The 1983 Code and Vatican II Ecclesiology: The Principle of Subsidiarity in Book V

THE 1983 CODE AND VATICAN II ECCLESIOLOGY: THE PRINCIPLE OF SUBSIDIARITY IN BOOK V Phillip J. Brown, S.S., JD, JCD1 I Introduction In June 1967 the Pontifical Council for the Revision of the Code of Canon Law proposed a number of “Principles Which Shall Guide the Revision of the Code of Canon Law.” The principles were later approved by the synod of bishops for implementation in the revision of the 1917 code. Two of them, numbers IV and V, directly concern the principle of subsidiarity , and one indirectly (Principle VI). Principle V relates the principle of subsidiarity directly to norms regulating the administration of temporal goods. Noting that deference to the principle of subidiarity should not lead to separate legislation, its proper implementation nevertheless requires that the proper nature of the particular churches has especially to be taken into account in this area because of the necessity of considering relevant civil legislation in the establishment and application of the norms of canon law. Thus, it was clear from the outset to the code revisers that the principle of subsidiarity has special relevance with respect to canonical norms regulating the acquisition, administration, and alienation of temporal goods. As reflected in principle V, the Second Vatican Council was concerned to recover a proper understanding of the role of the particular churches in the overall structure and life of the universal Church. The council also wanted to better integrate that understanding in church theology and the practical dispositions that regulate the day-to-day life of the Church (that is, to give it full and practical expression in church law). The principle of subsidiarity is quite obviously a central theme of Vatican II ecclesiology. It helps to balance the overly centralizing tendencies of the ecclesiological model in force prior to the council. The Church’s structure remains hierarchical, of course; but it is more clearly understood now as designed to serve ecclesial communion rather than efficiencies of administration. One of the concepts church teaching has adopted to keep the hierarchical The Jurist 69 (2009) 583–614 583 1 Assistant Professor of Canon Law, School of Canon Law, The Catholic University of America. 584 the jurist ordering of the Church in perspective is the principle of subsidiarity. It is not possible to speak of Vatican II ecclesiology without considering the Church’s express adoption of the principle of subsidiarity as a guiding norm and the full implications of this choice for the Church’s ecclesiology and canon law. As noted, subsidiarity has particular relevance regarding the administration of temporal goods. Therefore this article will take a look at the origins of the principle and its historical development and its emergence in the Church’s official teaching as background for asking how well it may be reflected in the norms of Book V regulating the acquisition, administration , and alienation of temporal goods. The question we will ask is: How well does Book V carry out the mandate of the principles for the revision of the code to take full account of the principle of subsidiarity in its revision, in particular in the norms regarding the administration of temporal goods. When all is said and done, it will be apparent that it has been carried out quite admirably. I. The meaning of “subsidiarity.” The first explicit reference to the principle of subsidiarity in official church teaching is found in the 1931 papal encyclical Quadragesimo anno. Adrianus Leys, however, points out that the three basic ideas underlying the principle of subsidiarity can already be seen in Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum novarum.2 And R. Camp points out that the encyclical does not represent the beginning of Catholic social doctrine so much as a summary of what Catholic thinkers such as W. E. von Kettler and members of the Union de Fribourg had arrived at through their own reflection on modern society.3 The views of these thinkers were in turn influenced by ideas current in wider circles of philosophical and social discourse regarding modern society, such as those of A. H. Müller, F. von Schlagel, F. von Baader, J. Göres and the French social Catholics, all of whom seem to have...