Author's Foreword

Author's Foreword

This story began on March 2, 2000, and went on for 2000 days. Some 200,000 spots were encoded. Over 150 inserters were built and installed and maintained at over 60 headends. Every day some 200 schedules were sent, and 4000 logs were retrieved.
And each day, subsidiarity was performed according to some 1200 portal spot requests, requiring the transport of about 120 spots.
Most of the time I sat around in the Control Room so I could Watch everything run, but once in a while I got to push the buttons. (see below)
It’s all over now, except for some wonderful friends, a handful of stories, a novel, a poem or two, and some jokes. And this book – which, like Tolkien’s story of the Sun and Moon in his Silmarillion, is the last radiant fruit of the system on which my co-workers and I worked so long to erect and maintain. This Tolkien reference is no meaningless allusion: the idea of the Tree is very important, as you will see. I am a Chestertonian as well as a computer scientist, and so my references may sometimes seem distant from my subject. But then, as Chesterton says, "I never can really feel that there is such a thing as a different subject." [ILN Feb 17, 1906 CW27:126]

Paradoxically yours,
Doctor Thursday

The author, some years ago, at the controls of the machinery which performed subsidiarity.

Part I: An Introduction To Subsidiarity

Part I

An Introduction To Subsidiarity


“Whosoever is the greater among you, let him be your minister.”
Mt 20:26

“For I have received of the Lord
that which also I delivered unto you...”
St. Paul
1 Cor 11:23

Quidquid recipitur secundum modum recipientis recipitur.
“Whatever is received is received
according to the mode of the receiver.”
“an ancient principle of knowledge”
Thomistic Metaphysics 19

All text and pictures copyright © 2008 by Dr. Thursday

I.1 Introduction

Chapter 1: Introduction

The word “subsidiarity” is showing up more and more frequently in these days. Why? Because it is an important idea. Subsidiarity has been a major component of a special branch of philosophy called Catholic Social Teaching of the Roman Catholic Church for over a century – but for most of that time, it was thought to be merely an abstraction, or at best an ideal or example, which might be admired and even taught as a guiding principle, but was never really implemented. Or maybe thought not implementable at all.
Now that has changed. A large cable television company needed an efficient technique of delivering TV commercials in electronic form to a number of geographically distant sites. Machinery for transport and playback was designed and implemented, and the system per­formed its duties for more than five years, delivering over 500 commercials every week. It was precisely nothing less than subsidi­arity turned into software. When the contract expired, the system was abandoned though it had been successful in accomplishing its goals. Indeed, the results we observed strongly urged a deeper consideration of the abstract idea.
This book, then, will describe the idea of subsidiarity. After a short review of its history, I will present the cable TV spot transport problem, together with the solution we accomplished, thus providing a concrete analogy for discussion. Then I will consider some additional examples to extend, enrich, and apply the analogy, and add some concluding thoughts to complete this initial study.

What is Subsidiarity?
Subsidiarity is nothing more than common sense, as applied to the governance or control of an organization, or of collections (systems) of organizations. It is a simple idea, almost mathematical in tone, as it must be in order to have such vast application. Like other profound ideas, it can be expressed in a variety of forms, as it has been applied to the great variety of cases throughout histo­ry. The fundamental idea appeared at length in Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical, Rerum Novarum. Forty years later, Pius XI reduced it to a succinct but negative form:

It is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies.
[QuadragesimoAnno 5]

In 1961, seventy years after Leo XIII, John XXIII called it the “principle of subsidiary function” which he simplified to “subsidiarity” in his 1963 Pacem in Terris. Perhaps the cleanest and most positive form is also one of the newest, formulated by John Paul II and appearing in 1991:

A community of a higher order ... should support a community of a lower order in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.
[Centesimus Annus 48]

Subsidiarity is such an obvious idea that it is enshrined in witticisms such as “Keep it simple, stupid” and “Let’s not make a federal case out of this.” It is ancient: Moses used it, as we shall see when we explore its history. It is modern, being able to serve as the foundation of computer software for file transport by satellite, as I will demonstrate in detail.
Subsidiarity is also a paradox: it divides and also unites. Subsidiarity is setting forth one single task as a goal – as well as specifying separate func­tions or duties to be performed independently yet harmoniously, in order that the goal be achieved. When subsidiarity is in effect, it produces that mystical inversion where the last shall be first and the first are last [Lk 13:30].
It is not correct to say that subsidiarity is a way as if it were merely one among many possible approaches – it actually is the only way to do things – or at least the only way which really has any hope of being practical, efficient, and result-producing. Though subsidiarity is a general structure or strategy (it might be called a paradigm, or a “meta-rule”) – and not a detailed and comprehensive specification, any given system will be more (or less) successful at its purposes to the extent it is in harmony (or dissonance) with subsidiarity. And the larger and more complex a system is, the greater will be the need for subsidiarity – and the more dreadful will be the failures for neglecting it.
As the term is generally used in documents of the Popes and social philosophy, subsidiarity refers to strictly human organi­zations: families, businesses, trade unions, and the various forms of government from local to international – as well as all their varied interactions and contacts. Why is this? Because humans act according to will. And the human will is not ultimately subject to programming or control in the mechanical sense: it must be appealed to by truly powerful words like humility, duty and dedication, generosity, kindness and concern. Subsidiarity is a wide-scale implementation of the Golden Rule: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” [Lk 6:31]
For subsidiarity is about assistance, not about authority – subsidiarity illuminates the organization, to make that assistance effective in achieving its purposes. All organizations have some kind of internal structure, which produces order among the components of that organization according to some “layer” or “level” of characteristics of the components. Such organizations also have a fundamental goal or purpose towards which their operations are directed. Subsidiarity simply means that there is a right way of maintaining the relationship between the levels of the organization, in order to accomplish its purpose: specifically, a “higher” level is to support and assist the “lower” levels, but not to interfere with or (as Pius XI said) to arrogate to itself the work of those levels. Subsidiarity produces the “right order” within the organization which is the best way of accomplishing the purpose or design or goal of that organization. Surprisingly, this right order means that the lowest levels are those which most directly achieve the goals, relying on help provided by the higher levels. This order is the inverse of that usually perceived and expected by the modern world, but is both productive as well as just.
As you are about to see, the term “subsidiarity” can also be applied to non-human systems – if only by analogy. This may seem somewhat unusual, but it is nothing more than the device St. Paul used in explaining an even more mystical idea by analogy with the human body:

For as the body is one and hath many members; and all the members of the body, whereas they are many, yet are one body: So also is Christ. [1 Cor 12:12]

This is the beginning of his famous “Analogy of the Body” – indeed, the human body will also play an important role in our discussion.
This scientific, mathematical, and computational approach will help in under­standing the design of subsidiarity, and assist in characterizing its simplicity, its efficiency, and its practicality. All this, we hope, will result in the fuller application of subsidiarity to all human activities, with a concomitant improvement in the human condition.

All text and pictures copyright © 2008 by Dr. Thursday

I.2 Some History

Chapter 2
Some History

Therefore every scribe instructed in the kingdom of heaven, is like to a man that is a householder, who bringeth forth out of his treasure new things and old.
Matthew 13:52

Late have I loved thee, oh Beauty so ancient and so new!
St. Augustine, Confessions Book 10 Chapter 27

Paradoxically, subsidiarity is both new and old. The term, in the sense we use it, dates only to 1963, and even that particular sense was only first sketched in 1891 – but its roots stretch far back into time.
Subsidiarity as an idea is fundamentally a very positive one, arising not from a scheme to prohibit but to assist. The word itself comes from the Latin military term subsidium: originally this meant “the troops stationed in the rear, reserved troops, a reserve, auxiliary forces.” [Cassell’s Latin-English and English-Latin Dictionary, 549] Another translation reveals even more: “subsidium: the troops stationed in reserve in the third line of battle (behind the principes), the line of reserve, reserve-ranks, triarii. [Lewis and Short, A Latin Dictionary, 1781] This definition brings up two important points, which we shall see in greater detail when we explore our example:
(a) This is a third line, not a simple main and backup arrangement.
(b) This arrangement specifies the order of battle, not of command: that is, this is a tactical plan for the purpose of the matters at hand.

