decen-
27
tralization in the Church.
Subsidiarity was invoked as a principle of the Church's life partic-
ularly during the council's second session. It first appeared in discus-
sions of the section on the laity in the second draft De Ecclesia. Bishop
H6ffner echoed Pius XII in asking that it govern the role of the laity,
particularly for their activity in the temporal order.n Bishop Laszlo
even proposed that a paragraph, "On the Validity of the Principle of
Subsidiarity in the Church," be added to the text in order to introduce
the following paragraphs on bishops, presbyters, deacons, and laity. 29

26 John XXIII, Allocution to the CELAM meeting, November 15, 1958: Discorsi,
Messaggi, Colloqui del Santo Padre Giovanni XXIII [-DMC], I (Tipografia Poliglotta
Vaticana, 1963), p. 23. In another allocution, to Roman Catholic Action on January 10,
1960, the Pope spoke of Catholic Action as "this organization of the laity, subsidiary to
the hierarchical apostolate, a marvelous instrument for the penetration of Christian
thought into all the areas of life"; DMC, 2 (Tipografia Poliglotta Vaticana, 1961), p. I11.
This use, of course, is exactly the opposite of Pius XII's, for whom it was the clergy who
were subsidiary to the laity with regard to the consecratio mundi.
27 See Herder-Korrespondenz 15 (1960-1961) 295-296. For other similar appeals, see
Herder-Korrespondenz 15 (1960-1961) 465, and 16 (1961-1962) 325-326.
28 Acta Synodalia Sacrosancti Concilii Qecumenici Vaticani II[AS] (Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, 1970-1980), II, 3: 486 (available also in Council Speeches of Vatican II, ed. H.
Kung, Y. Congar, and D. O'Hanlon [Glen Rock: Deus Books, 1964], pp. 87-88); H6ffner
had been a participant in German discussions of subsidiarity in civil society.
29 AS II, 3: 497. Antonio Acerbi notes that these interventions were part of a larger
effort, for which subsidiarity was not explicitly invoked, to complete the text's call for
obedience from the laity by stressing their proper responsibility in the Church and in
 THE JURIST

Subsidiarity in the Church was also invoked when the discussion

turned to the draft on bishops and the government of dioceses. Bishop
Gargitter referred to it in his call for greater decentralization. 3 Bishop
Schoiswohl devoted his whole intervention to the topic, warning that
the Church should not have to face the objection "that it proposes this
principle for civil society but does not effectively apply it in its own
field" and proposing three consequences of the principle:
1. What belongs by divine right to a bishop in the governing of
his diocese should be limited as little as possible by the su-
preme power of the Supreme Pontiff.
2. In the administration of the Church, which is often based on
ecclesiastical laws, the following principle should obtain: di-
oceses and bishops should have all the competencies which
are appropriate, and the central administration should have
only those that are necessary.
3. Bishops themselves, of course, should act in accordance with
this principle in their own dioceses .... 31
Bishop Martin asked that it be applied to the reform of the membership
32
and practices of the Roman Curia.
Subsidiarity was also invoked in the discussion of the juridical pow-
ers to be granted to episcopal conferences. Speaking in the name of
German-speaking bishops and of the Scandinavian bishops' confer-
ence, Archbishop Schaufele proposed that the principle be applied in
determining the materials over which the conferences would have some
authority, so that "the ordinary power of a residential bishop is only
touched for the sake of promoting some higher good, the good of the
whole, the common good of the whole nation. In this way the principle
of subsidiarity will be acknowledged, a principle which Pope Pius XII

society; see Due ecciesiologie: ecclesiologia giuridicaed ecclesiologia di communione

nella "Lumen Gentium" (Bologna: Ed. Dehoniane, 1975), pp. 305-306.
30 AS II, 4: 454; Cardinal K6nig later declared his agreement with this proposal (p.
479); see also Bishop Baudoux (pp. 833-834).
31 AS II, 4: 639-640. Before the council, Bishop Schoiswohl had invoked Pius XII's
1957 reference to subsidiarity with regard to lay responsibilities; see "Rechte und Pflich-
ten des Laien nach dem geltenden Kirchenrecht," in Der Laie: Rechte und Pflichten, ed.
Karl Rudolf (Wien: Herder, 1959), pp. 45-68, at p. 63.
32 AS II, 4: 686.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

twice proclaimed applies in the Church also." 33 Bishop Pildain y Za-

piain, however, believed that subsidiarity requires that the conferences
not be given any juridical authority:

Indeed-and I say this respectfully-it seems absurd now,

when external adversaries are trying to inhibit the power of
individual bishops, that here, in this Second Vatican Council,
which is considered the council that is to exalt and glorify bish-
ops, some new juridical organ, hitherto unheard of, should be
established, whose purpose is to inhibit and restrict the freedom
of bishops who are gathered in national conferences and find
themselves in a minority, juridically obliging them to submit to
a new juridical yoke which they have never had to bear till now.
And since those who today are in the majority, tomorrow on
some other question could find themselves in the minority and
in fact they will so find themselves more than once, later all
bishops will be able to say that it was from the Second Vatican
Council on that they were bound by a new juridical chain from
which before they were free, that, further, there was greater
episcopal freedom in the exercise of their divine right power
34
before Vatican II than after it.

Finally, in the third session of the council, subsidiarity was also

invoked as the principle that should govern the exercise of the aposto-
35
late by religious.
In reviewing this material, one is struck by the fact that all of the
specific proposals for which an application of subsidiarity within the
Church was defended were also made on other theological grounds.

33 AS II, 4: 495. Among the signers of this statement was Cardinal Frings who,
however, later uttered warnings against replacing the spirit of freedom, spontaneity, and
brotherly love among the bishops with a heavy juridical apparatus; see AS 11,5: 66-69.
For comments on this speech, see Joseph Ratzinger, "Buchstabe und Geist des Zweitens
Vatikanums in den Konzilsreden von Kardinal Frings," InternationaleKatholische Zeit-
schrift 16 (1987) 253-265, at pp. 259-260; and for Cardinal Frings' own later judgments
on the matter, see Fr die Menschen Bestellt: Erinnerungendes Altzbischofs von KOin,
Josef Kardinal Frings (K61n: J. P. Bachem, 1973), pp. 274-275.
34 AS II, 5: 78-79.
35 Bishop Wittier, AS III, 4: 453. The survey given above represents only an initial
investigation, which focused on the second session of the council. Further study should
be made of the question.
 THE JURIST

Perhaps the clearest example is that of the intervention of Cardinal

Bea, who built his case for episcopal power on the Pauline doctrine of
the common but varied responsibility of all Christians to build up the
Body of Christ. "Note that according to the Apostle, the Church is built
up not just by the work of the hierarchy and supreme authority but by
the activity of every member. If one or more of the members does not
fulfill his own role or is prevented from fulfilling it, the Church itself
suffers supreme harm." After describing the need for all the members
to be closely united in their activities, the structures of the Church
based on divine law, and the various organizations in the Church
formed over time, the cardinal drew a doctrinal conclusion:
As in any society, so also in the Church it is not the role of
authority to substitute itself for individual members in matters
which they can accomplish by themselves. Its role is only to
supply what they cannot do themselves. It can help them and see
to it that the activity of the various members is coordinated and
directed to the good of the whole. The same principle applies in
its own way also to any authority in relation to inferiors. 36
These remarks so clearly state the principle of subsidiarity that the only
question is why the cardinal did not invoke it by name.
As noted above, in the texts of the Second Vatican Council the three
explicit references to subsidiarity all concern its application in civil
society. Some appear to have inferred from this absence that subsidi-
arity is not a theological principle, 37 while others have not been de-
terred by it from concluding that the principle is a key theme of the

36 AS II, 4: 482-483. In portions of his written text not delivered in the hall, the
cardinal made some practical applications: "Concretely this restriction of liberty has the
goal of coordinating the actions of the various members and of effectively directing them
towards the greater and universal good of the Church. Only this greater and universal
good of the Church should move those in authority in certain circumstances to restrict
the freedom of individuals, even if this sometimes is unpleasant." "Thus bishops have all
the authority and are able to do anything for the good, provided that their activity does
not harm any member, does not hinder the greater and more universal good of the
Church, and is effectively directed toward the good of the whole body of the Church"
(ibid., p. 485).
37 At the concluding press conference after the Synod of 1985, Archbishop Schotte
echoed Cardinal Hamer's observation that subsidiarity is not part of the council's teach-
ing on the Church (see Synode Extraordinaire: CiMbration de Vatican 11 [Paris: Cerf,
1986], p. 603) and stated flatly: "It is not a theological principle."
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

council's ecclesiology.3t A judgment on this question obviously depends

on the larger issues of definition discussed below.

The 1967 Synod of Bishops

In June 1967 the Pontifical Commission for the Revision of the Code
of Canon Law sent to those who were to take part in the first assembly
of the Synod of Bishops a document entitled, "The Principles which
will Guide the Revision of the Code of Canon Law." 39 The fifth of these
principles was the application of the principle of subsidiarity in the
Church. The principle was described, on the one hand, as confirming
legislative unity on fundamentals and on major statements of law, but,
on the other, as stating the appropriateness or need to support par-
ticular institutions both by particular law and by acknowledging their
sound executive authority 0 The statement of Christus Dominus 8, on
the ordinary, proper, and immediate authority of bishops in their dio-
ceses was then quoted and the conclusion was drawn that the revised
code should clearly state which cases are reserved to the supreme
power. Canon law should be unified with regard to its chief principles
and basic institutions, its description of the Church's means to attain
its goals, and its legislative procedures (technicam). While in the West-
ern Church particular statutes for national churches should be avoided,
this does not mean greater autonomy is not desirable in particular
legislation, particularly with regard to the administration of tempo-
ralities. Procedural law is another area where the principle of subsi-
diarity can apply.4' On September 30, 1967, Cardinal Felici gave an

