Last week’s post examined the principle of subsidiarity as a central tenet of the Church’s social doctrine. Subsidiarity in canon law will be examined under two broad categories: the layered structure of the Church and the delegation of the power of governance. Today’s post explores the principle of subsidiarity as it applies to the layered structure of the Church.
As a recap, the principle of subsidiarity in canon law means that the Church entrusts matters to the lowest competent authority and allows higher authorities to intervene only when the lower level cannot adequately fulfil the task. In other words, the principle means that “no matter that can properly be dealt with at a lower level should be taken to a higher one. Subsidiarity is recognised as an important principle if the exercise of primacy is to guarantee the participation of the whole Church in the decision-making process”.
The fifth principle reads: “Careful attention is to be given to the greater application of the so-called principle of subsidiarity within the Church. It is a principle which is rooted in a higher one because the office of bishops with its attached powers is a reality of divine law. In virtue of this principle one may defend the appropriateness and even the necessity of providing for the welfare especially of individual institutes through particular laws and the recognition of a healthy autonomy for particular executive power while legislative unity and universal and general law are observed. On the basis of the same principle, the new Code entrusts either to particular laws or to executive power whatever is not necessary for the unity of the discipline of the universal Church so that appropriate provision is made for a healthy “decentralisation” while avoiding the danger of division into or the establishment of national churches.”
Subsidiarity in canon law ensures the proper distribution of authority, promotes local initiative, and preserves the unity of the Church by allowing higher authorities to assist rather than dominate.
Subsidiarity is connected to the spirituality of canon law because it promotes the participation of the entire faithful and prevents unnecessary centralisation, helping in the synodal exercise of primacy to ensure that all the faithful participate in decisions that affect them directly. Being able to make decisions for themselves helps the faithful to promote their relationship with God.
First, one notes that subsidiarity has always existed within the Church; the fifth principle only called for its greater application. The parish priests and diocesan bishops exercise ordinary governance within their jurisdiction, without unnecessary interference from the diocesan bishop for parishes, and from the Holy See for both parishes and dioceses. This independent action or decision taken within their jurisdiction must not concern things which affect the legislative unity and unity of discipline of the universal Church. For instance, the parish priest determines the precise dates and times for parish harvests, funerals, weddings, and the celebration of the sacraments, without interference from the diocesan bishop, as long as these choices do not contravene universal or diocesan regulations on timing. A parish priest who schedules a burial or wedding on Good Friday definitely contravenes the universal discipline for that holy day, and the bishop must intervene to stop it or decide on the next steps if the act has already been carried out.
There are various grades of institutions of justice within the Church. There are diocesan tribunals and tribunals of the Holy See. Some cases are reserved by law to apostolic tribunals. All matters regarding the internal forum and indulgence are reserved to the Apostolic Penitentiary (Praedicate Evangelium, 190), and more grave delicts are reserved to the judgment of the Dicastery of the Doctrine of Faith. A tribunal of the Holy See will not interfere in a case judged at the diocesan tribunal, except the case was appealed to it. The Roman Rota adjudicates in the second instance cases that ordinary tribunals of first instance have decided and legitimately appealed to the Holy See (Praedicate Evangelium, 202).
Before 2015, the principle of double conformity was applied to decisions regarding the nullity of marriage. The principle means that the decision of a tribunal requires a higher tribunal to give the same judgement before it can be executed. This means that the case is automatically referred to a higher tribunal. If the appellate tribunal does not confirm the decision of the previous tribunal, it is referred to the Roman Rota. Pope Francis decreed in 2015 that “a single executive sentence in favour of nullity is effective” (Mitis Iudex Dominus Iesus, I). While this decision was to facilitate the cases in the tribunal, it also reinforced the principle of subsidiarity.
In line with subsidiarity, institutes of consecrated life and societies of apostolic life now enjoy greater autonomy in managing their internal affairs to preserve and foster their patrimony. The local Ordinary is responsible for preserving and safeguarding this autonomy (Can. 586; 578). This differs from the 1917 Code, where autonomy was largely restricted to religious institutes of pontifical right (Can. 618, CIC 1917). This new, greater and expanded autonomy concerns more of their internal life and governance of the institute, and is not absolute, as the institutes and societies are still subject to ecclesiastical authorities. If there is a grave matter, the diocesan bishop or the apostolic see can directly intervene. Pope John Paul II emphasised that institutes and societies “may not invoke rightful autonomy, or even the exemption which a number of them enjoy, in order to justify choices which actually conflict with the demands of organic communion called for by a healthy ecclesial life” (Vita Consacrata, 49).
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
