Contents
Subsidiarity and Decentralisation
Towards a Subsidiarity-Integrated Centralisation
Introduction
Last week’s post examined stewardship of pastoral capital in pastoral planning. Today’s post resumes the discussion of centralisation (previously discussed in Post 256 of 25 May 2026, titled “Christ-centred economics: Centralisation and the Feeding of the 5,000”).
Irrespective of the advantages of centralisation, especially in doctrine, the Church is cautious about it; instead, she promotes subsidiarity. Hence, a combination of the two, such as a subsidiarity-integrated centralisation, is recommended. Today’s post focuses on this.
Centralisation
As a recap, centralisation refers to the concentration of authority, resources, decision-making, attention, or activity around a single controlling point. In other words, instead of several independent parts operating separately, the parts are gathered and directed by a single core source.
Centralised authority in the Church protects the unity of doctrine and ensures communion. Excessive centralisation risks creating administrative delays, discouraging creativity, weakening local responsibility, and fostering unnecessary dependence on higher authorities. Another disadvantage is that the centre sometimes struggles to fully understand and address localised needs, thereby inhibiting flexibility and quick decision-making.
Subsidiarity and Decentralisation
Subsidiarity as a principle developed in the social doctrine of the Church, and the definition is found in Pope Pius XI’s social encyclical, who affirms: “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organisations can do.” (Quadragesimo Anno, 79).
The principle of subsidiarity is rooted in the uniqueness of each human person, created in the image and likeness of God, who has something original to offer the community. Denial or restriction of this right undermines freedom and initiative.
Subsidiarity in the Church dates back to the time of Christ, when Christ intervened when the disciples could not act. One recalls the story of the epileptic man the disciples could not heal. The father had to bring him to Jesus (Matt 17:14-20). This shows that the disciples acted even when Jesus was around.
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. 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” (Dicastery for Promoting Christian Unity, The Bishop of Rome: Primacy and Synodality in the Ecumenical Dialogues, n.176). Therefore, the principle opposes some centralised, bureaucratised, and excessive presence of the government in public mechanisms (Compendium of Social Doctrine, 187).
The principle of subsidiarity “protects people from abuses by higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfil their duties” (Compendium of Social Doctrine, 187).
In light of this principle, the fifth principle that led to the 1983 Code of Canon Law emphasised the greater application of subsidiarity within the Church and called for decentralisation (the transfer of power to lower authorities), while avoiding the danger of division into or the establishment of national churches. Read more on 225: The Fifth Principle: The Principle of Subsidiarity (20 October 2025) and 226: Subsidiarity and the Layered Structure of the Church (27 October 2025).
Towards a Subsidiarity-Integrated Centralisation
From the above, it is clear that the Church’s social teaching and ecclesial praxis caution against unnecessary or excessive centralisation while affirming the principle of subsidiarity.
One notes that the Church speaks of unity as the Church’s substantive identity, rooted in doctrine and expressed in liturgy and apostolic action. However, unity is not the same thing as centralisation. Pope John Paul II emphasises that unity in the Church is not to be “confused with centralisation or with uniformity in all the legitimate expressions of prayer, life, and apostolic action of communities” (Pope John Paul II, Speech; Meeting with the Pastoral Council and the Presbyterial Council of the Archdiocese of Lyon, 6 October 1986, n. 10). Furthermore, while discussing centralisation and decentralisation in the Church, Pope John Paul II argues that the “centre is not sociological, political, or administrative, but dogmatic and therefore corresponds to the content of the faith” (Address to the Bishops of the North 2 Region of the Episcopal Conference of Brazil on their ad Limina visit, October 28, 1995, n.4).
Yet, even in light of subsidiarity, centralisation cannot be entirely discarded in ecclesial governance because the Church’s hierarchical and communional nature entails some central coordination in order to preserve unity in faith, maintain doctrinal integrity, ensure canonical consistency, and facilitate the common mission of the People of God. Conversely, excessive centralisation could undermine local initiative, delay pastoral responses, and overlook the diverse realities of particular Churches and communities.
Hence, I argue for an integration of centralisation and subsidiarity, in a terminology I may describe as ‘subsidiarity-integrated centralisation’ or, simply put, ‘centralisation with a touch of subsidiarity’.
By subsidiarity-integrated centralisation, I mean a governance model in which central authority coordinates matters of doctrine, liturgy, formation and administrative and canonical oversight, while local ecclesial communities act on matters that require contextual pastoral discernment.
This hybridised centralisation is not a compromise between the two principles but a complementary integration of them to promote ecclesial governance and pastoral fruitfulness. Centralisation provides unity, coordination, shared resources, and strategic direction. On the other hand, subsidiarity empowers those at the local Church to exercise responsibility, creativity, and discernment in responding to local needs.
Christ gathered twelve disciples, entrusted them with authority, united them around a common mission, and sent them out with specific instructions. He chose seventy others and sent them to towns where he would go himself. Where the instruction ended, the disciples chose the strategy to adapt to realities on the ground. They only returned to give a report on how they responded to the realities. Christ simply commended and empowered them to more pastoral action (Luke 10:17-23).
Therefore, Christ’s model is neither rigid centralisation nor unrestricted decentralisation. It involves balancing centralised control and decentralised empowerment.
Hence, the central question is not whether authority should be centralised or decentralised. Instead, it should be about which responsibilities should be exercised centrally because they create greater strategic leverage for the Church’s mission and maximise pastoral fruitfulness, and which responsibilities should remain local to enable pastoral flexibility and innovation, and ultimately maximise pastoral fruitfulness.
For instance, matters that require central coordination include doctrine, canonical oversight, safeguarding norms, formation standards, statistical systems, and major strategic initiatives. On the other hand, evangelisation methods, pastoral priorities and activities, and implementation strategies are better decided at the local level.
Therefore, subsidiarity-integrated centralisation preserves the Church’s unity and allows decentralisation without undermining local initiative or suppressing legitimate local adaptations. It allows the Church to benefit from the leverageable advantage of coordinated action to maximise pastoral fruitfulness while respecting the competence and responsibility of local ecclesial communities.
This approach is connected to the spirituality of canon law because it promotes the participation of the entire faithful and prevents unnecessary centralisation, helping to ensure that the synodal exercise of primacy involves all the faithful in decisions that affect them directly. Being able to make decisions for themselves helps the faithful to promote their relationship with God.
Conclusion
The important question for the Church is not whether to choose centralisation or subsidiarity, but how to integrate the two to better serve her mission. A subsidiarity-integrated centralisation therefore promotes the Church’s unity and allows decentralisation without undermining local initiative or suppressing legitimate local adaptations. The challenge is to discern which responsibilities are best exercised at each level of ecclesial life so that every structure serves the Gospel and maximises pastoral fruitfulness.
In line with my Christo-centric approach, next week’s post examines the example of Christ in a subsidiarity-integrated centralisation model.
May God continue to help us🙏🏾
K’ọdị🙋🏾♂️
