(Official Introduction and Summary, and other commentaries at the end of
the text: click here)(The Encyclical follows the Pope's general audience address just below. For the Encyclical text, click here
(Official Introduction and Summary, and other commentaries at the end of
the text: click here)
The Encyclical Abridged by John Gueguen
(A summary of the Encyclical by Jeff Mirus: click here)
Evangelical response: Doing the Truth in Love Click here
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN CHARITY AND TRUTH
Pope Benedict comments on his third Encyclical:
The following address Benedict XVI gave July
8, 2009, during the general audience in Paul VI Hall. He
comments
on his third encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate."
* * *
Dear brothers and sisters:
My new encyclical "Caritas in Veritate," which was officially presented
yesterday, was fundamentally inspired in a passage from the Letter of St. Paul
to the Ephesians, in which the apostle speaks of acting according to truth in
charity: "Rather," we have just heard, "living the truth in love, we should grow
in every way into him who is the head, Christ" (4:15).
Charity in truth is, therefore, the principal propelling force for the true
development of each person and all of humanity. Because of this, the whole of
the Church's social doctrine revolves around the principle "caritas in veritate."
Only with charity, enlightened by reason and faith, is it possible to achieve
objectives of development with a human and humanizing value. Charity in the
truth "is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a
principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action"
(No. 6).
In the introduction, the encyclical immediately refers to two fundamental
criteria: justice and the common good. Justice is an integral part of this love
"in deed and truth" (1 John 3:18), to which the Apostle John exhorts us (cf. No.
6). And "to love someone is to desire that person's good and to take effective
steps to secure it. Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is
linked to living in society. &h ellip; The more we strive to secure a common
good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbors, the more effectively we
love them." Therefore, there are two operative criteria: justice and the common
good. In this second element, charity acquires a social dimension. Every
Christian, the encyclical says, is called to this charity and, it adds, "This is
the institutional path … of charity" (cf. No. 7).
Like other documents of the magisterium, this encyclical also takes up again and
goes deeper into the analysis and reflection of the Church on social issues of
vital interest to humanity in our times. In a special way, it is linked to what
Paul VI wrote now more than 40 years ago in "Populorum Progressio," the
cornerstone of the Church's social teaching, in which the great Pontiff outlined
certain decisive and ever relevant ideas for the integral development of man and
of the modern world. The world situation, as the chronicle of recent mon ths
amply demonstrates, continues presenting not a few problems and the "scandal" of
outrageous inequalities, which remain despite commitments made in the past. On
one hand, signs of grave social and economic inequalities are evident; on the
other hand, peoples from all over are calling for reform that will overcome the
discrepancy of development among peoples, and this cannot wait.
The phenomenon of globalization can, in this sense, be a real opportunity, but
for this, it is important to undertake a profound moral and cultural renewal and
responsible discernment of the decisions that must be made for the common good.
A better future for everyone is possible, if it is founded on the discovery of
fundamental ethical values. A new economic plan is needed that will reshape
development in a global way, basing itself on the fundamental ethics of
responsibility before God and before man as a creature of God.
The encyclical certainly doesn't look to give technical solutions to the great
social problems of the world today -- this is not the role of the Church's
magisterium (cf. No. 9). It recalls, however, the great principles that show
themselves to be indispensable for building human development in the coming
years. Among these: In the first place, attention to the life of the person,
considered as the center of all true progress; respect for the right to
religious liberty, always closely linked to the development of the person;
rejection of a Promethean vision of the human being, which considers him the
absolute author of his own destiny. An unlimited trust in the power of
technology in the end shows itself to be illusory.
Upright people are needed as much in politics as in the economy, people who are
sincerely attentive to the common good. In particular, looking at world
emergencies, it is urgent to call the attention of public opinion to the drama
of hunger and food security, which affects a considerable porti on of humanity.
A drama of such proportions piques our consciences: It must be decisively
confronted, eliminating the structural causes that bring it about and promoting
agricultural development in the poorest countries.
I am sure that this path of solidarity toward the development of the poorest
countries will certainly help to elaborate a solution to the current global
crisis. Undoubtedly, the role and political power of the state should be
attentively re-evaluated, in an age in which limitations to its sovereignty
exist as a result of the new economic-commercial and international financial
situation.
And on the other hand, the participation of citizens in national and
international politics should not be lacking, thanks as well to a renewed
commitment from the associations of workers called to establish new synergies at
the local and international level. The means of social communication also have a
primary role in this field, to advance dialogue among cult ures and distinct
traditions.
In wanting to make a plan for development that is not tainted by the
malfunctions and distortions amply present today, serious reflection on the very
meaning of the economy and its goals is required from everyone. The ecological
state of the planet demands it; the cultural and moral crisis of man that is
apparent in every corner of the globe requires it. The economy needs ethics for
its correct functioning; it needs to recover the important contribution of the
principle of gratuitousness and the "logic of gift" in the economy of the
market, in which the norm cannot be personal gain.
But this is only possible thanks to a commitment from everyone, economists and
politicians, producers and consumers, and presupposes formation of the
conscience that gives strength to moral criteria in the elaboration of political
and economic projects. Rightly so, many places pay recourse to the fact that
rights presuppose corresponding dut ies, without which rights run the risk of
becoming arbitrary.
It is said more and more that it is necessary for all of humanity to have a
different style of life, in which the duties of everyone toward the environment
are united with those of the person considered in himself and in relation with
others. Humanity is one family and fruitful dialogue between faith and reason
cannot but enrich it, making the work of charity more effective in society,
moreover establishing the appropriate framework to stimulate collaboration
between believers and non-believers, in the shared perspective of working for
justice and peace in the world.
As guidelines for this fraternal interaction, in the encyclical I indicate the
principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, which are interconnected. I have
indicated, finally, faced with such vast and deep problems in the world of
today, the need for a world political Authority regulated by law, which abides
by the principles of subsid iarity and solidarity already mentioned and which is
firmly oriented toward the fulfillment of the common good, in respect of the
great moral and religious traditions of humanity.
The Gospel reminds us that man does not live on bread alone: not just with
material goods can he satisfy the deep thirst of his heart. The horizons of man
are undoubtedly higher and broader. Because of this, every development program
should have present, together with the material, the spiritual growth of the
human person, who is gifted with soul and body.
This is integral development, to which the Church's social doctrine constantly
refers -- development that has its guiding criteria in the propelling strength
of "charity in truth." Dear brothers and sisters, let us pray so that this
encyclical too can help humanity to feel that it is one family committed in
bringing about a world of justice and peace. Let us pray that believers who work
in economics and politics realize h ow important is the coherence of their
Gospel testimony in the service they offer society.