38 See Otto Karrer, "Le principe de subsidiarit6 dans l'Eglise," in L'Eglise de Vatican
II: Etudes autourde la Constitutionconciliairesur l'Eglise, ed. G. Barafna, vol. 2, Unam
Sanctam 51b (Paris: Cerf, 1966), pp. 575-606; Joseph S. George, The Principleof Sub-
sidiarity-with Special Reference to its Role in Papal and Episcopal Relations in the
Light of Lumen Gentium, Canon Law Studies, 463 (Washington:The Catholic University
of America, 1968). After the Synod of 1967, Cardinal Felici saw subsidiarity expressed
in the council's teaching on the laity and cited LG 30; see Pericle Felici, "La nuova
codificazione canonica," in Lapastoralenel Sinodo episcopale: Icinque temi dellaprima
assembleagenerale, ed. G. Concetti (Rome: I.R.A.D.E.S., 1968), pp. 31-45, at pp. 40-41.
39 See Communicationes 1 (1969) 77-85.
40 Ibid., p. 81.
41 Ibid., pp. 81-82. The previous section of this document had proposed a thorough
revision of the system of faculties, a positive description of the office of the bishop, and
the description of the cases and dispensations reserved to higher authority; all of these
were then said to be instances of the application of subsidiarity to canon law (ibid., p.
80).
 THE JURIST

oral report on this document to the members of the synod. Recalling

Pius XI, Pius XII, and interventions at Vatican II, he invoked subsi-
diarity as a principle to promote "the unity and diversity of ecclesias-
42
tical organs as well as the plurality wisely stated in the council."
During the 1967 Synod, eleven members commented on the princi-
ple, all of them favorably. Various practical implications were sug-
gested: greater flexibility, the powers of the local bishop, variety in
church law, relations between hierarchy and faithful and within reli-
gious communities, to prevent delays in marriage cases, to relate sep-
arate legislations for the Latin and the Eastern Churches within the
framework of a single fundamental constitution for the Church. 43
On October 4, 1967, Cardinal Felici summarized these remarks and
replied that the principle of subsidiarity would be applied in revising
the code, but cautiously and in the spirit of the council. 44 Three days
later, the synod members voted in favor of applying subsidiarity in the
revision of the code by a vote of 128 placet, 58 placet iuxta modum, and
1 non placet.45
Paul VI and the 1969 Synod of Bishop
The first extraordinary assembly of the Synod of Bishops took place
in the fall of 1969. It was called to examine the relationships between
episcopal conferences and the Apostolic See and among the episcopal
conferences themselves. The responses of the episcopates to the an-
nounced theme included a request that the principle of subsidiarity be
discussed. 46 In the preliminary document sent out in May, the section
on "Closer Cooperation between the Episcopal Conferences and the
Apostolic See" discovered among the contemporary "signs of the
times" the need to apply the principle of subsidiarity. This was said to
be "a principle which today especially applies in every institution in this
world if it is to meet new needs." The valid diversity in the local

42 Ibid., p. 89.
43 Giovanni Caprile, fl Sinodo dei Vescovi: Prima Assemblea Generale (Rome: La
Civilti Cattolica, 1968), pp. 94-122. (This work will be cited as "Caprile, 1967.")
Communicationes 1 (1969) 96.
45 See Caprile, 1967, pp. 134-136; Communicationes 1 (1969) 99-100. For Cardinal
Felici's description of the debate see "La nuova codificazione canonica," pp. 40-41.
46 See Giovanni Caprile, II Sinodo dei Vescovi: Prima Assemblea Staordinaria
(Rome: La Civilti Cattolica, 1970), p. 432 (cited hereafter as "Caprile, 1969"). This
proposal is cited as having come from bishops in Belgium, India, Australia, Poland, and
New Zealand.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

churches and their need to be able to act in timely fashion require

subsidiarity in the Church. The principle also, however, articulates the
need for unity in the Church and the occasional reservation of a matter
to higher authority. The document concluded with an invocation of
"the principle of solidarity on which the principle of subsidiarity rests"
and described it as "a necessary complement of subsidiarity since it
inserts the mutual solicitude of bishops into47 this structure of the
Church's unity and also puts it into practice."
Apparently responding to these suggestions, Pope Paul VI in his
opening homily discussed the principle of subsidiarity in the context of
collegiality. This, he said, must be guided by charity and unity, which
inspire two principal norms. The first is that proper honor and trust be
given to the order of bishops, which requires that they be given "a fairer
and fuller measure of the privileges and faculties" which are theirs in
virtue of ordination and communion with the Apostolic See. It was in
this connection that the Pope referred to subsidiarity:
This norm will not be restricted or limited if the application
of the relevant principle of "subsidiarity" is rightly tempered by
humble and judicious prudence, so that no damage is done to
the common good of the Church by multiple and excessive
forms of particular autonomy. Such forms would obstruct the
unity and charity that ought to make the Church cor unum et
anima una and would foster ambitious rivalry and excessive
concern for one's own interests. Nor will this norm suffer any
harm if another principle, that of "pluralism," is so defined that
it does not go against the faith, to which it cannot be applied,
or against the general discipline of the Church, which rejects
license and disorder because they do injury to the harmony of
feeling and practice that is necessary to the society of God's
people and to its weighty bond of collegiality.
The second norm is parallel, that bishops have "a more suitable
participation in the government of the universal Church" and that they
be "bound more closely together in common efforts toward that end."
This, the pope said, would better serve the common good of the
Church, relieve his own increasingly heavy burdens, and give better
witness to the hierarchy's unity of faith and love. Here, too, however,
a caution is in order:

47 Caprile, 1969, pp. 447-448.

 THE JURIST

But in this area it should be evident to everyone that church

government is certainly not able to adopt the forms and ways
that are proper to human governments and which in our day are
based on democratic institutions, which are sometimes irre-
sponsible, or on tyrannical rule, which wholly opposes the dig-
nity of the human person. The government of the Church has its
own proper shape and structure whose purpose is to express in
8
all its forms the will and wisdom of its divine Founder.
In these remarks Paul VI states that subsidiarity is a relevant prin-
ciple for relations between pope and bishops, but, quite typically, he
also cautions that it not be confused with forms of autonomy that could
harm the Church's common good. Perhaps his cautions with regard to
pluralism and the introduction of secular models of government must
also be considered relevant to the issue of employing subsidiarity in the
Church.
In the course of the synodal deliberations, subsidiarity was invoked
by at least eight of the members, with some reservations being ex-
pressed by two of them. 49 When Cardinal Marty introduced the dis-
cussion of relationships between episcopal conferences and the
Apostolic See, he summarized what the bishops had asked be discussed
with regard to subsidiarity. After quoting from Christus Dominus 8, he
went on:
In order to put this norm into practice, the following two-fold
general rule can be proposed: (a) what can be accomplished by
individual bishops in their dioceses should not be withdrawn

AAS 51 (1969) 719-720.

49 See Caprile, 1969, pp. 73-74, 101, 106-107, 115, 127; see also pp. 260-261. The most
extensive discussion was that of Bishop Carlo Colombo: "As for the principle of subsi-
diarity, one must distinguish between disciplinary and pastoral matters and doctrinal
matters, respecting either faith or morals. By its nature, pastoral activity is a pedagogical
action and therefore must be adapted to the spiritual conditions of the individual par-
ticular churches. The first and immediate judges of these are those who, as vicars and
legates of Christ, govern the churches entrusted to them. In the doctrinal field, however,
the relationships are inverted. Revealed truth and the divine law are only one in the
Church, that namely, which is taught by the authority of the magisterium in the name
of Christ, which extends to the whole Church, that is, the college of bishops under the
guidance of the Roman Pontiff or the Roman Pontiff himself, personally teaching in his
role as teacher and master of the universal Church. Thus the final judgement on teaching
itself, on the pedagogy of faith and the moral law, while not being taken away from the
authority of individual bishops, by its nature belongs first and per se to the competence
of the supreme magisterium which must be acknowledged on both the theoretical and the
practical levels" (p. 127).
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

from their power; (b) what requires general determination, com-

mon to the various particular churches of a region, and can be
accomplished by the episcopal conferences should be acknowl-
edged to be of their competence and should not be reserved to
the Holy See. If the principle of subsidiarity is to be rightly
defined and applied in the Church, one must take into account
both the unity of faith and communion which must be preserved
and assured, and the need for a common determination of those
issues which directly concern the whole Church. We hope that
from this Synod's deliberations it may become clearer how, in
view of the nature and constitution of the Church, the principle
of subsidiarity can be put into practice. s°
The circuli minores generally supported the principle but most of
them also stressed that it can only be applied analogously and, when
applied to episcopal conferences, must always respect the rights and
freedom of both the pope and the individual bishop.5' At the end of
their discussions, the members were asked to vote on the principle, and
once again it received a very large majority of votes: 98 placet, 37 placet
52
iuxta modum, and 7 non placet.
Toward the end of the synod, Pope Paul VI again referred to the
principle:
We are also quite ready to respond to all legitimate requests
for fuller recognition of the particular character and needs of
local churches through a proper application of the principle of
"subsidiarity." This principle certainly needs to be further stud-
ied and clarified; but in its basic meaning we certainly accept it.
The principle, however, cannot in any way be confused with the
demand for that "pluralism" which would do injury to the faith,
the moral law, and the principal forms of sacramental, liturgi-
cal, and canonical discipline, forms whose purpose it is to pre-
53
serve the unity needed in the whole Church.

so Caprile, 1969, p. 484.

51 Caprile, 1969, pp. 166-167 (see also p. 235), 169, 173, 180-181, 183, 185-186.
52 Caprile, 1969, pp. 216-217; for the unofficial comments of several participants after
the Synod, see pp. 220, 388, 390-391, and L'OsservatoreRomano (English edition), April
30, 1970, p. 8 (Cardinal Danielou).
53 AAS 51 (1969) 728-729. Three years later, in an address to the cardinals, Pope Paul
VI made another reference to subsidiarity in the context of a pessimistic description of
developments in the Church: "The negative reactions to which we have alluded seem also
 THE JURIST

The 1974 Synod of Bishops

This synod was devoted to the theme of evangelization. An initial
perusal of Caprile's volume discovers that subsidiarity was invoked
favorably at least five times4 and that the Relatio in which the synodal
interventions were synthesized makes explicit reference to it:
The relationship between the local churches and the Apos-
tolic See needs study. The universal Church is the communion
of local churches, over which the Roman Church and its bishop
presides as the principle of unity and bond of universal charity.
The reality of the local church must be fully recognized and its
legitimate authority needs to be acknowledged and promoted.
This requires that the principle of subsidiarity be truly applied
and that a decentralization take place so that local churches can
actually assume the responsibility that belongs to them. Greater
authority should also be granted to episcopal conferences so
that they can make necessary decisions by themselves. In sum-
mary, what is needed is that the emphasis should pass from the
center to the local churches on a national, regional, and dioce-
55
san level.
Once again, no one appears to have spoken against the validity of
subsidiarity in the Church, but the themes for which it was cited were
56
also defended on other grounds.

to intend the dissolution of the ecclesiastical magisterium, either by misunderstandings

which conceive pluralism as if it meant free interpretations of doctrines or the untroubled
coexistence of opposite ideas, which understand subsidiarity to mean autonomy, which
take the local church to be separated and free and self-sufficient, or by prescinding from
teachings sanctioned by pontifical and conciliar definitions." Even here, however, the
pope does not oppose subsidiarity, but only a misunderstanding of it as "autonomy."
54 See Giovanni Caprile, I1Sinodo dei Vescovi: Terza assemblea generale(27 settem-
bre-26 ottobre 1974) (Rome: La CiviltA Cattolica, 1975), pp. 187, 258, 309, 342, 349,
where subsidiarity is related to decentralization and coresponsibility.
55 Caprile, 1974, pp. 939-940.
56 I have not been able to do a study of subsidiarity at the Synod of 1977, which was
devoted to the topic of catechesis. Professor Maurice Simon, however, has drawn my
attention to the last of the propositions which this synod made to the pope. Speaking of
the bishop's responsibility to supervise the transmission of doctrine, it says that "he must
maintain close relations with theologians, catechists, and specialists in the human sci-
ences. 'As far as possible, he should apply the principle of subsidiarity and of corespon-
sibility. The more those who have some responsibility in diocesan catechesis share in the
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

The Revised Code of Canon Law

When the revised Code of Canon Law was issued in 1983, it included
a preface which summarized the ten principles approved by the Synod
of 1967 and used as guides for the revision. Two of these concerned the
principle of subsidiarity:

4. So that in the care of souls the supreme lawgiver and the

bishops may work together and the pastoral role may appear
in a more positive light, what until now were extraordinary
faculties for dispensation from general laws should become
ordinary, while only matters which require exception for the
sake of the common good will be reserved to the supreme
power of the universal Church or to other superior
authorities.