To clarify, the order of battle is this [taken from Cassell’s]:
First line: the hastati or spearmen (a hasta is a spear or javelin).
Second line: the principes (before the hasta was introduced, they had been the first-line (the “principal”) warriors.
Third line: the triarii: the oldest and most experienced Roman soldiers, third behind the other two lines, ready to help those in need.

By generalization to non-military use, subsidium came to mean a reserve body or an auxiliary corps, and then by abstraction “help, assistance” and “aid, means of aid” and other related meanings. The English words “subsidiary,” “subsidy” and “to subsidize” derive from subsidium.
I noted that the Latin term refers to the third line of defence. It is not merely another line, a simply secondary line, but the term suggests a more complex structure: a system of levels with definite rules governing their interaction, which is what our modern usage implies. This layered idea is much more ancient than Rome. The idea of subsidiarity, at least in rough form, was suggested to Moses by his father-in-law Jethro. The form may be strikingly familiar to computer scientists:

And the next day Moses sat to judge the people, who stood by Moses from morning until night. And when his kinsman [Jethro] had seen all things that he did among the people, he said: What is it that thou dost among the people? Why sittest thou alone, and all the people wait from morning till night? And Moses answered him: The people come to me to seek the judgment of God? And when any controversy falleth out among them, they come to me to judge between them, and to shew the precepts of God, and his laws. But he said: The thing thou dost is not good. Thou art spent with foolish labour, both thou, and this people that is with thee; the business is above thy strength, thou alone canst not bear it. But hear my words and counsels, and God shall be with thee. Be thou to the people in those things that pertain to God, to bring their words to him: And to shew the people the ceremonies, and the manner of worshipping; and the way wherein they ought to walk, and the work that they ought to do. And provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, in whom there is truth, and that hate avarice, and appoint of them rulers of thousands, and of hundreds, and of fifties, and of tens, who may judge the people at all times: and when any great matter soever shall fall out, let them refer it to thee, and let them judge the lesser matters only: that so it may be lighter for thee, the burden being shared out unto others. If thou dost this, thou shalt fulfil the commandment of God, and shalt be able to bear his precepts: and all this people shall return to their places with peace. And when Moses heard this, he did all things that he had suggested unto him. And choosing able men out of all Israel, he appointed them rulers of the people, rulers over thousands, and over hundreds, and over fifties, and over tens. And they judged the people at all times: and whatsoever was of greater difficulty they referred to him, and they judged the easier cases only.
[Exodus 18:13-26, emphasis added]

This raises some interesting questions about the history of Israel, and the subsequent structure of its government. In particular, since there were about 600,000 men (see e.g. Num. 1:46) the application of Jethro’s scheme would still mean that some 600 of the highest “rulers” would still need to consult Moses. While such historical and numerical details need not concern us here, it is clear that Jethro’s plan was implemented: Moses “did all things that he [Jethro] had suggested” [Ex 18:24] That is, a layered or “tree-like” arrangement of judges, to simplify the handling of problems among the Israelites, thereby reducing the burden for Moses, and also getting their problems resolved without long waiting periods.