In particular, I invite you to pray for the leaders of states and governments of
the G-8 who are meeting during these days in L'Aquila. That from this important
world summit might come decisions and useful guidelines for the true progress of
all peoples, especially of the poorest. Let us entrust these intentions to the
maternal intercession of Mary, Mother of the Church and of humanity.
[The Holy Father then greeted the people in several languages. In English, he
said:]
Dear Brothers and Sisters,
Today I wish to reflect on my Encyclical, Caritas in Veritate. Some forty years
after Pope Paul VI's Encyclical Populorum Progressio, it too addresses social
themes vital to the well-being of humanity and reminds us that authentic renewal
of both individuals and society requires living by Christ’s truth in love (cf .
Eph 4:15) which stands at the heart of the Church’s social teaching. The
Encyclical does not aim to provide technical solutions to today’s social
problems but instead focuses on the principles indispensable for human
development. Most important among these is human life itself, the centre of all
true progress. Additionally, it speaks of the right to religious freedom as a
part of human development, it warns against unbounded hope in technology alone,
and it underlines the need for upright men and women -- attentive to the common
good -- in both politics and the business world. In regard to matters of
particular urgency affecting the word today, the Encyclical addresses a wide
range of issues and calls for decisive action to promote food security and
agricultural development, as well as respect for the environment and for the
rule of law. Stressed is the need for politicians, economists, producers and
consumers alike ensure that ethics shape economics so that profit al one does
not regulate the world of business. Dear friends: humanity is a single family
where every development programme -- if it is to be integral -- must consider
the spiritual growth of human persons and the driving force of charity in truth.
Let us pray for all those who serve in politics and the management of economies,
and in particular let us pray for the Heads of State gathering in Italy for the
G8 summit. May their decisions promote true development especially for the
world’s poor. Thank you.
--------------------------------------------------------
ENCYCLICAL LETTER CARITAS IN VERITATE OF POPE BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS, MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS,
THE LAY FAITHFUL AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
INTRODUCTION
1. Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his earthly life and
especially by his death and resurrection, is the principal driving force behind
the authentic development of every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas —
is an extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and generous
engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a force that has its origin
in God, Eternal Love and Absolute Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence
to God's plan for him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his
truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf. Jn 8:22). To
defend the truth, to articulate it with humility and conviction, and to bear
witness to it in life are therefore exacting and indispensable forms of charity.
Charity, in fact, “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the
interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never abandon them
completely, because these are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind
of every human person. The search for love and truth is purified and liberated
by Jesus Christ from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he
reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the plan for true
life that God has prepared for us. In Christ, charity in truth becomes the Face
of his Person, a vocation for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth
of his plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).
2. Charity is at the heart of the Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility
and every commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity which,
according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt
22:36- 40). It gives real substance to the personal relationship with God and
with neighbour; it is the principle not only of micro-relationships (with
friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of
macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For the Church,
instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything because, as Saint John teaches
(cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I recalled in my first Encyclical Letter, “God is
love” (Deus Caritas Est): everything has its origin in God's love, everything is
shaped by it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's greatest gift to
humanity, it is his promise and our hope.
I am aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be
misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of being
misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any event, undervalued. In
the social, juridical, cultural, political and economic fields — the contexts,
in other words, that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as
irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility. Hence
the need to link charity with truth not only in the sequence, pointed out by
Saint Paul, of veritas in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and
complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth needs to be sought, found
and expressed within the “economy” of charity, but charity in its turn needs to
be understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not
only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we also help give
credibility to truth, demonstrating its persuasive and authenticating power in
the practical setting of social living. This is a matter of no small account
today, in a social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often paying
little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to acknowledge its
existence.
3. Through this close link with truth, charity can be recognized as an authentic
expression of humanity and as an element of fundamental importance in human
relations, including those of a public nature. Only in truth does charity shine
forth, only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the light that
gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and
the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and
supernatural truth of charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and
communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into sentimentality. Love becomes
an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way. In a culture without truth,
this is the fatal risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective
emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted, to the point
where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees charity from the constraints of
an emotionalism that deprives it of relational and social content, and of a
fideism that deprives it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth,
charity reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God of the
Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity and Truth, Love and Word.
4. Because it is filled with truth, charity can be understood in the abundance
of its values, it can be shared and communicated. Truth, in fact, is lógos which
creates diá-logos, and hence communication and communion. Truth, by enabling men
and women to let go of their subjective opinions and impressions, allows them to
move beyond cultural and historical limitations and to come together in the
assessment of the value and substance of things. Truth opens and unites our
minds in the lógos of love: this is the Christian proclamation and testimony of
charity. In the present social and cultural context, where there is a widespread
tendency to relativize truth, practising charity in truth helps people to
understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not merely useful but
essential for building a good society and for true integral human development. A
Christianity of charity without truth would be more or less interchangeable with
a pool of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance.
In other words, there would no longer be any real place for God in the world.
Without truth, charity is confined to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is
excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human development of
universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.
5. Charity is love received and given. It is “grace” (cháris). Its source is the
wellspring of the Father's love for the Son, in the Holy Spirit. Love comes down
to us from the Son. It is creative love, through which we have our being; it is
redemptive love, through which we are recreated. Love is revealed and made
present by Christ (cf. Jn 13:1) and “poured into our hearts through the Holy
Spirit” (Rom 5:5). As the objects of God's love, men and women become subjects
of charity, they are called to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to
pour forth God's charity and to weave networks of charity.
This dynamic of charity received and given is what gives rise to the Church's
social teaching, which is caritas in veritate in re sociali: the proclamation of
the truth of Christ's love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity,
but its locus is truth. Truth preserves and expresses charity's power to
liberate in the ever-changing events of history. It is at the same time the
truth of faith and of reason, both in the distinction and also in the
convergence of those two cognitive fields. Development, social well-being, the
search for a satisfactory solution to the grave socio-economic problems
besetting humanity, all need this truth. What they need even more is that this
truth should be loved and demonstrated. Without truth, without trust and love
for what is true, there is no social conscience and responsibility, and social
action ends up serving private interests and the logic of power, resulting in
social fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult times like
the present.
6. “Caritas in veritate” is the principle around which the Church's social
doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that
govern moral action. I would like to consider two of these in particular, of
special relevance to the commitment to development in an increasingly globalized
society: justice and the common good.
First of all, justice. Ubi societas, ibi ius: every society draws up its own
system of justice. Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is to give, to
offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never lacks justice, which prompts us
to give the other what is “his”, what is due to him by reason of his being or
his acting. I cannot “give” what is mine to the other, without first giving him
what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with charity, then first of
all we are just towards them. Not only is justice not extraneous to charity, not
only is it not an alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is
inseparable from charity[1], and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of
charity or, in Paul VI's words, “the minimum measure” of it[2], an integral part
of the love “in deed and in truth” (1 Jn 3:18), to which Saint John exhorts us.