5. Proper attention should be given to the principle which fol-

lows from the previous one, i.e., the principle of subsidiarity,
which is all the more to be applied in the Church because the
office of bishops with its attendant powers is of divine right.
In virtue of this principle, while legislative unity and the uni-
versal and general law are preserved, the fittingness and need
should be acknowledged of providing for the good especially
of individual institutes through particular laws and by ac-
knowledging them to have a healthy autonomy of particular
executive power. Relying on the same principle, the new code
should leave to particular laws or to executive power matters
which are not necessary for the disciplinary unity of the uni-
versal Church, so that a healthy so-called "decentralization"
might appropriately be provided for, as long as the danger of
disunity and of the establishment of national churches is
avoided."7

formulation of catechetical plans, the more the catechesis itself will be effective'" (see
Rialitis et avenir de la catlchise dans le monde [Pans: Centurion, 1978], p. 214).
57 Codex luris CanoniciauctoritateIoannis Pauli PP Ilpromulgatus (Vatican City:
Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1983), pp. xxi-xxii. While the Preface does not make the
connection explicit, the seventh principle also articulates a principle often associated
with subsidiarity: "Because of the fundamental equality of all the faithful and the di-
versity of offices and tasks which is founded in the very hierarchical order of the Church,
it is appropriate that the rights of persons be aptly defined and kept safe. This insures
 THE JURIST

As far as I know, no one has yet studied how subsidiarity was employed
as a principle in the course of the work of revision. The commentaries
on the new code can be consulted for evidence of its influence on the
new legislation.5 8

The 1985 Synod of Bishops

The principle of subsidiarity was also debated at the extraordinary
assembly of the Synod of Bishops in 1985. The issue was a matter of
discussion at two meetings shortly before the synod opened. At the
Symposium of the Bishops of Europe held in Rome, October 7-11, the
various language groups presented their views on the forthcoming
synod. The English-speaking bishops invoked the vision of the Church
as a "communion of communions" which "asks of the Extraordinary
Synod both a generous acceptance of the principle of subsidiarity and
guidance as to the particular tasks to be carried out by the particular
church, each in its own way, so as to become what it truly should be." 59
On November 21, 1985, at the plenary session of the College of
Cardinals, Jer6me Cardinal Hamer gave a speech on relations between
the Roman Curia and bishops and episcopal conferences. He added at
the end a note on recourse to the principle of subsidiarity. The cardinal
argued that concern that the particular church's sphere of competency
be respected did not need to be based on a principle of social philos-
ophy when the council's teaching on the Church suffices. Appeal to
subsidiarity had two disadvantages: its socio-political connotations
and the fact that "it attributes to the universal Church a subsidiaryrole
in relation to the particular church. Now, this does not correspond to
the real relationship which exists between them. The universal Church

that the exercise of power will appear more clearly as service, its exercise will be further
strengthened, and abuses will be removed."
58 Subsidiarity was also admitted as an applicable principle inthe preparation of the
ill-fated Lex Ecclesiae Fundamentalis; see Pontificia Commissio Codici luris Canonici
Recognoscendo, Schema Legis Ecclesiae Fundamentalis: Textus Emendatus cum rela-
tione de ipso schemate deque emendationibus receptis (Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis
Vaticanis, 1971), p. 126. This text can also be found in Legge e Vangelo: discussione su
una leggefondamentale per la Chiesa (Brescia: Paideia Editrice, 1972), p. 624.
59 See Synode extraordinaire, pp. 646-647 (above, note 37; this book will be cited as
SE); Giovanni Caprile, IISinodo dei Vescovi: Seconda assemblea generale straordinaria
(24 novembre-8 dicembre 1985) (Rome: La Civilti Cattolica, 1986), pp. 40-41 (cited as
"Caprile, 1985").
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

does not have a simply substitutive role." In conclusion, the cardinal

argued:
The appeal to this principle is unnecessary because the ec-
clesiology of Vatican II perfectly expresses why and how the
proper competence of the particular church must be respected.
It is enough to refer to Lumen gentium 27 on the ordinary and
immediate power of the bishops responsible for particular
churches and on its regulation.
No model drawn from the civil community can take account
of an ecclesiology such as that expressed in the following char-
acteristic statements: "Individual bishops are the visible princi-
ple and foundation of unity in their particular churches,formed
in the image of the universal Church, in which and out of which
the one and unique Church exists" (LG 23); "A diocese is a
portion of the People of God... so that.., it might constitute
a particular church, in which is truly present and active the one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic Church of Christ" (CD 11). 60
When the synod opened, 95 reports had been received in response to
the questionnaire sent out by the synod secretariate. At least eight of
these reports made reference to the principle of subsidiarity, all of them
favorable. 6 1 It was used to criticize Roman centralization and interfer-
ence and to support greater self-responsibility, autonomy and diversity
in the local churches, to articulate the competency of episcopal con-
ferences, and to promote a greater role for the laity. In his Initial
Report, however, Cardinal Danneels made no mention of subsidiarity.
As far as can be determined from the inadequate documentation now
available, in the oral and written interventions made at the synod itself,
subsidiarity was invoked by eight bishops, again always favorably, and
for the same purposes. 62 Archbishop Lorscheiter's written intervention
was the longest and developed a theological argument:

60 SE, pp. 602-604. See Walter Kasper, "Der Geheimnischarakter hebt den Sozial-
charakter nicht auf: Zur Geltung des Subsidiarittsprinzip in der Kirche," Herder-
Korrespondenz 41 (1987) 232-236.
61 See SE, pp. 71 (North Africa), 81 (England and Wales), 127-128 (Brazil), 176
(Canada), 229 (Indonesia), 274 (Scandinavia and Finland); to these should be added the
reports from the Philippines and Pakistan, so far not published.
62 See SE, pp. 386, 406, 422; Caprile, 1985, pp. 124, 136, 168, 183, 201, 214, 221, 243,
299-301; see also pp. 147-148, 314-316, where subsidiarity seems to be intended but is not
named.
 THE JURIST

Certainly the Church should not be compared with civil soci-

ety. But the peculiar structure of the Church seems to provide
even stronger grounds for the application of the principle of
subsidiarity. The reasons are ecclesiological and theological.
The Church possesses a peculiar structure by which it is realized
in the particular churches, each of which is fully Church (LG 23;
CD 11; SC 41), on condition that it remains in communion with
the other particular churches and especially with the Church of
Rome and its Pontiff. Thus it can be said that the universal
Church is not realized except through the communion of the
particular churches and that any supradiocesan ecclesial struc-
ture cannot be at the service (subsidium affere) of the universal
Church if it is not-at least in principle-at the service of the
particular churches and their full realization as Church. Anal-
ogously, people are not Christians as isolated individuals, but
only as members of a local community or particular church; on
the other hand, the particular church is at the service of the
"salvation of souls," that is, the realization of the mystery of
grace, which is the communion of human persons with God in
Christ. Theologically, in short, it appears that the principle of
subsidiarity can be applied to the Church.
After describing some of the difficulties in applying the principle, Lors-
cheiter proposed that the synod reflect upon ways of applying subsid-
iarity in matters of liturgy and doctrinal disputes and that it overcome
the prejudice against decentralization and the initiatives of local
churches. 63
In Cardinal Danneels' Relatio closing the first week's discussion and
orienting the sessions of the circuli minores, the following paragraph
appeared:
In the broad sense of the word, communion is a fundamental
anthropological reality. Man was created as a social being, and
people of our era, often living in anonymous structures, expe-
rience a profound desire for true communion. For this human
communion, or more precisely, for this human community or
society, the principle of subsidiarity, among others, applies. The
question is whether this principle also applies to the Church
insofar as it is a human reality. For ecclesial communion, in the

63 Caprile, 1985, pp. 299-301.

 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

strict and theological sense, is founded in the sacraments. Bap-

tism is the door and foundation of the Church's communion;
and the Eucharist is the source and summit of all the Christian
life (see LG 11). Communion in the eucharistic Body of Christ
signifies and effects or builds communion in the Body of Christ
which is the Eucharist (see 1 Cor. 10:16ff). An ecclesiology of
communion, therefore, is a eucharistic ecclesiology. But the Eu-
charist, as St. Augustine said, is the sign of unity and the bond
of charity. It is in this eucharistic theology, therefore, that is
64
found the first principle of the life of the Church communion.
It is not clear why the question whether subsidiarity applies in the
Church should have been raised, since none of the interventions appear
to have raised it.65 The Relatio also seems to orient the discussion in a
direction unfavorable to subsidiarity in the Church.
To judge from their reports, subsidiarity was discussed in four of the
language-groups. The first English group recommended "that with a
view to a more effective application of church discipline and pastoral
practice to local and regional conditions and their cultures and social
practices, a study be made of the advisability of increasing the exercise
of subsidiarity for submission to a meeting of the Synod of Bishops and
subsequent decisions of the Holy See." 66 The German group simply
said:
Because the Church is communio, it is the task of the pope as
supreme shepherd, in union with the bishops, to be the witness
of the Church's unity in faith. It is also an expression of this
communio that the pope acknowledges and promotes the self-
responsibility of the local bishop, who possesses ordinary and
immediate authority to govern (CIC 381-402). How broadly the
concept of "subsidiarity" is appropriate to describe this proper
form of the Church needs further and more precise investi-
gations. 67

64 SE, pp. 466-467.

65 Cardinal Castillo Lara expressed his surprise that subsidiarity was being referred
to as a "novelty," when it had been used in revising the new code to define competencies;
see Caprile, 1985, p. 221.
66 SE, p. 494; the report noted that nine members of the group voted against this
proposal, while one abstained.
SE, p. 486.
 THE JURIST

The other two groups were more critical. The first French group
stated flatly: "a generalized and undifferentiated appeal to the principle
of subsidiarity seems to be a false step." It echoed the second Relatio
on the validity of the principle "on the level of social and political
realities," but questioned its applicability to "the sacramental reality of
the Church. To appeal to the principle of subsidiarity would bring back
in the Church conceptions of pyramidal authority which people have
wanted to eliminate. This subsidiarity is not applicable at the sacra-
mental and liturgical level where true ecclesial communion is located."
Moreover, the principle appears to counterpose primacy and collegi-
ality, which is false. 68
In the longest observations on the theme, supplied with footnotes,
the Latin group acknowledged that the principle might properly be
applied in the Church, but it warned against misinterpretations, par-
ticularly one-sided views of the particular church which use subsidi-
arity in such a way as to limit the immediate power of the pope to
intervene to cases of transgression or to supply for deficiencies. This
would reduce the universal Church to a mere federation in which the
pope would have only "some subsidiary role, like a president who has
the power to intervene in extraordinary circumstances and not in the
daily life of the particular churches. According to this idea, the uni-
versal Church would have no substance." "To understand subsidiarity
as the complete independence of the particular churches in reference to
the primacy of the Roman Pontiff is to oppose the divine constitution
of the Church." 69
At the conclusion of the synod, the Final Report referred to the
principle in the third of the suggestions which closed its discussion of
the Church as communion: "It is recommended that a study be made
to examine if the principle of subsidiarity in use in human society can
be applied in the Church, and to what a degree and in what sense such
an application can and should be made (see Pius XII, AAS 38 [1946]
144)."70

68 SE, p. 523; Caprile, 1985, p. 341, identifies Cardinals Hamer and Lustiger as
arguing the case against subsidiarity.
69 SE, pp. 543-544.
70 FinalReport, II, C,8 (SE, p. 563). In the discussion of this text, Cardinal Castillo
Lara again expressed his surprise at the matter: "Some of the questions about which
study is recommended are already adequately regulated in the code, e.g., the application
of the principle of subsidiarity. If this is applied correctly, it tends to determine the sphere
of the respective powers in the particular churches and in the Holy See. This has already
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

On June 28, 1986, in an address to the Roman Curia, Pope John Paul
II made some brief remarks on the synod's call for a study:
As may be seen, this is a subtle question, which originated in
problems of a social, not ecclesial nature. My predecessors,
Pius XI and Pius XII, of venerable memory, accepted it as a
valid principle for social life, whereas for the life of the Church
they pointed out that any application must be made "without
prejudice to the Church's hierarchical structure" ... ; it must
also be without prejudice to the nature and exercise of the pri-
macy of the Roman Pontiff (see Vatican I, DS 3060-3064).
The extraordinary Synod of 1969 had already discussed the
question, asking for further and more precise study of the com-
petence of bishops, both as individuals and gathered in a con-
ference. Later, the code, in its Preface, referred "either to
particular laws or to executive power whatever is not necessary
for the unity of discipline of the universal Church."
The council and then the code, while avoiding use of the term
"subsidiarity," encouraged participation and communion
among the Church's bodies. As can be seen, it is not just a
question of terminology, but also of concepts. The synod there-
fore expressed a desire for further exploration by means of a
special study. Because the possibilities and the ways of realizing
it are so broad, the Council of the Secretariate of the Synodus
Episcoporum made a request, which I gladly granted, that fur-
ther reflection on the topic be undertaken in order to collect the
major elements and ideas and to draw up a status quaestionis.
The work has begun, and the first results will be examined at the
7
next fall meeting of the council. '
In these remarks, Pope John Paul II does not give any indication of
his own view on the matter. 72 Perhaps it should be noted that he gives

been done sufficiently. What, then, does the proposal in the text mean? That the discipline
determined in the code, published only in 1983, should be changed?" (Caprile, 1985, p.
392).
71 Caprile, 1985, pp. 470-471. At this point, it appears that no report on the work of
the commission discussing subsidiarity was made at the 1987 Synod of Bishops.
72 Once again I owe to Prof. Maurice Simon the brief reference to subsidiarity in the
Church which Pope John Paul II made in an address to the Roman Curia on June 28,
1980. After quoting Paul VI on the various degrees to which theologians may participate
 THE JURIST

a rather restrictive description of Pius XII's statement on subsidiarity,

that he does not refer to Paul VI's endorsement of the principle within
the Church, and that he explicates as a condition that there be no
compromise of the primatial authority of the pope.

Conclusion

Three popes have either explicitly (Pius XII and Paul VI) or implic-
itly (John XXIII) stated that the principle of subsidiarity does apply
within the Church under certain conditions. Its validity in the Church
was often proposed in the debates at the Second Vatican Council, but
it was never explicitly applied to the Church in any of the conciliar
documents. At three assemblies of the Synod of Bishops it was widely
recommended, and at two of them it was formally endorsed by large
majorities. The principle was proposed, accepted, and used in the re-
vision of the Code of Canon Law. In all of these moments, it was often
remarked that the principle can only be applied analogously to the
Church; but it was only at the 1985 Synod that the question was raised
not only of how but also of whether it applies in the Church.

THE THEOLOGICAL AND CANONICAL DISCUSSION

It appears that the first argument that subsidiarity is also applicable

within the Church was made by the man who formulated and named
the principle and who was indirectly responsible for its introduction
into Quadragesimoanno, Gustav Gundlach. Inan article on the sociol-
ogy of the parish, published three years after the encyclical, Gundlach,
without mentioning the principle by name, asked whether the parish
does not illustrate the encyclical's "sociological law of 'smaller social
spheres"' which excludes unnecessary centralization and suppression
of self-government and favors the construction of society "from below

in the teaching role of the bishops, the present pope remarks: "It is, then, a comple-
mentary responsibility, based on the principle of subsidiarity, which the Church with
great hope entrusts to theologians" (AAS 72 [1980] 658). This reference is too fleeting for
it to be clear precisely who here are considered the cohortes subsidiarii,the bishops or
the theologians.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

up." Distinguishing between the Church as a Heilsanstalt and as the

coetus fidelium, he replied that the parish should display the genos-
senschaftliche character of the Church and thus counteract the ten-
dency toward more comprehensive structures of government, which
can also affect the Church:
A true cooperative sense that each member is responsible for
the whole has to be awakened in the parish; he has to be given
room to move, and each member of the Church has to have a
sense that he is not only an object. Thus the parish community
would fulfill that important meaning which by sociological laws
belongs to any "smaller social sphere" within a larger whole, in
73
this case the Church.
It does not appear that Gundlach's suggestion was echoed until after
Pius XII's 1946 address to the cardinals, which Gundlach himself
drafted. In his commentary on the speech, Gundlach contented himself
with noting that "the pope does not fail to indicate that this principle,
despite the hierarchical structure of the Church, is also valid for the
Church and does not permit certain centralizing tendencies." 74 At the
same time, the man who had actually written Quadragesimo anno,
Oswald von Nell-Breuning, was only slightly more expansive:
It is very worthwhile to note that the pope adds something
which in itself should be taken for granted although unfortu-
nately it is not generally acknowledged, that this "general basic
principle" also is valid within the sphere of the life of the ec-
clesiastical community. The hierarchical structure of the Church
and subsidiarity are not antitheses which exclude one another,
but mutually complementary essential traits of the Church.

73 Gustav Gundlach, "Zur Soziologie der Pfarrgemeinde," in Die Ordnung der

Menschlichen Gesellschaft (K6ln: J. P. Bachem, 1964) 1:434-435; the article first ap-
peared in Das Wort in der Zeit (1934), pp. 13-16. Behind this statement lie notions which
Gundlach had developed in his doctoral dissertation where he emphasized, as a necessary
complement to the idea of the Church as a Herrschaftsverband, "the 'genossenschaft-
liche' essence of the Church in the sense of the old 'coetusfidelium,'" in which clergy and
laity are not contrasted as active and passive elements; see "Zur Soziologie der katho-
lischen Ideenwelt und des Jesuitenordens," ibid., pp. 202-287, esp. pp. 230-231, 241n,
255-257. For Gundlach's ecclesiology, see Schwarte, Gustav Gundlach, pp. 199-221; see
also pp. 380-382, for his views on subsidiarity in the Church.
74 Gustav Gundlach, "Annotationes," Periodica 35 (1946) 102; translated in Die Ord-
nung der Menshlichen Gesellschaft, 1:376.
 THE JURIST

Thus the participation of the laity in the hierarchical apostolate

does not exclude but implies the maturity and self-responsibility
of popular Catholic movements (Actio catholica). It was surely
not unintentionally that the pope specifically refers to this
point."5

In the years that followed, Pius XII's speech was to be cited often in
the development of a theology of the laity. Many authors drew upon his
description of the laity as being themselves the Church, working at the
front lines for the sake of the consecration of the world. It has not been
possible for me to determine in great detail how great a role the prin-
ciple of subsidiarity played in this literature; 6 but I can note the fol-
lowing developments.
In 1946 itself, Karl Rahner wrote an article entitled "The Individual
in the Church," in which he argued that the spiritual Einmaligkeit of
each person grounds a realm of freedom which no society, including the
institutional Church, can invade. In the Church it represents a char-
ismatic element, essential to the Church, but unpredictable in advance
and a principle of "dynamic unrest." But personal as it is, this indi-
viduality can also give rise to movements and free associations which
are not part of the official organization of the Church and should not
be hindered by "a bureaucratic mania."

Otherwise we shall have an ecclesiastical statism which for-

gets that the Church, too, is for men and not men for the Church
and that all ecclesiastical organization and orders, even if they

75 Oswald von Nell-Breuning, "Die Kirche das Lebensprinzip der menschlichen Ge-
sellschaft," in Wirtschaft und Geselischaft Heute, 2 (Freiburg: Herder, 1957), p. 378; this
article first appeared in 1946. For the author's initial reaction to the qualifying phrase in
Pius XII's remarks, see "Subsidiaritat in der Kirche," Stimmen der Zeit 204 (1986) 150.
76 From a rapid review, it does not appear that subsidiarity plays any role in two
important synthetic essays on the laity: Gerard Philips, The Role of the Laity in the
Church (Chicago: Fides, 1955), and Yves Congar, Jalons pour une thiologie du laicat
(Paris: Cerf, 1953). Although Congar quotes often and at length from Pius XII's 1946
speech (e.g., pp. 540-542), he never cites the sentence about subsidiarity in the Church.
While in his earlier work, Vraie etfausse riforme dans rEglise (Paris: du Cerf, 1950),
Congar discussed relations between the center and the periphery and cautiously called
for a certain "deconcentration" in the Church (pp. 273-305), subsidiarity does not appear
in the argument.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

are necessary and of divine law, are nevertheless subsidiary in

character and may not stifle private religious community life,
n
but must encourage, protect, and nourish it.
Rahner makes no explicit reference to either Pius XI or Pius XII, but
his concluding remarks could be read as a personal commentary on the
latter's recent speech.
In the years that followed, Rahner published a number of essays in
which either explicitly or implicitly he proposed the applicability of the
principle of subsidiarity within the Church. In the fullest statement,
repeated twice, he argued that subsidiarity is compatible with the
Church's hierarchical structure and communion. Individuals, commu-
nities, and authorities, while incorporated and properly subordinate,
can and should have their own relatively independent functions. The
Church's life is not directed by "an omnipotent central body of bureau-
crats" with all others merely passive recipients of orders without respon-
sibility for initiative of their own. He proposed that the Code of Canon
Law could find room for acknowledging a genuine right, and not
merely privilege, to such initiative, and this might be the only way to
78
awaken lay people to an awareness of their duties.
In various writings Rahner also applied the principle of subsidiarity
as a norm for relations between the parish and non-parochial groups,
and between apostolic organizations and movements and a "blanket-
organization" such as Catholic Action. 79 He repeated his warning