The Greeks and Romans
Plato’s Republic and Aristotle’s Politics explore the nature and forms of human organization. Broadly, this was understood according to four levels: the state, the village, the household, the individual. Nature, law, and custom established the various necessary relations among these levels. Complications arise in such discussions because these ancient philosophers consistently taught that the State as the highest level of organization was therefore the most important, and the individual (even a citizen) was meaningless in comparison. They also considered slavery as “natural.” Such pre-Christian writers lack the understanding of the infinite worth of the human person. Strangely, for all their insistence on the supreme importance of practicality – that is, getting the job done – they do not seem to have grasped the higher efficiency which is possible when subsidiarity is respected.

The Gospels
I might quote just one or two verses of instruction by Jesus, in order to begin suggesting the concept of the levels on which subsidiarity is built. For example: “He that heareth you heareth Me: and he that despiseth you despiseth Me: and he that despiseth Me despiseth Him that sent Me.” [Lk 10:16] “I am the vine; you the branches. He that abideth in Me, and I in him, the same beareth much fruit: for without Me you can do nothing.” [Jn 15:5] But there is a story which will explain the whole thing very nicely:

And the third day, there was a marriage in Cana of Galilee: and the mother of Jesus was there.And Jesus also was invited, and His disciples, to the marriage. And the wine failing, the mother of Jesus saith to Him: They have no wine. And Jesus saith to her: Woman, what is that to Me and to thee? My hour is not yet come. His mother saith to the waiters: Whatsoever he shall say to you, do ye. Now there were set there six waterpots of stone, according to the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three measures apiece. Jesus saith to them: Fill the waterpots with water.And they filled them up to the brim. And Jesus saith to them: Draw out now and carry to the chief steward of the feast. And they carried it. And when the chief steward had tasted the water made wine and knew not whence it was, but the waiters knew who had drawn the water: the chief steward calleth the bridegroom, And saith to him: Every man at first setteth forth good wine, and when men have well drunk, then that which is worse. But thou hast kept the good wine until now. [John 2:1-10, emphasis added]

In this very short story, we see subsidiarity, acting in three levels. The waiters encountered a need they were unable to satisfy. They spoke to Mary regarding that need. She could not satisfy that need herself, so she appealed to her Son. She does not act on, or even interpret His reply, “Woman, what is that...” but simply directs the waiters to carry out whatever He might order. All the deepest aspects and virtues of subsidiarity are herein exemplified: communication, honesty, humility, trust, obedience. After we have explored our topic in greater detail, we will again consider the Wedding at Cana in the light of our discoveries.

St. Thomas Aquinas
St. Thomas tells us that it belongs to wisdom to set things in order [Summa Theologica II-II Q45 A6, quoting Aristotle’s Metaphysics I:2] Thus, our use of wisdom, that greatest of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, must result in order in every form of society: family and government, work and recreation, business and education. As we shall see, it is this idea of an ordered society which is the heart of subsidiarity. And as we might expect, we find important aspects of this topic treated in the most interesting places. For example, in considering God’s providence, we read:

Again. Whoever makes a thing for the sake of an end makes use of it for that end. Now it has been shown above that whatsoever has being in any way is an effect of God: and that God makes all things for an end which is Himself. Therefore He uses everything by directing it to its end. But this is to govern. Therefore God, by His providence, is the Governor of all.
Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3 Chapter 64

Hiding in the background of our discussions, then, is this fundamental definition: To govern is to direct things to their end. That is, the governing or ordering of things has to do with what their “end” or purpose is. We might then expect to find important information when Aquinas deals with the issue of purpose or order. For example, in explaining the existence of chance or luck and its relation to God, we find this important detail:

...the diversity of order in causes must be in keeping with diversity of orderamong things. ... It belongs to the order of divine providence that there be order and degrees among causes. The higher a cause is above its effect, the greater its power, so that its causality extends to a greater number of things. But the intention of a natural cause never extends further than its power: for such an intention would be in vain. Consequently the intention of an individual cause cannot possibly extend to all possible contingencies.
Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3 Chapter 74

And in the consideration of the existence of evil, which is a purpose contrary to God’s purpose, there is this:

In every government the best thing is that provision be made for the things governed, according to their mode: for in this consists the justice of the regime. Consequently even as it would be contrary to the right notion of human rule, if the governor of a state were to forbid men to act according to their various duties – except perhaps for the time being, on account of some particular urgency.... ... The good of the whole is of more account than the good of the part. Therefore it belongs to a prudent governor to overlook a lack of goodness in a part, that there may be an increase of goodness in the whole: thus the builder hides the foundation of a house underground, that the whole house may stand firm.
Summa Contra Gentiles Book 3 Chapter 71

Speaking of order, it is no pun that the name of the sacrament of the priesthood is Holy Orders. Aquinas explains the nature of order in general, in preparation for a discussion of that sacrament:

A power directed to a principal effect naturally has lesser powers administering to it. This may be clearly seen in the arts: the arts which dispose the material are subservient to the art which introduces the art-form: and the art that introduces the art-form is subservient to the art which is concerned with the end of the art-product: and again the art that is concerned with an anterior end is subservient to the art that is concerned with the ultimate end. Thus the art of wood-cutting serves the ship-building art; and the latter serves the art of sailing; and this latter serves the art of commerce or war or the like, in so far as sailing may be directed to various ends.
Summa Contra Gentiles Book 4 Chapter 75

While the above excerpts assist us in the broad view of government and organization, we have not yet touched on the sense of interrelation between these orders which is the deeper character of subsidiarity. As above, we find choice hints in the most curious places: for example, in considering the question “Whether it is lawful for the accused to escape judgment by appealing?” Aquinas rebuts an argument in these words:

A man should submit to the lower authority in so far as the latter observes the order of the higher authority. If the lower authority departs from the order of the higher, we ought not to submit to it, for instance “if the proconsul order one thing and the emperor another,” according to a gloss on Rm. 13:2. Now when a judge oppresses anyone unjustly, in this respect he departs from the order of the higher authority, whereby he is obliged to judge justly. Hence it is lawful for a man who is oppressed un­justly, to have recourse to the authority of the higher power, by appealing either before or after sentence has been pronounced.
Summa Theologica II-II Q69 A3 ad 1

And as Aquinas begins to study the concept of the failure of order called “sin,” he explains the ordering of all human behavior:

...there should be a threefold order in man: one in relation to the rule of reason, in so far as all our actions and passions should be commensurate with the rule of reason: another order is in relation to the rule of the Divine Law, whereby man should be directed in all things: and if man were by nature a solitary animal, this twofold order would suffice. But since man is naturally a civic and social animal, as is proved in [Aristotle’s] Politics i, 2,hence a third order is necessary, whereby man is directed in relation to other men among whom he has to dwell.
Summa Theologica I-II Q72 A4

As we shall see, subsidiarity acts according to this threefold order:
(1) According to the rule of reason, as means are directed to an end, because subsidiarity is about the accomplishment of a purpose.
(2) According to the rule of Divine Law, by which we know we are not our own ends. Our ultimate purpose is in God, and all lesser purposes must tend towards that purpose, so (consistent with the Great Command, Dt 6:4-5), we must use all our power in the performance of God’s will: so subsidiarity means that we must both provide assistance when called upon, and seek aid when we need it.
(3) According to the direction in relation to other men, because from the beginning God said “it is not good for Man to be alone” [Gn 2:18] and that society is to be governed by the “Golden Rule.” [Lk 6:31]
Thus, subsidiarity means that we must be as ready to assist others as we would want them to be ready to provide us with assistance.