On the one hand, charity demands justice: recognition and respect for the
legitimate rights of individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly
city according to law and justice. On the other hand, charity transcends justice
and completes it in the logic of giving and forgiving[3]. The earthly city is
promoted not merely by relationships of rights and duties, but to an even
greater and more fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy
and communion. Charity always manifests God's love in human relationships as
well, it gives theological and salvific value to all commitment for justice in
the world.
7. Another important consideration is the common good. To love someone is to
desire that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it. Besides the
good of the individual, there is a good that is linked to living in society: the
common good. It is the good of “all of us”, made up of individuals, families and
intermediate groups who together constitute society[4]. It is a good that is
sought not for its own sake, but for the people who belong to the social
community and who can only really and effectively pursue their good within it.
To desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and
charity. To take a stand for the common good is on the one hand to be solicitous
for, and on the other hand to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions
that give structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly, politically
and culturally, making it the pólis, or “city”. The more we strive to secure a
common good corresponding to the real needs of our neighbours, the more
effectively we love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity, in
a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the degree of influence
he wields in the pólis. This is the institutional path — we might also call it
the political path — of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind
of charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the institutional
mediation of the pólis. When animated by charity, commitment to the common good
has greater worth than a merely secular and political stand would have. Like all
commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of divine charity
that paves the way for eternity through temporal action. Man's earthly activity,
when inspired and sustained by charity, contributes to the building of the
universal city of God, which is the goal of the history of the human family. In
an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the effort to obtain it
cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the whole human family, that is to say,
the community of peoples and nations[5], in such a way as to shape the earthly
city in unity and peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a
prefiguration of the undivided city of God.
8. In 1967, when he issued the Encyclical Populorum Progressio, my venerable
predecessor Pope Paul VI illuminated the great theme of the development of
peoples with the splendour of truth and the gentle light of Christ's charity. He
taught that life in Christ is the first and principal factor of development[6]
and he entrusted us with the task of travelling the path of development with all
our heart and all our intelligence[7], that is to say with the ardour of charity
and the wisdom of truth. It is the primordial truth of God's love, grace
bestowed upon us, that opens our lives to gift and makes it possible to hope for
a “development of the whole man and of all men”[8], to hope for progress “from
less human conditions to those which are more human”[9], obtained by overcoming
the difficulties that are inevitably encountered along the way.
At a distance of over forty years from the Encyclical's publication, I intend to
pay tribute and to honour the memory of the great Pope Paul VI, revisiting his
teachings on integral human development and taking my place within the path that
they marked out, so as to apply them to the present moment. This continual
application to contemporary circumstances began with the Encyclical Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis, with which the Servant of God Pope John Paul II chose to mark the
twentieth anniversary of the publication of Populorum Progressio. Until that
time, only Rerum Novarum had been commemorated in this way. Now that a further
twenty years have passed, I express my conviction that Populorum Progressio
deserves to be considered “the Rerum Novarum of the present age”, shedding light
upon humanity's journey towards unity.
9. Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great challenge for the Church in
a world that is becoming progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for
our time is that the de facto interdependence of people and nations is not
matched by ethical interaction of consciences and minds that would give rise to
truly human development. Only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and
faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and
humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from which authentic
development proceeds, is not guaranteed by merely technical progress and
relationships of utility, but by the potential of love that overcomes evil with
good (cf. Rom 12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences and
liberties.
The Church does not have technical solutions to offer[10] and does not claim “to
interfere in any way in the politics of States.”[11] She does, however, have a
mission of truth to accomplish, in every time and circumstance, for a society
that is attuned to man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is
easy to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable of rising
to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest in grasping the values —
sometimes even the meanings — with which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man
requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of freedom (cf. Jn
8:32) and of the possibility of integral human development. For this reason the
Church searches for truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it
is manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church can never
renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular dimension of this proclamation: it
is a service to the truth which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever
branch of knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it,
assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found, and mediates it
within the constantly changing life-patterns of the society of peoples and
nations[12].
CHAPTER ONE
THE MESSAGE OF POPULORUM PROGRESSIO
10. A fresh reading of Populorum Progressio, more than forty years after its
publication, invites us to remain faithful to its message of charity and truth,
viewed within the overall context of Paul VI's specific magisterium and, more
generally, within the tradition of the Church's social doctrine. Moreover, an
evaluation is needed of the different terms in which the problem of development
is presented today, as compared with forty years ago. The correct viewpoint,
then, is that of the Tradition of the apostolic faith[13], a patrimony both
ancient and new, outside of which Populorum Progressio would be a document
without roots — and issues concerning development would be reduced to merely
sociological data.
11. The publication of Populorum Progressio occurred immediately after the
conclusion of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, and in its opening
paragraphs it clearly indicates its close connection with the Council[14].
Twenty years later, in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, John Paul II, in his turn,
emphasized the earlier Encyclical's fruitful relationship with the Council, and
especially with the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes[15]. I too wish to
recall here the importance of the Second Vatican Council for Paul VI's
Encyclical and for the whole of the subsequent social Magisterium of the Popes.
The Council probed more deeply what had always belonged to the truth of the
faith, namely that the Church, being at God's service, is at the service of the
world in terms of love and truth. Paul VI set out from this vision in order to
convey two important truths. The first is that the whole Church, in all her
being and acting — when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs
works of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a
public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the
energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is
manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom. In not a few
cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is
limited when the Church's public presence is reduced to her charitable
activities alone. The second truth is that authentic human development concerns
the whole of the person in every single dimension[16]. Without the perspective
of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space.
