TheoFonsAd fontes fidei

Magnifica Humanitas

MH · Leo XIV · 2026 · LA · 245 paragraphi · vatican.va ↗

The principle of subsidiarity stems from the very same understanding of the human person that has guided our reflection on dignity and the common good. If every woman and man is called to take ownership of his or her own life and to contribute to the formation of society, then social institutions must also respect and support this responsibility. The Social Doctrine of the Church refers to subsidiarity as the principle according to which the role of individuals, families, local communities and intermediary organizations should not be supplanted by higher-level authorities. Moreover, higher-level institutions must recognize, protect and promote the freedom and creativity of lower-level entities, coordinating their contributions so that they can cooperate effectively for the common good. 91Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 187.

Starting with Leo XIII and the beginnings of modern social teaching, the Church has insisted that neither the individual nor the family should be subsumed by the State, but should be allowed to act freely, as far as possible, without harming the common good. 92Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), 26: ASS 23 (1890-1891), 656. Saint John Paul II took up and developed this perspective, noting that the political community is at the service of civil society and that the State must protect the common good, intervening when necessary, but without permanently supplanting the responsibilities of intermediary organizations and social institutions. 93Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 11: AAS 83 (1991), 806-807. Subsidiarity does not justify the State’s disengagement, but rather guides its actions. Indeed, public intervention is necessary precisely to enable all social actors to fulfill their mission without being stifled. It is the responsibility of the political community to create the conditions that allow individuals, families, associations and intermediary organizations to fulfil their mission in society, without being replaced or reduced to mere facilitators. 94Cf. ibid.

This principle encourages us to move beyond any form of paternalistic or welfare-based management of societal life, but instead to promote a culture of shared responsibility in a State that values citizens’ initiative, and a civil society capable of forging bonds and mobilizing energies in the service of the common good. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, decisions are made at the closest level possible to the persons involved, thereby fostering community life and avoiding people being presented with decisions that have already been taken. In this way people can participate in the decision-making process. When families, associations, local communities, volunteer organizations and those in the so-called “third sector” are recognized and supported, social life becomes more accessible to people, services become more attuned to real needs, and solutions are more creative and respectful of the dignity of each person. 95Cf. ibid., 48: AAS 83 (1991), 852-854.

The principle of subsidiarity applies especially in the context of the digital revolution. Here, the highest level is not the State, but rather major economic and technological actors that exercise de facto power over the conditions of everyday life. This level, which monopolizes expertise, data and decision-making authority, involves companies and platforms that define conditions for access, rules of visibility, forms of interaction, and even economic opportunities. The principle of subsidiarity requires that such processes not be imposed from above in an opaque and unilateral manner, but instead be directed toward the common good with transparency, accountability and meaningful forms of participation (including independent checks, transparency regarding algorithms, equitable access to data and avenues for recourse). 96Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 169: AAS 112 (2020), 1028.

In this context, States and transnational institutions are called to ensure fair rules and effective safeguards, so that local communities, intermediary organizations, schools, universities, religious institutions and associations have a voice and can contribute to the discernment of choices that affect people’s daily lives, such as employment, access to services, data management and digital environments. When it comes to decisions regarding economic flows and digital platforms, as well as the governance of data and algorithms, we cannot allow a handful of actors to dictate these processes on their own; instead, we must build forms of cooperation that respect the various levels of the global community and make them jointly responsible for the common good. 97Cf. ibid., 168: AAS 112 (2020), 1027-1028.

Notae

  1. 91. Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church, 187.
  2. 92. Cf. Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891), 26: ASS 23 (1890-1891), 656.
  3. 93. Cf. Saint John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 11: AAS 83 (1991), 806-807.
  4. 94. Cf. ibid.
  5. 95. Cf. ibid., 48: AAS 83 (1991), 852-854.
  6. 96. Cf. Francis, Encyclical Letter Fratelli Tutti (3 October 2020), 169: AAS 112 (2020), 1028.
  7. 97. Cf. ibid., 168: AAS 112 (2020), 1027-1028.