77 Karl Rahner, "Der Einzelne in der Kirche," Stimmen der Zeit 139(1946/1947) 275;
this essay is available in Natureand Grace and Other Essays (London: Sheed and Ward,
1963), pp. 82-83.
78 Karl Rahner, "Freedom in the Church" (1953-1954), TheologicalInvestigations,2
(Baltimore: Helicon, 1963), pp. 89-107, at pp. 105-106; see the identical comments in
"The Dignity and Freedom of Man" (1952), ibid., pp. 235-263, at pp. 259-260. For
comments on Rahner's proposal from one of the leading interpreters of subsidiarity in
civil society, see Arthur-Fridolin Utz, "Theologie und Sozialwissenschaften" (1957), in
Ekthik und Politik: Aktuelle Grundfragen der Gesellschafts-, Wirtschafts- und Rechts-
philosophie(Stuttgart: Seewald Verlag, 1970), pp. 281-296, at pp. 283-284; see also "Der
Mythos des Subsidiaritatsprinzips"(1956), ibid., pp. 338-349, at pp. 346-347. Utz argued
that theologians and social theorists had much to offer one another in understanding and
applying subsidiarity both in society and in the Church.
79 Karl Rahner, "Peaceful Reflections on the Parochial Principle"(1948), Theological
Investigations, 2: 283-318, at pp. 302-303; "Notes on the Lay Apostolate" (1954-1955),
ibid., pp. 319-352, at p. 347. The principle is implicit in "On the Question of a Formal
Existential Ethics," ibid., pp. 216-234, esp. p. 232; Free Speech in the Church (London:
 THE JURIST

about the danger of seeing the Church as a form of totalitarian orga-

nization ("an ecclesiastical 'State Socialism'") which leaves no room for
personal decision and initiative, an argument which echoes Pius XII's
contrast between modern imperialism and the Church. °
The first article wholly devoted to subsidiarity in the Church appears
to be that published by Wilhelm Bertrams early in 1957. 81 Bertrams
began with a lengthy discussion of human sociality, its internal struc-
ture, and external order. He then argued that subsidiarity is a meta-
physical principle which should determine competencies among
societies. As a formal principle, it needs material determination by the
nature of the society in which it applies.
Subsidiarity cannot apply in the creation or constitution of the
Church, which is a divinely established institution.
Nevertheless, once established as a supernatural society
through Christ the Lord-with all those supernatural goods it
needs to obtain its goal-the Church develops in almost the
same way as natural societies usually develop. As a natural
society always arises de novo, in the sense that the common
good is always to be achieved de novo, by the cooperation of its
members, so also the Church always arises de novo, in the sense
that its goal is to be obtained by the common activity of all the
82
pastors and faithful to achieve that goal.
Subsidiarity can only be applied in its positive sense to the internal
structure of the Church, that is, the Church supplies subsidium to
people so they can achieve an end impossible to achieve by their natu-
ral powers. For the same reason, however, its negative norm, restricting
intervention to what is necessary, is not applicable. 3 It can, however,
be applied to the Church's external order, and Bertrams devoted the

Sheed and Ward, 1959); "The Charismatic Element in the Church," The Spirit in the
Church (New York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 33-73.
80 Karl Rahner, Theological Investigations,2:305 and 347.
81 Wilhelm Bertrams, "De principio subsidiarietatis in iure canonico," Periodica46
(1957) 3-65; a shorter article in German was published in the same year: "Das Subsi-
diaritlitsprinzip in der Kirche," Stimmen der Zeit 160 (1957) 252-267. Bertrams' first
article certainly appeared before Pius XII's second reference to subsidiarity in the
Church; but the argument and direction of this speech are far closer to Gundlach's
approach than to Bertrams'.
82 Bertrams, "De principio subsidiarietatis," pp. 23-24.
83 Ibid., p. 48.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

last part of his essay to illustrating it in the Code of Canon Law. Here
he noted the right of the laity to receive spiritual goods from the clergy,
the rights of moral persons, the capacity to acquire and administer
temporal goods, rights with regard to one's own spiritual development,
schooling, free associations of the faithful, religious orders, the reser-
vation of cases in the Church, the strict interpretation of laws restrict-
ing individual rights, and the usual practices of Roman authority.8' He
concluded with a citation of Pius XII's 1946 address:

This restriction of the principle of subsidiarity by the hierar-

chical structure of the Church is not really a true restriction of
the principle but is simply explained by the nature of the su-
pernatural good entrusted to the Church. If today there are
repeated complaints that the Church does not pay enough at-
tention to the principle of subsidiarity, this failure certainly is
not due to canon law. At most it would be caused, were this to
be proved in a concrete case, by a failure to observe the norms
laid down.85

No other monograph on subsidiarity in the Church appeared before

Pope John's announcement of the council. A year after that event,
however, Hans King appealed to Bertrams' article while invoking sub-
sidiarity as a principle to guide a needed decentralization in the
Church. Kilng argued for a restrengthening of the bishop's office and
for a greater role for episcopal conferences as expressions of episcopal
communion and solidarity. The latter should be given greater com-
petence over questions of liturgical reform, marriage legislation, eccle-
siastical administration, the settling of doctrinal disputes. King
concluded by referring to the texts in which Pius XII had invoked
6
subsidiarity on behalf of the active role of the laity.'

84 Ibid., pp. 51-63.

85 Ibid., pp. 64-65. In a footnote, Bertrams explained that the complaints he had most
in mind concerned a recognition of the faculties and activities of lay people in the
Church.
86 Hans Ktlng, The Council, Reform and Reunion (New York: Sheed and Ward,
1961), pp. 169-185; see also "The Petrine Office in the Church and in Council," Structures
of the Church (Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968), pp. 201-304, at pp.
215-221; "The Petrine Office and the Apostolic Office," The Living Church: Reflections
on the Second Vatican Council (London: Sheed and Ward, 1963), pp. 333-369, at pp.
351-365.
 THE JURIST

KUng's pages are the longest discussion of the issue in the literature
provoked by the announcement of the council. Karl Rahner briefly
returned to the subject in discussing episcopacy and primacy, while
Yves Congar made one of the first non-German references to it in
proposing the creation of intermediate bodies between pope and bish-
op. 7 Reviewing Kng's book on the council, however, Jer6me Hamer
criticized the appeal to subsidiarity because of the vagueness of the
principle and the limits of the analogy between the Church and civil
88
society.
A second monograph on subsidiarity in the Church appeared during
the council. Matthtus Kaiser built his case largely on the principles
proposed by Bertrams, but he did not hesitate to speak of it as "the
supernatural principle of subsidiarity" which is to "regulate the com-
petence for the permitted exercise of church office." 89 He believed it to
be pertinent in relations between the universal Church and the partic-
ular church and to have been anticipated in the German Bishops' reply
to Bismarck (1875). He drew the following conclusion:
The pope can in virtue of his immediate power of divine right
legitimately exercise his supreme pastoral power without any
mediator over each individual particular church and their pas-
tors and faithful. But the pope may not intervene as he likes and
arbitrarily in the also divine right competence of the ruling bish-
op. He must, however, intervene when this is necessary. The role
of the pope with regard to the particular churches is to support,
supplement, and coordinate. 90
After illustrations, he proposes a neat formulation: "As much proper
life in the particular church as possible, as much intervention of the
central power in the particular church as is necessary to serve the unity

87 See Karl Rahner and Joseph Ratzinger, The Episcopate and the Primacy (New
York: Herder and Herder, 1962), p. 134, but see p. 110; Yves Congar, Sainte Eglise (Paris:
Cerf, 1963), pp. 695-696. See also Ferdinand Holb6ck, "Das Mysterium der Kirche in
dogmatischer Sicht," in Mysterium Kirche in der Sicht der theologischen Disziplinen,ed.
F Holb6ck and T.Sartory (Salzburg: Miller, 1962), 1:201-346, at p. 273, where the
context again is decentralization, and subsidiarity is proposed as useful for avoiding "an
unhealthy discrepancy between center and periphery in the Church."
88 Jer6me Hamer, "Bulletin d'eccl6siologie," Revue des Sciences Philosophiqueset
Th~ologiques 46 (1962) 565.
89 Matthlus Kaiser, "Das Prinzip der Subsidiaritatt in der Verfassung der Kirche,"
Archivfir katholisches Kirchenrecht 133 (1964) 3-13, at pp. 4-5.
90 Ibid., pp. 6-7.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

of the Church and the common good." 91 Similar analyses are then
made with regard to the relation between diocese and parish and be-
92
tween pope and ecumenical council.
After the council, two monographs were devoted to the topic of
subsidiarity in Lumen gentium. Otto Karrer was not deterred by the
absence of the term from regarding subsidiarity as a leitmotiv of the
whole text. 93 He was able to do this because he identified subsidiarity
with solidarity and then found multiple synonyms for the latter in
Scripture and in the documents of Vatican II (e.g., mutua connexio,
communio, mutuae relationes).4 This confusion and generality make
Karrer's essay quite unusable for a critical investigation of the topic
both in itself and in Lumen gentium.
The other monograph on the subject is the doctoral dissertation of
Joseph A. George. 9 More carefully argued than Karrer's essay, this
work built largely on Bertrams' theoretical basis in order to review all
the conciliar documents to find illustrations of subsidiarity in relations
between pope and bishop.
It was only after the 1967 Synod of Bishops adopted subsidiarity as
a principle to guide the revision of the Code of Canon Law and after
the 1969 Synod echoed that endorsement that subsidiarity began to

91 Ibid., p. 9.
92 Ibid., pp. 10-13. The article was written before Lumen gentium was promulgated
and reflects a weak notion of collegiality and of each bishop's sollicitudo omnium ec-
clesiarum, which leads Kaiser to regard an ecumenical council as subsidiary and sup-
plementary to the pope!
93 Otto Karrer, "Le principe de subsidiarit6 dans l'Eglise," in L'Eglise de Vatican II,
ed. G. Barafina, p. 575. In the same volume, Olegario Gonzalez Hernandez briefly argued
that "from the principle of collegiality must follow the sociological principle of subsi-
diarity, according to which each of the members of the community must exercise his
proper role and may, but only when it is not possible for him to do anything else, allow
himself to be replaced by someone else who in turn has a duty to supply for the one who
fails. A principle valid both in the administrative and the apostolic orders"; see "La
nouvelle conscience de I'Eglise et ses pr6supposes historico-th6ologiques," pp. 175-209,
at p. 200.
94 Karrer, p. 575; on p. 576 he argues that it was this general sense of ecclesial
subsidiarity (=solidarity) which was transported to civil society in Quadragesimo anno!
Solidarity and subsidiarity are manifestly related, but they are not identical.
95 Joseph A. George, The Principleof Subsidiarity;see also his article, "Subsidiarity
in the Church," New Catholic Encyclopedia, 16, Supplement 1967-1974 (Washington:
McGraw-Hill, 1974), p. 436.
 THE JURIST

appear rather frequently in the theological and canonical literature. 96

Until Barberini's review-article of 1980, 9 7 all the authors who deal with
the issue, whatever qualifications they express, agree that subsidiarity
can and should apply in the Church. Even in the 1980's it is not until
Cardinal Hamer's speech and the extraordinary assembly of the Synod
in 1985 that any real opposition is expressed.

THE ISSUES UNDER DEBATE

Rather than continue to follow this development chronologically, 9

it may be more useful to try to identify the chief questions stated or
implied in the debate. I will, therefore, summarize the practical issues
concerning which subsidiarity is invoked, attempt to identify and
briefly to explore the chief theoretical issues behind this appeal, and
having described the status questionis, finally return to the practical
questions.