Enclosed within history, it runs the risk of being reduced to the mere
accumulation of wealth; humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of
higher goods, at the service of the great and disinterested initiatives called
forth by universal charity. Man does not develop through his own powers, nor can
development simply be handed to him. In the course of history, it was often
maintained that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee the
fulfilment of humanity's right to development. Unfortunately, too much
confidence was placed in those institutions, as if they were able to deliver the
desired objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves are not
enough, because integral human development is primarily a vocation, and
therefore it involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the
part of everyone. Moreover, such development requires a transcendent vision of
the person, it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or
entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of thinking he can bring
about his own salvation, and ends up promoting a dehumanized form of
development. Only through an encounter with God are we able to see in the other
something more than just another creature[17], to recognize the divine image in
the other, thus truly coming to discover him or her and to mature in a love that
“becomes concern and care for the other.”[18]
12. The link between Populorum Progressio and the Second Vatican Council does
not mean that Paul VI's social magisterium marked a break with that of previous
Popes, because the Council constitutes a deeper exploration of this magisterium
within the continuity of the Church's life[19]. In this sense, clarity is not
served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church's social doctrine, which
apply categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to it. It is not a
case of two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar,
differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching,
consistent and at the same time ever new[20]. It is one thing to draw attention
to the particular characteristics of one Encyclical or another, of the teaching
of one Pope or another, but quite another to lose sight of the coherence of the
overall doctrinal corpus[21]. Coherence does not mean a closed system: on the
contrary, it means dynamic faithfulness to a light received. The Church's social
doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new problems that are
constantly emerging[22]. This safeguards the permanent and historical character
of the doctrinal “patrimony”[23] which, with its specific characteristics, is
part and parcel of the Church's ever-living Tradition[24]. Social doctrine is
built on the foundation handed on by the Apostles to the Fathers of the Church,
and then received and further explored by the great Christian doctors. This
doctrine points definitively to the New Man, to the “last Adam [who] became a
life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45), the principle of the charity that “never
ends” (1 Cor 13:8). It is attested by the saints and by those who gave their
lives for Christ our Saviour in the field of justice and peace. It is an
expression of the prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give apostolic
guidance to the Church of Christ and to discern the new demands of
evangelization. For these reasons, Populorum Progressio, situated within the
great current of Tradition, can still speak to us today.
13. In addition to its important link with the entirety of the Church's social
doctrine, Populorum Progressio is closely connected to the overall magisterium
of Paul VI, especially his social magisterium. His was certainly a social
teaching of great importance: he underlined the indispensable importance of the
Gospel for building a society according to freedom and justice, in the ideal and
historical perspective of a civilization animated by love. Paul VI clearly
understood that the social question had become worldwide [25] and he grasped the
interconnection between the impetus towards the unification of humanity and the
Christian ideal of a single family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In
the notion of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he
identified the heart of the Christian social message, and he proposed Christian
charity as the principal force at the service of development. Motivated by the
wish to make Christ's love fully visible to contemporary men and women, Paul VI
addressed important ethical questions robustly, without yielding to the cultural
weaknesses of his time.
14. In his Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens of 1971, Paul VI reflected on
the meaning of politics, and the danger constituted by utopian and ideological
visions that place its ethical and human dimensions in jeopardy. These are
matters closely connected with development. Unfortunately the negative
ideologies continue to flourish. Paul VI had already warned against the
technocratic ideology so prevalent today[26], fully aware of the great danger of
entrusting the entire process of development to technology alone, because in
that way it would lack direction. Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent.
If on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the entire process
of development to technology, on the other hand we are witnessing an upsurge of
ideologies that deny in toto the very value of development, viewing it as
radically anti-human and merely a source of degradation. This leads to a
rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which progress is
sometimes directed, but also of scientific discoveries themselves, which, if
well used, could serve as an opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world
without development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is therefore
a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to exercise control over the
deviations of development or to overlook the fact that man is constitutionally
oriented towards “being more”. Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating
the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are two contrasting
ways of detaching progress from its moral evaluation and hence from our
responsibility.
15. Two further documents by Paul VI without any direct link to social doctrine
— the Encyclical Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968) and the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975) — are highly important for delineating the
fully human meaning of the development that the Church proposes. It is therefore
helpful to consider these texts too in relation to Populorum Progressio.
The Encyclical Humanae Vitae emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative
meaning of sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the married
couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually, in distinction and in
complementarity: a couple, therefore, that is open to life[27]. This is not a
question of purely individual morality: Humanae Vitae indicates the strong links
between life ethics and social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial
teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of documents, most
recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium Vitae[28]. The Church forcefully
maintains this link between life ethics and social ethics, fully aware that “a
society lacks solid foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as
the dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other hand,
radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a variety of ways in
which human life is devalued and violated, especially where it is weak or
marginalized.”[29]
The Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi, for its part, is very closely
linked with development, given that, in Paul VI's words, “evangelization would
not be complete if it did not take account of the unceasing interplay of the
Gospel and of man's concrete life, both personal and social.”[30] “Between
evangelization and human advancement — development and liberation — there are in
fact profound links”[31]: on the basis of this insight, Paul VI clearly
presented the relationship between the proclamation of Christ and the
advancement of the individual in society. Testimony to Christ's charity, through
works of justice, peace and development, is part and parcel of evangelization,
because Jesus Christ, who loves us, is concerned with the whole person. These
important teachings form the basis for the missionary aspect[32] of the Church's
social doctrine, which is an essential element of evangelization[33]. The
Church's social doctrine proclaims and bears witness to faith. It is an
instrument and an indispensable setting for formation in faith.
16. In Populorum Progressio, Paul VI taught that progress, in its origin and
essence, is first and foremost a vocation: “in the design of God, every man is
called upon to develop and fulfil himself, for every life is a vocation.”[34]
This is what gives legitimacy to the Church's involvement in the whole question
of development. If development were concerned with merely technical aspects of
human life, and not with the meaning of man's pilgrimage through history in
company with his fellow human beings, nor with identifying the goal of that
journey, then the Church would not be entitled to speak on it. Paul VI, like Leo
XIII before him in Rerum Novarum[35], knew that he was carrying out a duty
proper to his office by shedding the light of the Gospel on the social questions
of his time[36].
To regard development as a vocation is to recognize, on the one hand, that it
derives from a transcendent call, and on the other hand that it is incapable, on
its own, of supplying its ultimate meaning. Not without reason the word
“vocation” is also found in another passage of the Encyclical, where we read:
“There is no true humanism but that which is open to the Absolute, and is
conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true meaning.”[37] This
vision of development is at the heart of Populorum Progressio, and it lies
behind all Paul VI's reflections on freedom, on truth and on charity in
development. It is also the principal reason why that Encyclical is still timely
in our day.
17. A vocation is a call that requires a free and responsible answer. Integral
human development presupposes the responsible freedom of the individual and of
peoples: no structure can guarantee this development over and above human
responsibility. The “types of messianism which give promises but create
illusions”[38] always build their case on a denial of the transcendent dimension
of development, in the conviction that it lies entirely at their disposal. This
false security becomes a weakness, because it involves reducing man to
subservience, to a mere means for development, while the humility of those who
accept a vocation is transformed into true autonomy, because it sets them free.
Paul VI was in no doubt that obstacles and forms of conditioning hold up
development, but he was also certain that “each one remains, whatever be these
influences affecting him, the principal agent of his own success or
failure.”[39] This freedom concerns the type of development we are considering,
but it also affects situations of underdevelopment which are not due to chance
or historical necessity, but are attributable to human responsibility. This is
why “the peoples in hunger are making a dramatic appeal to the peoples blessed
with abundance”[40]. This too is a vocation, a call addressed by free subjects
to other free subjects in favour of an assumption of shared responsibility. Paul
VI had a keen sense of the importance of economic structures and institutions,
but he had an equally clear sense of their nature as instruments of human
freedom. Only when it is free can development be integrally human; only in a
climate of responsible freedom can it grow in a satisfactory manner.