Cardinal Newman’s The Idea of a University
One of the most important tasks of a computer programmer is debugging: that is, studying a problem, defect, or failure in order to find out what went wrong – then formulating a correction to keep the problem from recurring. Other fields have similar tasks: Aquinas does not simply state a truth or merely propose an argument: he gives the objections of others, and then replies to them. More recently, John Henry Cardinal Newman did something similar in his 1852 exploration of higher education called The Idea of a University. Chief among the defects he noted was the failure of universities to be universal: they omitted or belittled one or another field of study, with the result that its proper subject was then absorbed or appropriated by other fields. (Newman applied this argument to Theology as a special case, but 150 years later the same error is still being made, with respect to theology and to other fields.) Newman’s discussion applies to our topic because it reveals the importance of the fundamental purpose of the system – when that purpose is violated, the system fails.
Newman studied that vast and complex human system which is the transmission of knowledge: a University is about knowledge, and knowledge is about truth, and truth requires the activity of all the fields of study. Hence, he pointed out, the omission of one component destroys the equilibrium of the whole system of knowledge:

To blot it out is nothing short, if I may so speak, of unravelling the web of University Teaching. ... if you drop any science out of the circle of knowledge, you cannot keep its place vacant for it; that science is forgotten; the other sciences close up, or, in other words, they exceed their proper bounds, and intrude where they have no right. ... a science which exceeds its limits falls into error.
[The Idea of a University 64, 67; emphasis added.]

As we shall see, this sounds very much like a failure in subsidiarity. Newman proceeds to set forth even more important points which we shall see in greater detail:

The human mind cannot keep from speculating and systematizing; and if Theology is not allowed to occupy its own territory, adjacent sciences, nay, sciences which are quite foreign to Theology, will take possession of it. And this occupation is proved to be a usurpation by this circumstance, that these foreign sciences will assume certain principles as true, and act upon them, which they neither have authority to lay down themselves, nor appeal to any other higher science to lay down for them.
[Newman, The Idea of a University, 87-88; emphasis added.]

Observe carefully the structure Newman is sketching out: a system of sciences – that is, of all fields of study, not only the technical ones – all working in pursuit of knowledge and of truth, but each in its own specialized manner, and according to its own proper rules.
Newman’s work, then, provides several ideas which are important to our topic: the idea of a system which has been set up for some purpose; the idea of a system which is dependent upon the proper and united functioning of every one of its components if its purpose is to be attained; the idea that the components are specialized in their various tasks, in pursuit of the fundamental purpose of the system. Also, he warns of the system’s failure arising from unjust intrusion of one domain into another, and suggests that within the system there could be higher levels of authority to which appeal can be made when special cases must be addressed. Thus we begin to see hints of the great things which came not quite forty years later.

All text and pictures copyright © 2008 by Dr. Thursday

I.3 The Modern Era: "Catholic Social Teaching"

Chapter 3
The Modern Era: “Catholic Social Teaching”

Rerum Novarum
The idea of subsidiarity was first sketched by Leo XIII in his famous encyclical, Rerum Novarum, published in 1891. He founded the idea upon the family, setting it in logical opposition to the State – and thereby inverting the hierarchy which puts the State ahead of its components. Chesterton uses this inverted, upside-down view to indicate the correct perception of reality:

...you remember that he [Peter] was crucified upside down. I've often fancied his humility was rewarded by seeing in death the beautiful vision of his boyhood. He also saw the landscape as it really is: with the stars like flowers, and the clouds like hills, and all men hanging on the mercy of God.”
[GKCThe Poet and the Lunatics 21-22]