The PracticalIssues
Most generically, the principle of subsidiarity has been invoked in
favor of decentralization in the Church, which even at times seems to be
considered a simple synonym for subsidiarity.99 Most frequently, this

96 Two Spanish scholars, however, did address the issue as early as 1965. Teodoro
Jim~nez-Urresti briefly referred to the principle: "The pope, as pope.... does not exist
in order to contribute to each bishop something which the latter could not realize himself
in his own particular church, although the pope, sometimes and par vole de consequence,
has to apply the principle of subsidiarity"; see "L'autorit du Pontife romain sur le college
6piscopal, et, par son intermediaire, sur I'Eglise universelle," in La collegialiti9piscopale:
Histoire et thiologie (Paris: Cerf, 1965), pp. 223-281, at p. 262, where, however, in a
footnote he indicates he shares Hamer's scepticism about the principle. Victor de Reina,
"Poder y sociedad en la Iglesia," in Iglesia y Derecho: 71abajos de la X Semana de
Derecho Canonico (Salamanca: Cervantes, 1965), pp. 99-132, at pp. 127-132, gave a
nuanced approval to the application of subsidiarity in the Church.
97 Giovanni Barberini, "Appunti e riflessioni sul'applicazione del principio di sussi-
diarieti nell'ordinamento della Chiesa," Ephemerides furis Canonici36 (1980) 329-361.
The usefulness of this review is considerably diminished by the fact that the author
excludes the literature in German, which is rather like trying to discuss Gallicanism
without consulting the literature in French!
98 See the accompanying bibliography which includes both monographs and more or
less casual references to subsidiarity.
99 See, for example, Henri de Lubac, Les 6glisesparticulidresdansl'Egihse universelle
(Paris: Aubier, 1971), pp. 113-115, 132-135. Other authors, however, point out that
decentralization is not the sole or even the inevitable implication of subsidiarity.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

appeal is aimed to correct imbalances in relations between the Holy See

and either individual bishops or conferences of bishops; but it has also
been invoked with respect to relations between dioceses and parishes
and to preserve the rights of individual bishops against the authority of
episcopal conferences. Subsidiarity is also one of the pegs on which
have been hung calls for greater autonomy and diversity in the partic-
ular and local churches. Finally, it has been employed as a principle to
safeguard the rights of the laity to exercise their freedom and initiative
both within the Church (e.g., associations of the faithful) and especially
in society. This general practical problematic displays a remarkable
consistency throughout the fifty years of this survey. It is found in
popes, bishops, theologians, and canonists, and many of the problems
are acknowledged even by those who do not believe subsidiarity the
best principle on the basis of which to resolve them.
There is, however, some diversity with regard to the primary prac-
tical function of the principle of subsidiarity. Those who understand it
primarily as a defence of the dignity and rights of individuals want it
to be applied in the Church to promote the fundamental rights and
duties of the faithful. For those for whom subsidiarity is more a cri-
terion for the distribution of competencies in a social body, it is em-
ployed to identify and defend distinct jurisdictional competencies in
the Church.
For some authors, subsidiarity applies only to the external de iure
ecciesiastico organization of the Church. Others believe it applies as
well to the divinely constituted distribution of church authority. Some
believe it should be formally stated in church law, while others see it
either as a hermeneutical principle in interpreting and applying law or
as a simple maxim of common prudence and good government, im-
possible to codify.

Questions of Theory
Things become more complex when one turns to the question of a
theological justification for the appeal to subsidiarity. A fairly strong
argument can be and is drawn on the basis of formal authority. Pius
XII and Paul VI both admitted the applicability of the principle within
the Church. At the Second Vatican Council and in at least four as-
semblies of the Synod of Bishops a good number of bishops pressed for
its application. Two Synods of Bishops voted in its favor by substantial
majorities. It was proposed, accepted, and employed in the revision of
 THE JURIST

the Code of Canon Law. The vast majority of theologians and canon-
ists, among them some of the most important figures of the period
under review, have admitted its validity in the Church.
When it comes to intrinsic arguments on behalf of subsidiarity, there
is a good deal of diversity. For some authors, the argument is very
simple: because it rests on the metaphysics of the human person and his
freedom, subsidiarity must apply in all forms of human sociality. Oth-
ers add to this an argument from the societal or communal character
of the Church. Some build their case on biblical grounds, finding the
principle implicit in the Pauline doctrine of charisms given to all mem-
bers of the Church for the building up of the Body of Christ. Others
see it anticipated in the historical relations among the particular
churches or in the relation between the papacy and intermediate ec-
clesiastical bodies. Some believe subsidiarity to be one way of articu-
lating the teaching of the two Vatican Councils on the relationship
between primacy and episcopacy. Among these various arguments, a
distinction can often be discerned between a universalist, "descending"
ecclesiology and an ecclesiology constructed "from below," on the basis
of Vatican II's theology of the local church.
Further complicating things on the level of theory is the fact that
within both camps there often are considerable differences in the un-
derstanding of the principle itself, in judgments about the structures
and relationships to which it is applicable, and in the concrete impli-
cations drawn from it for the life of the Church. Authors do not always
mean the same thing when they raise the question of subsidiarity in the
Church.
Opposition to the application of subsidiarity in the Church is usually
voiced on the level of principle. The chief arguments brought against
it are the following: that it is of disputed meaning even when used of
civil society; that a principle elaborated by a social philosophy for civil
society cannot be considered appropriate for the unique social reality
of the Church; that it is useful only on the basis of a discredited model
of the Church as a societas perfecta inaequalium; that it is unneces-
sary because other, more traditional principles of ecclesiology more
appropriately ground its practical implications. These objections are
both methodological and substantive and may provide a framework
within which to try to disentangle the chief questions that need to be
addressed.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

The most basic methodological question concerns the validity of

importing into ecclesiology a principle developed for civil society. The
objection here can take two forms: first, that such an importation is
only possible on the basis of a now inadequate view of the Church as
a societas perfecta inaequalium, and, second, that the Church is so
unique and transcendent a reality that it is only appropriately described
in theological terms.
The first and milder form of the objection is simply not relevant to
much of the literature. It does seem that Bertrams and a few other
authors work within the societal model developed in the modern ius
publicum ecclesiasticum. But that model cannot be found in the ec-
clesiologies of such figures as de Lubac, Krucina, Thils, or Tillard, for
whom it is precisely the demands of communio among the churches
and among the faithful which suggest the applicability of subsidiarity.
The stronger form of the objection opens upon a very large and much
disputed question of method: the relationship between ecclesiology and
social theory. Some authors, in an understandable reaction to certain
features of the modem societal notion of the Church, appear to ques-
tion any significant appeal to extra-ecclesial social theory. This view is
represented, for example, by those who use the language of mystery
and communion to question even the legitimacy of questions about the
distribution of authority in the Church.1°° A few comments are in
order.
First, one should note that the great majority of those who appeal
to subsidiarity acknowledge that it is of only analogous validity in the
Church. No one claims that it can be applied in the Church without
taking into account the distinct reality of the Church. This fact seri-
ously weakens the force of this objection.

100 This problem surfaced at the 1985 Synod of Bishops, whose Final Report, in two
unintegrated sentences, reflected the different uses of the appeal to communio: "The
ecclesiology of communion cannot be reduced to questions of organization or to prob-
lems about mere power. But the ecclesiology of communion is the foundation for order
in the Church" (II, C,1). Perhaps it is necessary to recall, but for adifferent audience, the
sentence in the Notapraeviaexplicativathat communio "is not understood as some sort
of vague affectus, but as an organic reality which at once requires ajuridical form and
is enlivened by charity." Eugenio Corecco notes the fluidity and ambiguity of the term
communio, which he says has become "the passe-par-toutwith which it is thought an-
swers can be given to all problems"; see "Considerazioni sul problema dei diritti fon-
damentali del christano nella Chiesa e nella SocietA," in Les droits fondamentaux du
chr~tien dans l'Eglise et dans la socitY: Actes du IVe congr&s internationaldu droit
canonique, ed. E. Corecco, N. Herzog, A. Scola (Fribourg: Ed. Universitaires, 1981), pp.
1207-1234, at p. 1222.
 THE JURIST

Second, taken to its logical conclusion, this objection would un-

dercut the practice of the Church from very early times to make use of
contemporary social theory and structures to articulate its own social
life, both theoretically and practically. How much of canon law would
be left if all importations from extra-ecclesial legal theory were re-
moved? Are those who criticize subsidiarity in the Church on this basis
also prepared to criticize the theories of authority and of the distribu-
tion of competencies which have in fact throughout the centuries le-
gitimated the development of the Church's order?
Moreover, behind the debate about subsidiarity lies in fact another,
often unacknowledged set of questions not only about the meaning and
purpose of the principle as it was developed for civil society but also,
and more basically, questions about such issues as: the relationship
between individual and community or society, the definition of the
common good and its relationship to personal goods, the notion of
fundamental human rights, the relationship among various communi-
ties and organizations within society, the relationship between freedom
and institutions, etc. All of these are usually identified and discussed in
the literature on subsidiarity in civil society. Some canonists are also
quite alert to them when analogous questions are raised within the
Church; but most theologians do not seem so critical in their state-
ments of the question and attempts to answer it. One can find both
proponents and critics of subsidiarity in the Church arguing on the
basis of implicit and unacknowledged assumptions about the funda-
mental questions mentioned above.
This, of course, is a crucial failing, because the principle of subsi-
diarity was elaborated as part of a Catholic reponse to both liberal
individualism and various forms of collectivism. That larger context is
crucial not only for discerning the social and political challenges to
meet which the principle was formulated but also for determining what
it means both in theory and in practice or operationally. A.-E Utz has
been particularly alert to this problem, pointing out how differently one
will envisage subsidiarity in an individualistic or in a solidaristic frame-
work.' 01One can often notice quite parallel tendencies in the theolog-
ical and canonical literature on subsidiarity in the Church.
In fact, therefore, the debate on subsidiarity is not being carried out
on some purely theological level, but includes, even among those who
are most alert to the danger of sociological reductionism, tacit assump-

101 See Utz, Formen und Grenzen des Subsidiarittsprinzip.

 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

tions about the nature and structure of society and its relationship to
the individual person. The debate thus illustrates again the fundamen-
tal methodological importance of the role of social theory in ecclesiol-
ogy. This is an issue which has recently received more critical attention
from canonists than from theologians. 102 My own view is that it is not
great progress to replace the various forms of sociological reductionism
with a theological reductionism which considers the Church so unique
and transcendent that it can only be described in theological language.
As every theology implies a certain philosophy, every ecclesiology im-
plies a social theory, and theologians and canonists ought to be criti-
cally aware of their own presuppositions.
The substantive issues are, as Gustave Thils has remarked, eccle-
siological.103 Perhaps the most important of these was raised by Car-
dinal Hamer when he argued that subsidiarity is inapplicable in the
Church because it considers the universal Church to have only a sub-
04
sidiary or substitutive role to play vis-A-vis the particular church.
The cardinal did not indicate in which authors he believes this mistake
to be found, and so it is difficult to respond to the objection specifically.
It should be noted first, however, that several of the experts on sub-
sidiarity in general argue strongly that "subsidiarity" does not mean
"substitution" (suppliance), but an active responsibility of the larger
social body to promote the self-responsibility of smaller communities
and of individuals. 05 Moreover, many of the authors who promote
subsidiarity in the Church do so on the basis of an ecclesiology quite

