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