The word ‘subsidiarity’ is admittedly a bit of a mouthful, however it describes one of the most important principles in Catholic social teaching. The word is derived from subsidium meaning "a help, aid, relief” (from which we get the English word ‘subsidy’).
The basic principle of subsidiarity is that in the natural social order, matters ought to be handled by the most immediately localised, competent authority. To frame it differently, we could also say that our duty of care is proportionate to our proximity to the situation. This principle is neatly summed up in the old adage “Charity begins at home”.

Indeed, to understand the concept of ‘subsidiarity’ we can take the example of raising children. The primary duty of care for every child lies with the child’s parents – they are (as a general rule) in the best position to make decisions for their child, because of their domestic, moral and biological proximity to the child. After the parents, the wider family have a duty of care for the child, and then perhaps close family friends. Beyond that, the school or parish communities might have some influence; and beyond that the wider community; and finally the State itself will claim some interest in the child’s welfare. What is absolutely clear from this principle, is that in the aforementioned example, it is not the role of the State to function as the primary carer of the child. This would run completely counter to the principle of subsidiarity. Yet we see this happen in many authoritarian States (eg. Communist China) where the state decides virtually every aspect of the child’s life. Any State that seeks to usurp the role of parents as primary carers and educators is violating the natural law of subsidiarity.

The principle of subsidiarity becomes especially salient in the realm of social welfare. Many Western nations, including Australia now have extremely well-funded social welfare systems.  On the whole it is a good thing that those who struggle can easily access quite generous government assistance. However, there is an unintended negative consequence of creating an over-developed welfare state: namely, people no longer understand their own personal responsibility to help people at the local level. Now virtually everyone assumes that every social problem ought to be solved at the level of State or federal government (invariably at the expense of the tax-payer). In many ways the creation of the welfare State constitutes the precise inverse of the principle of subsidiarity. Instead of solving local problems at the local level, they are dealt with in an extremely inefficient manner by the State’s bloated mega-bureaucracies, by professionals who have no real relationship to the people they are supposed to be helping. Consequently welfare states have a tendency to create systems of dependency, that diminish personal responsibility and agency, whilst not addressing the underlying issues.

In a previous era when government subsidies were not nearly so expansive, people were far more inclined to see the needs of those around them and take action. They would help their elderly neighbour with the grocery shopping, or cut their lawns, or drop off a pot of soup. This spirit of charity fosters a sensitivity to the needs of those around us, and sense of personal responsibility. Even forty years ago people were far more likely to serve as volunteers with various charitable organisations: St Vincent de Paul, Salvation Army, Brotherhood of St Lawrence, local soup vans, etc. Many of these organisations now struggle to keep going because they lack the volunteers that they have always relied upon to function efficiently. Jesus’ parable of the Lazarus and the Rich Man (see Luke 16:19-31) is a pointed lesson about the importance of seeing the needs of one’s neighbour. It is to those who live in our immediate neighbourhood that we owe a special duty of care.

If this is true of the wider community, then it is especially true of the family of the Church. Among the precepts of the Church binding upon all the faithful is the injunction that they provide for the needs of the Church. The 1983 Code of Canon Laws expresses it thus:

“Christ’s faithful have the obligation to provide for the needs of the Church, so that the Church has available to it those things which are necessary for divine worship, for works of the apostolate and of charity, and for the worthy support of its ministers.” (CIC Can 222)

The principle of subsidiarity means that one has a particular duty to provide support for one’s local parish, rather than “the Church” more abstractly considered as a whole. This is a normative part of the reciprocal rights and responsibilities between the pastor and the parishioners, since each exercises a duty of care to the other: “Christ’s faithful have the right to be assisted by their pastors from the spiritual riches of the Church, especially by the word of God and the sacraments.” (Can 213) The duty of care of every pastor, therefore, lies principally towards those of the parishes to which he has been assigned.

In the tradition of Catholic social teaching there is a natural suspicion of centralised powers that overstep the bounds of their rightful competence or authority. Indeed, this even applies to the Church’s own system of governance. In every Diocese in the world the Pope has assigned a local Bishop who has the competence to oversee the pastoral care of his flock (the word for bishop in Greek, episkopos = overseer). It is not the role of the Pope to micromanage all the dioceses of the world, indeed this would inevitably cause serious problems. By the same token the bishop appoints priests to each of the parishes of his diocese; likewise it is not the role of bishop to micromanage all of the parishes in his diocese. Experience shows that (on the whole) parishes run much better with a local pastor who has on-the-ground knowledge of the people, places and particular circumstances that enables him to make decisions for the good of the parish. The bishop gives his priests the canonical authority to make those decisions that fall within his competence, hopefully acting for the good of the parish. At the level of the parish we can likewise apply the same principle of subsidiarity. No parish priest should have to micromanage every aspect of the running of his parish – this is both burdensome and inefficient; on the contrary he should enjoin the help of those with the relevant skills and competence to assist him in his mission, each according to his gifts and capacities. For this reason, the priest relies upon the expertise, generosity and availability of his people in contributing to the building up of the parish.

As we enter into this second week of our Parish Thanksgiving Campaign, I extent to the parishioners the invitation to prayerfully discern how you might contribute to the parish – with your time, talents, sacrificial giving and prayers. There are already innumerable parishioners who give so generously of themselves and their resources, and who have continued to do so over many years: your generosity is never taken for granted. For my part, I will strive to be a faithful steward of the patrimony (spiritual and material) that has been entrusted to my care as Parish Priest of Lilydale and Healesville, for the glory of God and the sanctification of His Holy People. Working together in mission, we can help continue to build up Christ’s kingdom in this little corner of the world.