102 See the competing positions outlined and defended by Eugenio Corecco, "Theo-
logie des Kirchenrechts," Handbuch des katholischen Kirchenrechts, ed. J. Listl, H.
Mller, and H. Schmitz (Regensburg: Pustet, 1983), pp. 12-24, and by Gerhard Luf,
"Rechtsphilosophische Grundlagen des Kirchenrechts," ibid., pp. 24-32. I incline toward
the position of Luf, whose related essay, "Grundrechte im CIC/ 1983," 6sterreichisches
Archivfiir Kirchenrecht35 (1985) 107-131, has much that is methodologically pertinent
to the problematic of subsidiarity in the Church.
103 'Even if one wished faithfully to apply the principle of subsidiarity to all the
machinery of the Church, the way in which this application would be conceived and
imagined would always depend on prior ecclesiological doctrines, held consciously or
especially unconsciously"; La primaut6pontificale: La doctrine de Vatican Iet les voles
d'une rivision (Gembloux: Duculot, 1972), p. 243.
104See SE, p. 604.
105See, for example, Nell-Breuning, "Subsidiaritlit," Staatslexikon, 7: 827, where he
criticizes the view of subsidiarity as a "stop-gap," distinguishes it from an "ersatzweises
interference," and notes the good fortune of the French who can avoid this confusion by
speaking of such measures as suppliance rather than as subsidiaritM.
 THE JURIST

faithful to the teaching of Vatican II on the relation between the uni-

versal Church and particular or local churches. 0 6 They do not regard
the universal Church as something external or supplementary to the
particular churches. They see the particular churches precisely as re-
alizations of the universal Church and the universal Church as the
communion of particular churches. And they argue that it is precisely
the fact that the particular churches are the universal Church realized
in a particular place under the leadership of a bishop that suggests the
validity of the principle of subsidiarity. It is the history of the Church
and magisterial statements about the divine right authority of both the
pope and the bishops which they consider to be helpfully illuminated
07
by the principle of subsidiarity.
Other substantive issues at stake in the debate include the following:
the relationship between the Church as mystery or communion and the
Church as institution, the validity of conceiving the Church as a so-
cietas, the relationship between individual Christians and the Church,
the relationship between clergy and laity, the relationship between /us
divinum and ius ecclesiasticum, etc. Of these a word should perhaps be
said about the relationship between individual and Church, since this
concerns the function of subsidiarity as a defence of individual rights.
Barberini, for example, brings as an objection to the applicability of
subsidiarity in the Church the fact that "the believer is not anterior to
the Church. He is born within the Church, the necessary society whose
institutional function ...is immutably fixed and instrumental with
regard to the fallibility of the person." 108 This criticism is echoed by
Corecco who relates the endorsement of subsidiarity by the 1967 Synod
to its call for a juridical defence of the rights of the faithful, which

106 Thils, for example, is quite clear about the problem which may lie behind Car-

dinal Hamer's criticism: "The relations between particular churches and papal primacy
are different from those which link local administrations to a central civil power"; La
primauti pontificale, p. 243. See also Kasper, "Der Geheimnischarakter," pp. 235-236.
107 See in the bibliography the works of de Lubac, Krucina, Piwowarski, Tillard,
Thils, etc. On the other hand, Giuseppe Alberigo's opposition to subsidiarity in the
Church is that it does not go far enough to ground and safeguard the genuine and full
ecclesial reality of the particular churches; see "Serving the Communion of Churches,"
in The Roman Curia and the Communion of Churches, ed. P. Huizing and K. Waif,
Concilium, 127 (New York: Seabury, 1979), pp. 12-33, at p. 27.
108 Barberini, "Appunti e riflessioni," p. 347.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

implied the model of the State's administration of justice.' °9 Because

the individual Christian does not pre-exist the Church, one cannot
transfer to the Church the notion of fundamental, pre-social rights. For
Corecco, the appeal to subsidiarity seems to be inextricably linked with
an unacceptable understanding of the relation between individual and
Church.
This is another point at which it appears that the issue has been
framed not only by ecclesiological assumptions-for example, the per-
tinence of extra-ecclesial legal theory to the ordo Ecclesiae-but also
by assumptions about civil society and its relationship to the individ-
ual. Both critics make certain assumptions about civil society in order
to urge the distinctiveness of the Church's order; but many of these
assumptions can be questioned even for civil society where it is not at
all clear that the issue of fundamental rights must be posed as a simple
alternative between individualism and socialism." 0
Apart from that question, it is difficult to see why the rights of the
faithful articulated by both the council and the revised code cannot
ground infra-ecclesial rights of a fundamental nature, to defend which
subsidiarity can be proposed as a formal and heuristic norm."' These
rights do not define pre-ecclesialclaims over and against the Church,
but rather ecclesial claims over and against other members of the
2
Church, particularly those who are in authority."
This review is perhaps sufficient to indicate how large the ecclesio-
logical questions are and to illustrate how much they determine the way
in which authors approach the question of the applicability of subsi-

109 See Eugenio Corecco, "Aspetti della ricezione del Vaticano II nel Codice di diritto
canonico," in lR Vaticano II e la Chiesa, ed. G. Alberigo and J.-P Jossua (Brescia:
Paideia, 1985), pp. 333-397, at pp. 349-350; see also "Considerazioni sul problema dei
diritti fondamentali del christano nella Chiesa e nella SocietA," p. 1231-1232.
110 See Luf's articles mentioned in note 102 above.
III The best article on this dimension of subsidiarity is by Jos6 Luis Gutierrez, "El
principio de subsidiariedad y la igualdad radical de los fieles," lus Canonicum 11 (1971)
413-443.
112 I pass over here the other basic question: If the individual Christian does not
pre-exist the Church, is there not an important sense also in which the Church, the
congregatiofidelium, does not pre-exist the Christians? Many years ago, Hans Urs von
Balthasar pointed out that "the Church is not an universale ante rem; she is completely
embodied in her members, as humanity is in men;" Schleifung der Bastionen (Einsiedeln:
Johannes, 1952), p. 74. Correcco's own interesting comments on the in quibus et ex
quibus formula of LG 23 are easily articulable in terms of subsidiarity; see "Conside-
razioni," pp. 1223-1225.
 THE JURIST

diarity in the Church. It is important to stress that it is not the principle

of subsidiarity which can solve these issues, but a solution to these
issues which will determine whether and to what degree subsidiarity
may be considered a valid, useful or even necessary principle within the
Church also. Sometimes one has the impression that both proponents
and critics of using subsidiarity in the Church expect (or fear) far too
much from the principle. Even in civil society, subsidiarity is a formal
or heuristic principle, defining goals, establishing criteria, and urging
questions." 3 But the questions it urges it does not itself answer; that can
only be done in the light of the nature of the society and of concrete
circumstances. The formal and heuristic character of the principle itself
means that subsidiarity presupposes an ecclesiology and not vice-versa.

CONCLUSIONS

On the level of theory, then, I am inclined to think that the question

of the applicability of subsidiarity is not yet ripe for solution. Too many
prior ecclesiological and social-philosophical questions need to be iden-
tified and addressed first. Until these are treated in and for themselves,
the disputants are likely to continue talking past one another. I have
already indicated my own view that the two sets of questions, eccle-
siological and sociological or political, both need to be addressed by
theologians and canonists at least in the sense that they need to be
critically aware of the issues and be able to defend their own funda-
mental assumptions and options.
I will conclude by returning to the questions of practice for which
subsidiarity is invoked. I have two comments to make. The first is that
we always keep in mind the origin of the principle of subsidiarity and
of the proposals to apply it in the Church. The principle was elaborated
and formulated in response to the growing centralization of state-
authority, which was absorbing the legitimate roles of other commu-
nities and reducing the freedom and self-responsibiity of individuals.
From the time it was first suggested that subsidiarity is applicable
within the Church down through the 1985 Synod of Bishops, it was
invoked to counteract similar developments in the Church. '4 It is sure-

113 See Kltber, Katholische Geselischaftslehre, p. 876.

114 "The integration of dioceses in the unity of the universal Church usually does not
happen in immediate fashion, but by means of associations of particular churches, whose
importance for the unity of the whole Church can hardly be exaggerated. But in the Latin
Church, for various reasons, among which Church-State relations played no small role,
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

ly not accidental that it was men who most promoted subsidiarity in

civil society-Ketteler, Gundlach, Nell-Breuning, Utz, H6ffner, Raus-
cher-who were the first to propose its applicability in a Church they
believed to be tempted by the centralizing tendencies of the modern
state." 5 In both cases it was practical developments which were re-
stricting rightful claims to freedom and self-responsibility which sug-
gested the formulation and application of the principle of subsidiarity.
Within the Church, this problem needs to be addressed in the broad
context not only of the powerful centralizing tendencies of the last two
centuries but also of the social theory, imported from without, which
6
legitimated them."
Secondly, the persistence of the same complaints over these fifty
years suggests that some fundamental structural problems remain in
the Church. From my reading of the literature, I do not believe that it
was subsidiarity which first put people in mind of the problems, but the
problems which suggested the usefulness of the principle. Even if, on
the level of theory, the debate needs to proceed until it reaches greater
clarity than it now displays, the practical problems remain, and these
do not depend on a resolution of the theoretical question for their
solution.
In fact there is not a single problem for whose resolution subsidiarity
has been invoked which has not been identified, described, and ad-
dressed on other, more traditional ecclesiological grounds. One need

a constitutional situation developed in which, because of the weakening of intermediate

instances, especially the role of the metropolitan, and because of the consequent cen-
tralization of the Church's government in the Roman Curia, no room was left for the
development of autonomous associations of particular churches"; Klaus Mdrsdorf, "Die
Autonomie der Ortskirche," Archivfir katholisches Kirchenrecht 138 (1969) 388-405,
at pp. 399-400.
,F For Ketteler's view of the corporative unity of pope and bishops, see Fastenrath,
Bischof Ketteler, pp. 231-245, published earlier in MiInchener Theologische Zeitschrift
21 (1970) 43-56; for its impact on Ketteler's view of papal infallibility, see Hermann Josef
Pottmeyer, Unfehibarkeitund Souveranitdt:Die pipstliche Unfehlbarkeit im System der
ultramontanen Ekklesiologie des 19. Jahrhunderts(Mainz: Grtlnewald, 1975), pp. 214-
222.
116 This theory is not simply that of the societasperfectaview of the Church, but also
the model of sovereignty which lies behind the definitions of the First Vatican Council
on papal primacy and infallibility. This implied social theory seems to me to be as much
in need of theological and socio-politilogical critique as the principle of subsidiarity. For
a well balanced presentation of the historical and theological issues, see Pottmeyer,
Unfehlbarkeit und Souveranitat, pp. 388-428.
 THE JURIST

not conclude from this that the principle of subsidiarity is either un-
necessary or useless, but rather that the postponement of a theoretical
judgment about subsidiarity should not be used as an excuse for post-
poning the effort to meet the very real problems and tensions that exist
in the Church today.

Bibliography

MONOGRAPHS

Barberini, Giovanni. "Appunti e riflessioni sull'applicazione del principio di

sussidiarietA nell'ordinamento della Chiesa." Ephemerides luris Canonici
36 (1980) 329-361.

Bassett, William W "Subsidiarity, Order and Freedom in the Church." In The

Once and Future Church: A Communion of Freedom. Ed. J. Coriden.
Staten Island, N.Y.: Alba House, 1971. Pp. 205-265.

Bertrams, Wilhelm. "De principio subsidiaritatis in iure canonico." Periodica

46 (1957) 3-65.

