Subsidiarity how does it practically work?

Is this clarifying anything for you?

Anyone more versed in the actual language of the Church, please correct me if I’m incorrect! (and provide source so I can learn!)

A State managed program is better than a federally managed program, which is what I was really pushing for more of. There are very few programs that are need to be run at the federal level.

Maybe a Township managed program is better than a State managed program. Maybe there are very few programs that need to be run at the State level. You have not said whether this application of subsidiarity is also true.

I said we should push for the smallest form of government possible to run a program assuming it can do so effectively. And we are talking about fundamental problems here, not the failings of individuals that may prevent a program from being run effectively on a case by case basis. And that applies all the way down to the city level and even the neighborhood level. Doing so gives the people involved the most control over the government they have to live under and the best chance of meeting the needs of the people there locally who have to live under it. Lack of virtue in people should never be cited as a reason for big government. That is the argument for tyranny. A populist government or a Republic government only works if virtue exists within the people under it. When you give up on people you have become a socialist in my book.

When people fail to live virtuous lives you bear it, over come it and work to teach others the benefits of being virtuous and make evil less common. You never use it as reason to take power out of the individuals hands or else you have essentially given people license to not be virtuous.

This is the same principle you were talking about earlier when I said the State should back the unemployment programs of towns and guarantee them. Like you said, when you do this you basically give those towns the ability to be take risky measures without consequence. That principle is seen more readily in banks though.

Is this clarifying anything for you?

Anyone more versed in the actual language of the Church, please correct me if I’m incorrect! (and provide source so I can learn!)

well you made some good points.

I have to admit that we are probably in accord RE: general theory but we disagree on specifics. IMO, people have an ability, which thanks to the general spirit of our laws, is unrealized, to take care of many things w/o appealing to the state for help. So I simply disagree with certain changes to our constitution, that I think were bad in themselves like the amendment allowing the popular election of senators or the gradual extension of universal suffrage; for if people can take care of themselves, then what good is it to give them a direct voice in the state? They should communicate it through indirect bodies and higher corporations -virtual representation. Is that compatible with the Church?

Anyways, this is a purely empirical call, and I think that we largely agree on what subsidiarity/etc. means in general.

Re: people taking care of themselves, which is only the first step in the chain of subsidiarity.

I disagree with many changes to many aspects of our government, but despite the fact that said changes were either unconstitutional or just stupid, we still have subsidiarity- albeit waning in effect to near laughable, yet tear-inducing lows.

I can still contact and get things resolved outside of myself from the apt complex manager to my State Senator. I personally would not want any decisions made for me by the current “president” though.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit