Page 43 [43]
1.7. Secular and Ecclesiastical Perception of Subsidiarity
level has its own role. Although he did not use the term “subsidiarity”, the
natural law and the autonomy of communities that he emphasized paved the
way for the later formulation of the principle.
The emergence of the principle of subsidiarity in its modern form can be
dated to the end of the 19th century, when the challenges of industrialization,
capitalism and socialism forced the Church to formulate a clear social doctrine.
Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical Rerum Novarum” of 1891 can be considered a
landmark, focussing on workers’ rights and social justice. Although the
encyclical does not explicitly use the term subsidiarity, it does refer to a
balancing of the role of the state and smaller communities, emphasizing that
the state should not suppress the initiatives of families and local associations.
In Quadragesimo Anno (1931), Pope Pius XI articulated the principle of
subsidiarity as a cornerstone of Catholic social teaching, addressing the proper
ordering of responsibilities within society to balance individual initiative,
smaller communities, and the role of higher authorities. The encyclical, written
in the context of economic crises and rising totalitarianism, critiques both
excessive state control and unbridled individualism, proposing subsidiarity as
a guiding principle for social organization. This formulation made subsidiarity
a key concept in Catholic social teaching, emphasizing the balance between
the individual and the community, as well as the limited role of the state.
“As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed
conditions many things which were done by small associations in former
times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, that most weighty
principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken
in social philosophy: Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals
what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it
to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave
evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher
association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every
social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the members of
the body social, and never destroy and absorb them. 80. The supreme
authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle
matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate
its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and
effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can
do them: directing, watching, urging, restraining, as occasion requires and
necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more
perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in
observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social
9 Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum.. 15.5.
41