_ "Das Subsidiaritatsprinzip in der Kirche." Stimmen der Zeit 160

(1957) 252-267.

Beyer, Jean. "Principe de subsidiarit6 ou 'juste autonomie' dans l'Eglise." Nou-

velle Revue Th~ologique 108 (1986) 801-822.

George, Joseph A. The Principleof Subsidiarity with Special Reference to its

Role in Papaland Episcopal Relations in the Light of Lumen Gentium.
Canon Law Studies, 463. Washington: Catholic University, 1968.

"Subsidiarity in the Church." In New Catholic Encyclopedia 16,

Supplement 1967-1974. Washington: McGraw-Hill, 1974. P. 436.

Gundlach, Gustav. "Zur Soziologie des Pfarrgemeinde." In Die Ordnung der

menschlichen Gesellschaft. K61n: J. P. Bachem, 1964. 1:434-436.

Gutierrez, Jos6 Luis. "I diritti dei Christifidelese il principio di sussidiarieta."

In La Chiesa dopo il Concilio: Atti del Congresso Internazionaledi Di-
ritto Canonico, Roma, 14-19 gennaio 1970. Milan: Giuffr 1972. 11/2:
783-796.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

__ _ "El principio de subsidiariedad y la igualdad radical de los fideles."

hus Canonicum 11 (1971) 413-443.

Huizing, Peter. "Subsidiarity." In Synod 1985-An Evaluation. Ed. G. Albe-

rigo and J. Provost. Concilium 188. Edinburgh: T. and T. Clark, 1986. Pp.
118-123.

Kaiser, Matthaus. "Das Prinzip der Subsidiarit~t in der Verfassung der

Kirche." Archivftir katholisches Kirchenrecht (133 1964) 3-13.

Karrer, Otto. "Le principe de subsidiarit6 dans l'Eglise." In L'Eglise de Vatican

II: Etudes autour de la Constitution conciliaire sur l'Eglise. Unam Sanc-
tam 51b. Paris: Cerf, 1966. 2:575-606.

Kasper, Walter. "Der Geheimnischarakter hebt den Sozialcharakter nicht auf:

Zur Geltung des SubsidiaritAtsprinzip in der Kirche." Herder-Korres-
pondenz 41 (1987) 232-236.

Kerber, Walter. "Die Geltung des Subsidiaritltsprinzip in der Kirche." Stim-

men der Zeit 202 (1984) 662-672.

Kloppenburg, Bonaventure. The Ecclesiology of Vatican II. Chicago: Franci-

scan Herald Press, 1974. Pp. 189-194.

Kohler, Oskar. "Der Kirche eigene 'Sichtbarkeit': Zur Frage nach dem Sub-
sidiarititsprinzip innerhalb der Kirche." Stimmen der Zeit 202 (1984)
858-861.

Krucina, Jan. "Das Verhiltnis von Gesamtkirche und Ortskirche im Lichte des
Subsidiarittitsprinzips." Collectanea Theologica 45 (1975) 121-133.

Metz, Ren6."De principio subsidiaritatis in iure canonico." In Acta Conventus

Internationalis Canonistarum Romae diebus 20-25 mai 1968 celebrati.
Vatican City: Typis Polyglottis Vaticanis, 1970. Pp. 297-310.

_ "La subsidiarit6, principe regulateur des tensions dans l'Eglise."

Revue de Droit Canonique 22 (1972) 155-176.

Moya, Raphael. "De principio subsidiaritatis in lure Missionali." In Acta Con-

ventus Internationalis Canonistarum. Pp. 311-333.

Mucci, Giandomenico. "II principio di sussidiarietA e la teologia del Collegio

episcopale." La Civilt, Cattolica 137/2 (1986) 428-442.
 THE JURIST

Piwowarski, Wladyslaw. "Le principe de subsidiarit6 et l'Eglise." Collectanea

Theologica 45 (1975) 103-119.

Pampaloni, Pio. "I1principio di sussidiarieti nel diritto canonico." Studia

Patavina 16 (1969) 260-270.

Rauscher, Anton. "Das Subsidiaritlitsprinzip in der Kirche." Jahrbuch ftr

christliche Sozialwissenschaften 10 (1969) 301-316.

Salerno, Francesco. "Canonizzazione del principio di sussidiarieti." In La col-

legialith episcopaleper ilfuturo della Chiesa. Florence: Vallechi Editore,
1969. Pp. 138-148.

Varalta, Zacharias. "De principio subsidiaritatis relate ad ordinandam admin-

istrationem iustitiae in Ecclesia."Acta Conventus InternationalisCanonis-
tarum. Pp. 334-355.

von Nell-Breuning, Oswald. "Subsidiaritait in der Kirche." Stimmen der Zeit

204 (1986) 147-157.

OTHER REFERENCES

Alberigo, Giuseppe. "Serving the Communion of Churches." In The Roman

Curia and the Communion of Churches. Ed. P. Huizing and K. Walf.
Concilium, 127. New York: Seabury, 1979. Pp. 12-33, at p. 27.

Anton, Angel. "La collegialiti nel Sinodo dei Vescovi." In Sinodo dei Vescovi:
Natura, methodo, prospettive. Ed. Jozef Tomko. Vatican City: Libreria
Editrice Vaticana, 1985. Pp. 59-111, at pp. 72-73.

Ceretti, Giovanni, and Sartori, Luigi. "La curia al servizio di un papato rin-
novato." Concilium 11 (1975), 1399-1414.

Corecco, Eugenio. "Considerazioni sul problema dei diritti fondamentali del

christano nella Chiesa e nella Societi." In Les droitsfondamentaux du
chritien dans l'Eglise et dans la socigth: Actes du IVe congrs international
du droit canonique. Ed. E. Corecco, N. Herzog, A. Scola. Fribourg: Ed.
Universitaires, 1981. Pp. 1207-1234, at p. 1231-1232.

"Aspetti della ricezione del Vaticano II nel Codice di diritto canoni-

co." In I1Vaticano M e la Chiesa. Ed. G. Alberigo and J.-P. Jossua.
Brescia: Paideia, 1985. Pp. 333-397, at pp. 349-350.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH

D'Avack, Pietro A. "II'Populus Dei' nella struttura e nelle funzioni odierne

della Chiesa." In Persona e ordinamento nella Chiesa: Atti del II Con-
gresso Internazionaledi Diritto Canonico, Milano, 10-16 settembre 1973.
Milano: Pubblicazione della Universiti Cattolica del Sacro Cuore, 1975.
Pp. 16-33, at pp. 22, 31-32.

Fransen, Piet. "La communione ecclesiale principio di vita." In ELEcclesiologia

del Vaticano II: dinamismi e prospettivi. Ed. G. Alberigo. Bologna: De-
honiane, 1981. Pp. 165-185, at pp. 176-177.

Ganoczy, Alexandre. "How can one evaluate Collegiality vis-A-vis Papal Pri-
macy?" In Papal Ministry in the Church. Ed. H. King. Concilium 64.
New York: Herder and Herder, 1971. Pp. 84-94, at pp. 91-92.

Granfield, Patrick. Ecclesial Cybernetics: A Study of Democracy in the

Church. New York: Macmillan, 1973. Pp. 177-178.

__ _ The Limits of the Papacy:Authority and Autonomy in the Church.

New York: Crossroad, 1987. Pp. 123-132.

Holbock, Ferdinand. "Das Mysterium der Kirche in dogmatischer Sicht." In

Mysterium Kirche in der Sicht der theologischen Disziplinen. Ed. E Hol-
bock and T. Sartory. Salzburg: MUller, 1962. 1:201-346, at p. 273.

Holstein, Henri. Hiirarchieet Peuple de Dieu d'apris Lumen Gentium. Paris:

Beauchesne, 1970. Pp. 23-28.

Jim6nez-Urresti, Teodoro. "L'autorit& du Pontife romain sur le coll~ge episco-

pal et, par son interm6diaire, sur I'Eglise universelle." In La collegialith
episcopale:Histoireet thologie.Paris: Cerf, 1965. Pp. 223-287, at p. 262.

Klostermann, Ferdinand. "Reform of Church Structures." In Rethinking the

Church. Ed. M. Cuminetti and E V.Johannes. London: Gill and Mac-
millan, 1970. Pp. 142-193, at pp. 155-156.

Kflng, Hans. The Council, Reform and Reunion. New York: Sheed and Ward,
1961. Pp. 169-185.

__ _ "The Petrine Office in Church and Council." Structures of the

Church. Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1968. Pp. 201-304,
at pp. 215ff.
 THE JURIST

__ _ "The Petrine Office and the Apostolic Office." The Living Church:
Reflections on the Second Vatican Council. London: Sheed and Ward,
1963. Pp. 333-369, at pp. 351-365.

de Lubac, Henri. Les iglises particuliiresdans l'Eglise universelle. Paris: Au-

bier, 1971. Pp. 113-115, 132-135.

McBrien, Richard P. The Remaking of the Church: An Agenda for Reform.

New York: Harper & Row, 1973. Pp. 88, 93, 103, 112, 128, 146, 157.

Onclin, Willy. "Le pouvoir de l'vque et le principe de la collegialit6." In La

Chiesa dopo ilConcilio: Atti del Congresso Internazionale di Diritto
Canonico, Roma, 14-19 gennaio 1970. Milano: Giuffr , 1972. 1:135-161,
at pp. 147-150.

Prieto, Alfonso A. "Los derechos subjectivos publicos en la Iglesia." In Iglesia

y Derecho: rabajos de la X Semana de Derecho Canonico. Salamanca:
Cervantes, 1965. Pp. 325-361, at p. 327.

Rahner, Karl. "Der Einzelne in der Kirche." Stimmen der Zeit 139 (1946-1947)
275.

_"Freedom in the Church." Theological Investigations, 2. Baltimore:

Helicon, 1963. Pp. 89-107.

_ _ "The Dignity and Freedom of Man." Ibid. Pp. 235-263, at pp. 259-
260.

_ _ "Peaceful Reflections on the Parochial Principle." Ibid. Pp. 283-

318.

"Notes on the Lay Apostolate." Ibid. Pp. 319-352.

Handbuch der Pastoraltheologie, 1. Freiburg: Herder, 1964. Pp.

211-215. Ibid., 2. Freiburg: Herder, 1966. Pp. 171-177.

de Reina, Victor. "Poder y sociedad en la Iglesia." In lglesia y Derecho. Pp.

99-132, at pp. 127-132.

Schwarz, Reinhold. "Grundrechtsstrukturen im Bereich von Weihe- und Hir-

tengewalt." In Les droitsfondamentauxdu chritien dans l'Eglise et dans
la soci th. Pp. 351-361, at p. 359.
 SUBSIDIARITY IN THE CHURCH 349

Thils, Gustave. La primauth pontificale: La doctrine de Vatican I, les voies

d'une revision. Gembloux: Duculot, 1972. Pp. 239-245.

Tillard, J. M. R. The Bishop of Rome. Wilmington: Glazier, 1983. Pp. 178-191.

Eglise d'Eglises: Liccl'siologie de communion. Paris: Cerf, 1987.

Pp. 343-355.

Virdis, Antonio. "De jure libertatis in Ecclesia considerationes." In La Chiesa

dopo il Concilio. 11/2: 1369-1379, at p. 1378.