18. Besides requiring freedom, integral human development as a vocation also
demands respect for its truth. The vocation to progress drives us to “do more,
know more and have more in order to be more”[41]. But herein lies the problem:
what does it mean “to be more”? Paul VI answers the question by indicating the
essential quality of “authentic” development: it must be “integral, that is, it
has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man”[42]. Amid the various
competing anthropological visions put forward in today's society, even more so
than in Paul VI's time, the Christian vision has the particular characteristic
of asserting and justifying the unconditional value of the human person and the
meaning of his growth. The Christian vocation to development helps to promote
the advancement of all men and of the whole man. As Paul VI wrote: “What we hold
important is man, each man and each group of men, and we even include the whole
of humanity”[43]. In promoting development, the Christian faith does not rely on
privilege or positions of power, nor even on the merits of Christians (even
though these existed and continue to exist alongside their natural
limitations)[44], but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to
integral human development must be directed. The Gospel is fundamental for
development, because in the Gospel, Christ, “in the very revelation of the
mystery of the Father and of his love, fully reveals humanity to itself”[45].
Taught by her Lord, the Church examines the signs of the times and interprets
them, offering the world “what she possesses as her characteristic attribute: a
global vision of man and of the human race”[46]. Precisely because God gives a
resounding “yes” to man[47], man cannot fail to open himself to the divine
vocation to pursue his own development. The truth of development consists in its
completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every man, it is not true
development. This is the central message of Populorum Progressio, valid for
today and for all time. Integral human development on the natural plane, as a
response to a vocation from God the Creator[48], demands self-fulfilment in a
“transcendent humanism which gives [to man] his greatest possible perfection:
this is the highest goal of personal development”[49]. The Christian vocation to
this development therefore applies to both the natural plane and the
supernatural plane; which is why, “when God is eclipsed, our ability to
recognize the natural order, purpose and the ‘good' begins to wane”[50].
19. Finally, the vision of development as a vocation brings with it the central
place of charity within that development. Paul VI, in his Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio, pointed out that the causes of underdevelopment are not
primarily of the material order. He invited us to search for them in other
dimensions of the human person: first of all, in the will, which often neglects
the duties of solidarity; secondly in thinking, which does not always give
proper direction to the will. Hence, in the pursuit of development, there is a
need for “the deep thought and reflection of wise men in search of a new
humanism which will enable modern man to find himself anew”[51]. But that is not
all. Underdevelopment has an even more important cause than lack of deep
thought: it is “the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples”[52]. Will
it ever be possible to obtain this brotherhood by human effort alone? As society
becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours but does not make us
brothers. Reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the equality between men and
of giving stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish
fraternity. This originates in a transcendent vocation from God the Father, who
loved us first, teaching us through the Son what fraternal charity is. Paul VI,
presenting the various levels in the process of human development, placed at the
summit, after mentioning faith, “unity in the charity of Christ who calls us all
to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father of all”[53].
20. These perspectives, which Populorum Progressio opens up, remain fundamental
for giving breathing-space and direction to our commitment for the development
of peoples. Moreover, Populorum Progressio repeatedly underlines the urgent need
for reform[54], and in the face of great problems of injustice in the
development of peoples, it calls for courageous action to be taken without
delay. This urgency is also a consequence of charity in truth. It is Christ's
charity that drives us on: “caritas Christi urget nos” (2 Cor 5:14). The urgency
is inscribed not only in things, it is not derived solely from the rapid
succession of events and problems, but also from the very matter that is at
stake: the establishment of authentic fraternity.
The importance of this goal is such as to demand our openness to understand it
in depth and to mobilize ourselves at the level of the “heart”, so as to ensure
that current economic and social processes evolve towards fully human outcomes.
CHAPTER TWO
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT IN OUR TIME
21. Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He understood the term to
indicate the goal of rescuing peoples, first and foremost, from hunger,
deprivation, endemic diseases and illiteracy. From the economic point of view,
this meant their active participation, on equal terms, in the international
economic process; from the social point of view, it meant their evolution into
educated societies marked by solidarity; from the political point of view, it
meant the consolidation of democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and
peace. After so many years, as we observe with concern the developments and
perspectives of the succession of crises that afflict the world today, we ask to
what extent Paul VI's expectations have been fulfilled by the model of
development adopted in recent decades. We recognize, therefore, that the Church
had good reason to be concerned about the capacity of a purely technological
society to set realistic goals and to make good use of the instruments at its
disposal. Profit is useful if it serves as a means towards an end that provides
a sense both of how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit
becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means and without the
common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying wealth and creating
poverty. The economic development that Paul VI hoped to see was meant to produce
real growth, of benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable. It is true that
growth has taken place, and it continues to be a positive factor that has lifted
billions of people out of misery — recently it has given many countries the
possibility of becoming effective players in international politics. Yet it must
be acknowledged that this same economic growth has been and continues to be
weighed down by malfunctions and dramatic problems, highlighted even further by
the current crisis. This presents us with choices that cannot be postponed
concerning nothing less than the destiny of man, who, moreover, cannot prescind
from his nature. The technical forces in play, the global interrelations, the
damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and largely speculative
financial dealing, large-scale migration of peoples, often provoked by some
particular circumstance and then given insufficient attention, the unregulated
exploitation of the earth's resources: all this leads us today to reflect on the
measures that would be necessary to provide a solution to problems that are not
only new in comparison to those addressed by Pope Paul VI, but also, and above
all, of decisive impact upon the present and future good of humanity. The
different aspects of the crisis, its solutions, and any new development that the
future may bring, are increasingly interconnected, they imply one another, they
require new efforts of holistic understanding and a new humanistic synthesis.
The complexity and gravity of the present economic situation rightly cause us
concern, but we must adopt a realistic attitude as we take up with confidence
and hope the new responsibilities to which we are called by the prospect of a
world in need of profound cultural renewal, a world that needs to rediscover
fundamental values on which to build a better future. The current crisis obliges
us to re-plan our journey, to set ourselves new rules and to discover new forms
of commitment, to build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The
crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new
vision for the future. In this spirit, with confidence rather than resignation,
it is appropriate to address the difficulties of the present time.
22. Today the picture of development has many overlapping layers. The actors and
the causes in both underdevelopment and development are manifold, the faults and
the merits are differentiated. This fact should prompt us to liberate ourselves
from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways, and it
should lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems.
As John Paul II has already observed, the demarcation line between rich and poor
countries is no longer as clear as it was at the time of Populorum
Progressio[55]. The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but
inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new sectors of society are
succumbing to poverty and new forms of poverty are emerging. In poorer areas
some groups enjoy a sort of “superdevelopment” of a wasteful and consumerist
kind which forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of
dehumanizing deprivation. “The scandal of glaring inequalities”[56] continues.
Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident in the conduct of the
economic and political class in rich countries, both old and new, as well as in
poor ones. Among those who sometimes fail to respect the human rights of workers
are large multinational companies as well as local producers. International aid
has often been diverted from its proper ends, through irresponsible actions both
within the chain of donors and within that of the beneficiaries. Similarly, in
the context of immaterial or cultural causes of development and
underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility reproduced. On
the part of rich countries there is excessive zeal for protecting knowledge
through an unduly rigid assertion of the right to intellectual property,
especially in the field of health care. At the same time, in some poor
countries, cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which hinder
the process of development.
23. Many areas of the globe today have evolved considerably, albeit in
problematical and disparate ways, thereby taking their place among the great
powers destined to play important roles in the future. Yet it should be stressed
that progress of a merely economic and technological kind is insufficient.
Development needs above all to be true and integral. The mere fact of emerging
from economic backwardness, though positive in itself, does not resolve the
complex issues of human advancement, neither for the countries that are
spearheading such progress, nor for those that are already economically
developed, nor even for those that are still poor, which can suffer not just
through old forms of exploitation, but also from the negative consequences of a
growth that is marked by irregularities and imbalances.
After the collapse of the economic and political systems of the Communist
countries of Eastern Europe and the end of the so-called opposing blocs, a
complete re-examination of development was needed. Pope John Paul II called for
it, when in 1987 he pointed to the existence of these blocs as one of the
principal causes of underdevelopment[57], inasmuch as politics withdrew
resources from the economy and from the culture, and ideology inhibited freedom.
Moreover, in 1991, after the events of 1989, he asked that, in view of the
ending of the blocs, there should be a comprehensive new plan for development,
not only in those countries, but also in the West and in those parts of the
world that were in the process of evolving[58]. This has been achieved only in
part, and it is still a real duty that needs to be discharged, perhaps by means
of the choices that are necessary to overcome current economic problems.
24. The world that Paul VI had before him — even though society had already
evolved to such an extent that he could speak of social issues in global terms —
was still far less integrated than today's world. Economic activity and the
political process were both largely conducted within the same geographical area,
and could therefore feed off one another. Production took place predominantly
within national boundaries, and financial investments had somewhat limited
circulation outside the country, so that the politics of many States could still
determine the priorities of the economy and to some degree govern its
performance using the instruments at their disposal. Hence Populorum Progressio
assigned a central, albeit not exclusive, role to “public authorities”[59].
In our own day, the State finds itself having to address the limitations to its
sovereignty imposed by the new context of international trade and finance, which
is characterized by increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of
production, material and immaterial. This new context has altered the political
power of States.
Today, as we take to heart the lessons of the current economic crisis, which
sees the State's public authorities directly involved in correcting errors and
malfunctions, it seems more realistic to re-evaluate their role and their
powers, which need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as to enable them,
perhaps through new forms of engagement, to address the challenges of today's
world. Once the role of public authorities has been more clearly defined, one
could foresee an increase in the new forms of political participation,
nationally and internationally, that have come about through the activity of
organizations operating in civil society; in this way it is to be hoped that the
citizens' interest and participation in the res publica will become more deeply
rooted.
25. From the social point of view, systems of protection and welfare, already
present in many countries in Paul VI's day, are finding it hard and could find
it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true social justice in
today's profoundly changed environment. The global market has stimulated first
and foremost, on the part of rich countries, a search for areas in which to
outsource production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of many
goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating the rate of development
in terms of greater availability of consumer goods for the domestic market.
Consequently, the market has prompted new forms of competition between States as
they seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres, by means
of a variety of instruments, including favourable fiscal regimes and
deregulation of the labour market. These processes have led to a downsizing of
social security systems as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive
advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for the rights of
workers, for fundamental human rights and for the solidarity associated with the
traditional forms of the social State. Systems of social security can lose the
capacity to carry out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that
were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor countries. Here budgetary
policies, with cuts in social spending often made under pressure from
international financial institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face
of old and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of effective
protection on the part of workers' associations. Through the combination of
social and economic change, trade union organizations experience greater
difficulty in carrying out their task of representing the interests of workers,
partly because Governments, for reasons of economic utility, often limit the
freedom or the negotiating capacity of labour unions. Hence traditional networks
of solidarity have more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls
issued within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum Novarum[60],
for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their rights must
therefore be honoured today even more than in the past, as a prompt and
far-sighted response to the urgent need for new forms of cooperation at the
international level, as well as the local level.
The mobility of labour, associated with a climate of deregulation, is an
important phenomenon with certain positive aspects, because it can stimulate
wealth production and cultural exchange. Nevertheless, uncertainty over working
conditions caused by mobility and deregulation, when it becomes endemic, tends
to create new forms of psychological instability, giving rise to difficulty in
forging coherent life-plans, including that of marriage. This leads to
situations of human decline, to say nothing of the waste of social resources. In
comparison with the casualties of industrial society in the past, unemployment
today provokes new forms of economic marginalization, and the current crisis can
only make this situation worse. Being out of work or dependent on public or
private assistance for a prolonged period undermines the freedom and creativity
of the person and his family and social relationships, causing great
psychological and spiritual suffering. I would like to remind everyone,
especially governments engaged in boosting the world's economic and social
assets, that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued is man, the human
person in his or her integrity: “Man is the source, the focus and the aim of all
economic and social life”[61].
26. On the cultural plane, compared with Paul VI's day, the difference is even
more marked. At that time cultures were relatively well defined and had greater
opportunity to defend themselves against attempts to merge them into one. Today
the possibilities of interaction between cultures have increased significantly,
giving rise to new openings for intercultural dialogue: a dialogue that, if it
is to be effective, has to set out from a deep-seated knowledge of the specific
identity of the various dialogue partners. Let it not be forgotten that the
increased commercialization of cultural exchange today leads to a twofold
danger. First, one may observe a cultural eclecticism that is often assumed
uncritically: cultures are simply placed alongside one another and viewed as
substantially equivalent and interchangeable. This easily yields to a relativism
that does not serve true intercultural dialogue; on the social plane, cultural
relativism has the effect that cultural groups coexist side by side, but remain
separate, with no authentic dialogue and therefore with no true integration.
