Page 43 [43]
OCR
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