Indeed, Leo XIII’s work seems dramatically linked to Chesterton’s, in showing the importance of distinguishing things which need to be kept separate. Consider that Jesus said “Think ye, that I am come to give peace on earth? I tell you, no; but separation” [Lk 12:51] and Chesterton’s insightful inversion of Mt 19:6: “Those whom God has sundered, shall no man join.” [GKC, The Common Man 143] In the same manner, Leo XIII divided the social system into State and Family.
Having effected the correct separation of the components in the social system, Leo then restored order to it by lifting up the lowest part. This lesson, as Chesterton pointed out, “is the lesson of ‘Cinderella’ which is the same as that of the Magnificat – exaltavit humiles. [GKC, Orthodoxy CW1:253, quoting Lk 1:52 (Vulgate); the Latin means “He has lifted up the lowly.”] Henceforth as Jesus predicted, the lowest was to rank ahead of the highest: “And behold, they are last that shall be first: and they are first that shall be last.” [Lk 13:30] And we shall see this in even greater detail, because “That is the paradox of the whole position; that henceforth the highest thing can only work from below.” [GKC, The Everlasting Man CW2:313. Also cf. Jn 13:2-15]
Here, then, is the kernel element, or necessary foundation, of subsidiarity: The system is composed of parts, and the parts form a hierarchy – an ordered arrangement of layers – within the system. With this in mind, let us see how Leo proceeds:

20. It is a most sacred law of nature that the father of a family see that his offspring are provided with all the necessities of life, and nature even prompts him to desire to provide and to furnish his chil­dren, who, in fact reflect and in a sense continue his person, with the means of decently protecting themselves against harsh fortune in the uncertain­ties of life. He can do this surely in no other way than by owning fruitful goods to transmit by inher­itance to his children. As already noted, the family like the State is by the same token a society in the strictest sense of the term, and is governed by its own proper authority, namely, by that of the fa­ther. Wherefore, assuming, of course, that those limits be observed which are fixed by its immediate purpose, the family assuredly possesses rights, at least equal with those of civil society, in respect to choosing and employing the things necessary for its protection and its just liberty. We say “at least equal” because, inasmuch as domestic living togeth­er is prior both in thought and in fact to uniting into a polity, it follows that its rights and duties are also prior and more in conformity with nature. But if citizens, if families, after becoming participants in common life and society, were to experience injury in a commonwealth instead of help, impair­ment of their rights instead of protection, society would be something to be repudiated rather than to be sought for.
21. To desire, therefore, that the civil power should enter arbitrarily into the privacy of homes is a great and pernicious error. If a family perchance is in such extreme difficulty and is so completely without plans that it is entirely unable to help it­self, it is right that the distress be remedied by public aid, for each individual family is a part of the community. Similarly, if anywhere there is a grave violation of mutual rights within the family walls, public authority shall restore to each his right; for this is not usurping the rights of citizens, but protecting and confirming them with just and due care. Those in charge of public affairs, howev­er, must stop here; nature does not permit them to go beyond these limits. Paternal authority is such that it can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State, because it has the same origin in common with that of man’s own life. “Children are a part of their father,” and, as it were, a kind of extension of the father’s person; and, strictly speaking, not through themselves, but through the medium of the family society in which they are begotten, they enter into and participate in civil society. And for the very reason that children “are by nature part of their father...before they have the use of free will, they are kept under the care of their parents.” [ST II-II Q10A12] Inasmuch as the Socialists, therefore, disregard care by parents and in its place introduce care by the State, they act against natural justice and dissolve the structure of the home.
[Rerum Novarum (1891)]

From this excerpt, Leo XIII might be said to be the “founder” of subsidiarity – but he did not use that word in Rerum Novarum.
I wish I had room to explore the extent to which this great document influenced Chesterton. It may be the substrate on which he built his What’s Wrong With the World (1910) and The Outline of Sanity (1926), and he seems to have made occasional indirect reference to it (e.g. Illustrated London News essay for Nov. 17, 1923 CW33:216-217; The Everlasting Man CW2:186; St. Thomas Aquinas CW2:544), but it was so much in his mind that in 1926 he mentioned it in a mystery story: “The Oracle of the Dog” in The Incredulity of Father Brown. [CW13:83]

Forty Years Later
But in the Roman Catholic Church, Rerum Novarum had a very significant effect. So important did this encyclical prove – the first of the “modern” studies of Church teaching on human society – that in 1931 Pope Pius XI wrote an encyclical, Quadragesimo Anno, specifically commemorating its forti­eth anniversary.

