271. Asymmetric Pastoral Model and Leverageable Advantage

Contents

Introduction

Dimensions of Asymmetric Pastoral Model

Asymmetric Pastoral Model and Subsidiarity-integrated Centralisation

Asymmetric Pastoral Model and Leverageable Advantage

Conclusion

Introduction

Last week’s post began the discussion on the asymmetric pastoral model, defining the concept and examining the Christocentric foundation. As a recap, the asymmetric pastoral model is a framework in which the primary beneficiaries of pastoral action are not necessarily the principal providers of the resources that sustain it. As noted last week too, it is not a new idea but a technical explanation of a practice that existed right from the beginning of the Church.

Today’s post focuses on how the asymmetric pastoral model in the Church creates a leverageable advantage to enhance pastoral fruitfulness through a subsidiarity-integrated centralisation.

Dimensions of Asymmetric Pastoral Model

In the Church, asymmetry appears in two broad categories. The first category is asymmetric contribution, in which the providers of resources differ from the beneficiaries and do not directly benefit from their contributions. The second is disproportionate benefit, in which providers benefit somewhat but not in proportion to their contributions.  Based on this distinction, one can identify several dimensions of the model which cut across these two categories.

First, it appears in the context of resources where some communities contribute more financially than they receive. This involves both asymmetric contribution and disproportionate benefit. The early Christian community adopted this because people brought what they had to the apostles, who shared resources according to need rather than according to how one contributed to that pool of resources (Acts 4:34-35).

Closely related to the first is mission support, where established dioceses support mission territories without expecting an equivalent benefit. This belongs to the asymmetric contribution category. Unlike the first, funds here are sent outside the diocese, and contributors do not even directly benefit from their contributions. An example is how European and American missionaries have raised funds in Europe and North America to help establish and sustain mission territories, both in the past and today. 

The third dimension concerns the personnel. This can fall under the asymmetric contribution or disproportionate benefit category. European missionaries were trained in their home countries before coming to Africa. One can also argue that an asymmetric pastoral model is evident in the return of missionaries from the Global South to North America and Europe. However, this example should be approached with caution because seminary formation (including the training of formators) has historically relied on substantial external support, making it difficult to attribute the full cost of formation to local resources. 

The fourth dimension concerns knowledge and expertise, in which people use their expertise to support the Church without direct benefit. This belongs to the asymmetric contribution. Medical workers from Europe and North America who annually visit Church hospitals in Nigeria to deliver free medical outreach also adopt the asymmetric approach because the Church in the receiving context benefits from human capital for whose formation it did not bear the full cost. It is also another clear case of someone delivering a free service while earning income from another source. Another instance is an expert developing resources used by several schools or parishes.

Fifth, the Church invests heavily in the formation of children, catechumens, seminarians and other young people long before they can ‘give back’ to the Church. This belongs to the disproportionate benefit category. Finally, people donate their time to serve other Church members who may never become active contributors to the Church because of illness, old age, or poverty. This belongs to the asymmetric contribution.

Asymmetric Pastoral Model and Subsidiarity-integrated Centralisation

Regarding the financial resources dimension of the asymmetric pastoral model, the Church acquires temporal goods through donations, offerings, returns from Church institutions, and investments in other businesses. Yet, some parishes or schools are struggling to survive and can only send in little, while needing diocesan support. (Here, I note that I argue for the principle of participation in all matters regarding the acquisition of ecclesiastical goods. In other words, all should contribute no matter how small because it is the right and duty of all the faithful (Cann. 222 §1 & 1261), and it fits into the doctrine of communion, synodality, and co-responsibility). 

This is where subsidiarity-integrated centralisation plays out alongside an asymmetric pastoral model. Nemo dat quod non habet.

The Church needs a school in a remote part of the diocese, yet the population is small, and the area is poor. The only way out is to provide or help them with staff from the centre (subsidiarity-integrated centralisation) and pay them from the centre (asymmetric pastoral model).

Moreover, institutional donors (asymmetric) often like to send money to the centre rather than to individuals. Foreign donors (asymmetric) pay into the diocesan account for most support they offer to parishes or schools. This is where central coordination matters: as the feeding of the 5,000 shows [See Post 256: Christ-centred economics: Centralisation and the Feeding of the 5,000 (25 May 2026) and Post 268: Subsidiarity-integrated Centralisation: The Example of Jesus (17 August 2026)], equitable distribution is better coordinated when resources are pooled and centrally coordinated (centralisation).

In another instance, core digital infrastructure is generally best maintained at the diocesan, provincial or national levels, while local communities retain responsibility for contextual content and pastoral engagement. Digitalisation enables remote communities to benefit from services that professionals living in cities or abroad, who may be unwilling or unable to travel or relocate, can still provide remotely. Through an asymmetric pastoral model, these professionals can offer their services free of charge or at minimal cost because their primary source of income lies elsewhere.

Asymmetric Pastoral Model and Leverageable Advantage

As noted previously, a leverageable advantage in the Church’s context is an organisational capacity that enables the Church to multiply the fruitfulness of its pastoral capital across multiple ecclesial communities. It exists whenever a centrally coordinated structure enables dioceses, parishes, Catholic schools and hospitals to accomplish more effectively what they could not easily achieve independently.

Therefore, a capability can be leveraged when a particular resource can produce pastoral benefit in more than one ecclesial context without requiring proportional duplication. For instance, a diocesan digital platform can serve many parishes and schools. One formation program can educate many catechists. One central purchasing arrangement can reduce cost for diocesan hospitals and schools. A relationship with one donor can benefit multiple ecclesial institutions simultaneously. One expert can assist numerous dioceses and religious congregations with fiscal planning and management or canonical expertise.

Hence, one can identify four categories of leverage. Financial leverage operates when central funds support otherwise unsustainable ministries. Personnel leverage exists when centrally funded or supported personnel can provide pastoral services to poorer communities that could not sustain them independently. Here, it means that one can work for these poorer institutions while receiving remuneration directly from the diocese, rather than the institution itself.

One can also identify a knowledge leverage point in which experts serve multiple communities remotely. For instance, canon lawyers can work remotely for several diocesan tribunals or as experts for several congregations.  Finally, there is digital leverage where a digital infrastructure enables distributed pastoral services. 

Therefore, an asymmetric pastoral model allows a particular Church to undertake pastoral action that would otherwise be beyond her individual capacity. It can carry out charitable activities, facilitate pastoral care for the sick, help support catechesis for children, improve sacramental care for rural communities, develop formation programs, and developmental and supportive programs, such as skills acquisition and training for young people. The Church can also raise funds for infrastructure development, such as churches, hospitals, schools, and seminaries.  

Conclusion

The asymmetric pastoral model is important for pastoral fruitfulness. One must note that this model does not always create leverage. A one-off support ends there. Yet, when it does create leverage, it increases the extent of pastoral benefit that asymmetric resources can generate. For instance, a single donation of 100,000 naira can be a one-off support to organise a diocesan party. Yet, in another instance, that same amount can support the tuition of a student priest or contribute to the pool to establish a diocesan business, thereby serving as leverage to build the diocese’s capacity to deliver more pastoral benefits.  

May God continue to help us🙏🏾

K’ọdị🙋🏾‍♂️