5. It is indeed true, as history clearly proves, that owing to the change in social conditions, much that was formerly done by small bodies can nowadays be accomplished only by large corporations. None the less, just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to the community at large what private enterprise and industry can accom­plish, so, too, it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order for a larger and higher organization to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower bodies. This is a fundamental principle of social philosophy, unshaken and unchangeable...
[Quadragesimo Anno (1931) emphasis added]

Here, Pius gives a succinct and general (though negative) form of the concept – yet we still do not have the term “subsidiarity.” It is this encyclical, however, not Leo’s, which most later documents give as a reference.

John XXIII Gives Us the Term
John XXIII released his Mater Et Magistra in 1961, seventy years after Leo XIII’s work, examining the topic in ever greater detail, and with ever greater concern. Here, the idea proposed by Leo and discussed by Pius is finally given a distinguishing name.

52. But – for reasons explained by Our predecessors – the civil power must also have a hand in the economy. It has to promote production in a way best calculated to achieve social progress and the well-being of all citizens.
53. And in this work of directing, stimulating, co-ordinating, supplying and integrating, its guiding principle must be the “principle of subsidiary func­tion” formulated by Pius XI in Quadragesimo Anno, “This is a fundamental principle of social philoso­phy, unshaken and unchangeable... Just as it is wrong to withdraw from the individual and commit to a community what private enterprise and indus­try can accomplish, so too it is an injustice, a grave evil and a disturbance of right order, for a larger and higher association to arrogate to itself functions which can be performed efficiently by smaller and lower societies. Of its very nature the true aim of all social activity should be to help members of the social body, but never to destroy or absorb them.”
54. The present advance in scientific knowledge and productive technology clearly puts it within the power of the public authority to a much greater degree than ever before to reduce imbalances which may exist between different branches of the economy or between different regions within the same country or even between the different peoples of the world. It also puts into the hands of public authority a greater means for limiting fluctuations in the economy and for providing effective meas­ures to prevent the recurrence of mass unemploy­ment. Hence the insistent demands on those in authority – since they are responsible for the common good – to increase the degree and scope of their activities in the economic sphere, and to devise ways and means and set the necessary machinery in motion for the attainment of this end.
55. But however extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights. Among these is a man’s right and duty to be primarily responsible for his own upkeep and that of his family. Hence every economic system must permit and facilitate the free development of pro­ductive activity.
[Mater et Magistra (1961)]

Just two years later, the cumbersome “the principle of subsidiary function” was reduced to the simpler term “subsidiarity” – which appeared for the first time in John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris, as he applied it to a system even larger than the Family/State of Leo:

140. Moreover, just as it is necessary in each state that relations which the public authority has with its citizens, families and intermediate associations be controlled and regulated by the principle of subsidiarity, it is equally necessary that the rela­tionships which exist between the world-wide public authority and the public authority of indi­vidual nations be governed by the same principle. This means that the world-wide public authority must tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural character which are posed by the universal common good. For, because of the vastness, complexity and urgency of those problems, the public authorities of the individual states are not in a position to tackle them with any hope of a positive solution.
[Pacem in Terris (1963) emphasis added]

The idea, though not the term, was evident in Paul VI’s Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens in 1971, commemorating the 80th anniversary of Leo’s work. Similarly, the 90th anniversary was commemorated by John Paul II’s Laborem Exercens, dealing with the nature of human work.
One hundred years after Leo’s work, sixty after Pius XI’s “nega­tive” form, and nearly forty after John XIII’s first use of the term, John Paul II gives this “positive” definition of subsidiarity in the work specifically celebrating the centennial of Rerum Novarum:

48. Here again the principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common good.[Centesimus Annus (1991)]

Just nine years later, the above passage was put into the source code for a computer program, and a high-tech company came to rely on subsidiarity.

I will now proceed to tell you about it.

All text and pictures copyright © 2008 by Dr. Thursday