Secondly, the opposite danger exists, that of cultural levelling and
indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and life-styles. In this way one
loses sight of the profound significance of the culture of different nations, of
the traditions of the various peoples, by which the individual defines himself
in relation to life's fundamental questions[62]. What eclecticism and cultural
levelling have in common is the separation of culture from human nature. Thus,
cultures can no longer define themselves within a nature that transcends
them[63], and man ends up being reduced to a mere cultural statistic. When this
happens, humanity runs new risks of enslavement and manipulation.
27. Life in many poor countries is still extremely insecure as a consequence of
food shortages, and the situation could become worse: hunger still reaps
enormous numbers of victims among those who, like Lazarus, are not permitted to
take their place at the rich man's table, contrary to the hopes expressed by
Paul VI[64]. Feed the hungry (cf. Mt 25: 35, 37, 42) is an ethical imperative
for the universal Church, as she responds to the teachings of her Founder, the
Lord Jesus, concerning solidarity and the sharing of goods. Moreover, the
elimination of world hunger has also, in the global era, become a requirement
for safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet. Hunger is not so much
dependent on lack of material things as on shortage of social resources, the
most important of which are institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a
network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to
sufficient food and water for nutritional needs, and also capable of addressing
the primary needs and necessities ensuing from genuine food crises, whether due
to natural causes or political irresponsibility, nationally and internationally.
The problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a long-term
perspective, eliminating the structural causes that give rise to it and
promoting the agricultural development of poorer countries. This can be done by
investing in rural infrastructures, irrigation systems, transport, organization
of markets, and in the development and dissemination of agricultural technology
that can make the best use of the human, natural and socio-economic resources
that are more readily available at the local level, while guaranteeing their
sustainability over the long term as well. All this needs to be accomplished
with the involvement of local communities in choices and decisions that affect
the use of agricultural land. In this perspective, it could be useful to
consider the new possibilities that are opening up through proper use of
traditional as well as innovative farming techniques, always assuming that these
have been judged, after sufficient testing, to be appropriate, respectful of the
environment and attentive to the needs of the most deprived peoples. At the same
time, the question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries should
not be ignored. The right to food, like the right to water, has an important
place within the pursuit of other rights, beginning with the fundamental right
to life. It is therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that
considers food and access to water as universal rights of all human beings,
without distinction or discrimination[65]. It is important, moreover, to
emphasize that solidarity with poor countries in the process of development can
point towards a solution of the current global crisis, as politicians and
directors of international institutions have begun to sense in recent times.
Through support for economically poor countries by means of financial plans
inspired by solidarity — so that these countries can take steps to satisfy their
own citizens' demand for consumer goods and for development — not only can true
economic growth be generated, but a contribution can be made towards sustaining
the productive capacities of rich countries that risk being compromised by the
crisis.
28. One of the most striking aspects of development in the present day is the
important question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be detached from
questions concerning the development of peoples. It is an aspect which has
acquired increasing prominence in recent times, obliging us to broaden our
concept of poverty[66] and underdevelopment to include questions connected with
the acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a variety of
ways.
Not only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of infant
mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world still experience
practices of demographic control, on the part of governments that often promote
contraception and even go so far as to impose abortion. In economically
developed countries, legislation contrary to life is very widespread, and it has
already shaped moral attitudes and praxis, contributing to the spread of an
anti-birth mentality; frequent attempts are made to export this mentality to
other States as if it were a form of cultural progress.
Some non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion, at times
promoting the practice of sterilization in poor countries, in some cases not
even informing the women concerned. Moreover, there is reason to suspect that
development aid is sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de
facto involve the imposition of strong birth control measures. Further grounds
for concern are laws permitting euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby
groups, nationally and internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition.
Openness to life is at the centre of true development. When a society moves
towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer finding the
necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's true good. If personal and
social sensitivity towards the acceptance of a new life is lost, then other
forms of acceptance that are valuable for society also wither away[67]. The
acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people capable of mutual
help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy peoples can better understand the
needs of poor ones, they can avoid employing huge economic and intellectual
resources to satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead,
they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of production that is
morally sound and marked by solidarity, respecting the fundamental right to life
of every people and every individual.
29. There is another aspect of modern life that is very closely connected to
development: the denial of the right to religious freedom. I am not referring
simply to the struggles and conflicts that continue to be fought in the world
for religious motives, even if at times the religious motive is merely a cover
for other reasons, such as the desire for domination and wealth. Today, in fact,
people frequently kill in the holy name of God, as both my predecessor John Paul
II and I myself have often publicly acknowledged and lamented[68]. Violence puts
the brakes on authentic development and impedes the evolution of peoples towards
greater socio-economic and spiritual well-being. This applies especially to
terrorism motivated by fundamentalism[69], which generates grief, destruction
and death, obstructs dialogue between nations and diverts extensive resources
from their peaceful and civil uses.
Yet it should be added that, as well as religious fanaticism that in some
contexts impedes the exercise of the right to religious freedom, so too the
deliberate promotion of religious indifference or practical atheism on the part
of many countries obstructs the requirements for the development of peoples,
depriving them of spiritual and human resources. God is the guarantor of man's
true development, inasmuch as, having created him in his image, he also
establishes the transcendent dignity of men and women and feeds their innate
yearning to “be more”. Man is not a lost atom in a random universe[70]: he is
God's creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has
always loved. If man were merely the fruit of either chance or necessity, or if
he had to lower his aspirations to the limited horizon of the world in which he
lives, if all reality were merely history and culture, and man did not possess a
nature destined to transcend itself in a supernatural life, then one could speak
of growth, or evolution, but not development. When the State promotes, teaches,
or actually imposes forms of practical atheism, it deprives its citizens of the
moral and spiritual strength that is indispensable for attaining integral human
development and it impedes them from moving forward with renewed dynamism as
they strive to offer a more generous human response to divine love[71]. In the
context of cultural, commercial or political relations, it also sometimes
happens that economically developed or emerging countries export this reductive
vision of the person and his destiny to poor countries. This is the damage that
“superdevelopment”[72] causes to authentic development when it is accompanied by
“moral underdevelopment”[73].
30. In this context, the theme of integral human development takes on an even
broader range of meanings: the correlation between its multiple elements
requires a commitment to foster the interaction of the different levels of human
knowledge in order to promote the authentic development of peoples. Often it is
thought that development, or the socio-economic measures that go with it, merely
require to be implemented through joint action. This joint action, however,
needs to be given direction, because “all social action involves a
doctrine”[74]. In view of the complexity of the issues, it is obvious that the
various disciplines have to work together through an orderly interdisciplinary
exchange. Charity does not exclude knowledge, but rather requires, promotes, and
animates it from within. Knowledge is never purely the work of the intellect. It
can certainly be reduced to calculation and experiment, but if it aspires to be
wisdom capable of directing man in the light of his first beginnings and his
final ends, it must be “seasoned” with the “salt” of charity. Deeds without
knowledge are blind, and knowledge without love is sterile. Indeed, “the
individual who is animated by true charity labours skilfully to discover the
causes of misery, to find the means to combat it, to overcome it
resolutely”[75]. Faced with the phenomena that lie before us, charity in truth
requires first of all that we know and understand, acknowledging and respecting
the specific competence of every level of knowledge. Charity is not an added
extra, like an appendix to work already concluded in each of the various
disciplines: it engages them in dialogue from the very beginning. The demands of
love do not contradict those of reason. Human knowledge is insufficient and the
conclusions of science cannot indicate by themselves the path towards integral
human development. There is always a need to push further ahead: this is what is
required by charity in truth[76]. Going beyond, however, never means prescinding
from the conclusions of reason, nor contradicting its results. Intelligence and
love are not in separate compartments: love is rich in intelligence and
intelligence is full of love.
31. This means that moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in
hand, and that charity must animate them in a harmonious interdisciplinary
whole, marked by unity and distinction. The Church's social doctrine, which has
“an important interdisciplinary dimension”[77], can exercise, in this
perspective, a function of extraordinary effectiveness. It allows faith,
theology, metaphysics and science to come together in a collaborative effort in
the service of humanity. It is here above all that the Church's social doctrine
displays its dimension of wisdom. Paul VI had seen clearly that among the causes
of underdevelopment there is a lack of wisdom and reflection, a lack of thinking
capable of formulating a guiding synthesis[78], for which “a clear vision of all
economic, social, cultural and spiritual aspects”[79] is required. The excessive
segmentation of knowledge[80], the rejection of metaphysics by the human
sciences[81], the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and
theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge, but also to the
development of peoples, because these things make it harder to see the integral
good of man in its various dimensions. The “broadening [of] our concept of
reason and its application”[82] is indispensable if we are to succeed in
adequately weighing all the elements involved in the question of development and
in the solution of socio-economic problems.
32. The significant new elements in the picture of the development of peoples
today in many cases demand new solutions. These need to be found together,
respecting the laws proper to each element and in the light of an integral
vision of man, reflecting the different aspects of the human person,
contemplated through a lens purified by charity. Remarkable convergences and
possible solutions will then come to light, without any fundamental component of
human life being obscured.
The dignity of the individual and the demands of justice require, particularly
today, that economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase in
an excessive and morally unacceptable manner[83], and that we continue to
prioritize the goal of access to steady employment for everyone. All things
considered, this is also required by “economic logic”. Through the systemic
increase of social inequality, both within a single country and between the
populations of different countries (i.e. the massive increase in relative
poverty), not only does social cohesion suffer, thereby placing democracy at
risk, but so too does the economy, through the progressive erosion of “social
capital”: the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and respect for
rules, all of which are indispensable for any form of civil coexistence.
Economic science tells us that structural insecurity generates anti-productive
attitudes wasteful of human resources, inasmuch as workers tend to adapt
passively to automatic mechanisms, rather than to release creativity. On this
point too, there is a convergence between economic science and moral evaluation.
Human costs always include economic costs, and economic dysfunctions always
involve human costs.
It should be remembered that the reduction of cultures to the technological
dimension, even if it favours short-term profits, in the long term impedes
reciprocal enrichment and the dynamics of cooperation. It is important to
distinguish between short- and long-term economic or sociological
considerations. Lowering the level of protection accorded to the rights of
workers, or abandoning mechanisms of wealth redistribution in order to increase
the country's international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting
development. Moreover, the human consequences of current tendencies towards a
short-term economy — sometimes very short-term — need to be carefully evaluated.
This requires further and deeper reflection on the meaning of the economy and
its goals[84], as well as a profound and far-sighted revision of the current
model of development, so as to correct its dysfunctions and deviations. This is
demanded, in any case, by the earth's state of ecological health; above all it
is required by the cultural and moral crisis of man, the symptoms of which have
been evident for some time all over the world.
33. More than forty years after Populorum Progressio, its basic theme, namely
progress, remains an open question, made all the more acute and urgent by the
current economic and financial crisis. If some areas of the globe, with a
history of poverty, have experienced remarkable changes in terms of their
economic growth and their share in world production, other zones are still
living in a situation of deprivation comparable to that which existed at the
time of Paul VI, and in some cases one can even speak of a deterioration. It is
significant that some of the causes of this situation were identified in
Populorum Progressio, such as the high tariffs imposed by economically developed
countries, which still make it difficult for the products of poor countries to
gain a foothold in the markets of rich countries. Other causes, however,
mentioned only in passing in the Encyclical, have since emerged with greater
clarity. A case in point would be the evaluation of the process of
decolonization, then at its height. Paul VI hoped to see the journey towards
autonomy unfold freely and in peace. More than forty years later, we must
acknowledge how difficult this journey has been, both because of new forms of
colonialism and continued dependence on old and new foreign powers, and because
of grave irresponsibility within the very countries that have achieved
independence.
The principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide interdependence,
commonly known as globalization. Paul VI had partially foreseen it, but the
ferocious pace at which it has evolved could not have been anticipated.
Originating within economically developed countries, this process by its nature
has spread to include all economies. It has been the principal driving force
behind the emergence from underdevelopment of whole regions, and in itself it
represents a great opportunity. Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in
truth, this global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new
divisions within the human family. Hence charity and truth confront us with an
altogether new and creative challenge, one that is certainly vast and complex.
It is about broadening the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and
directing these powerful new forces, animating them within the perspective of
that “civilization of love” whose seed God has planted in every people, in every
culture.
CHAPTER THREE
FRATERNITY, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY
34. Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift.
Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go
unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The
human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent
dimension. Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author
of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being
selfishly closed in upon himself, and it is a consequence — to express it in
faith terms — of original sin. The Church's wisdom has always pointed to the
presence of original sin in social conditions and in the structure of society:
“Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature inclined to evil gives rise
to serious errors in the areas of education, politics, social action and
morals”[85]. In the list of areas where the pernicious effects of sin are
evident, the economy has been included for some time now. We have a clear proof
of this at the present time. The conviction that man is self-sufficient and can
successfully eliminate the evil present in history by his own action alone has
led him to confuse happiness and salvation with immanent forms of material
prosperity and social action. Then, the conviction that the economy must be
autonomous, that it must be shielded from “influences” of a moral character, has
led man to abuse the economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the
long term, these convictions have led to economic, social and political systems
that trample upon personal and social freedom, and are therefore unable to
deliver the justice that they promise. As I said in my Encyclical Letter Spe
Salvi, history is thereby deprived of Christian hope[86], deprived of a powerful
social resource at the service of integral human development, sought in freedom
and in justice. Hope encourages reason and gives it the strength to direct the
will[87]. It is already present in faith, indeed it is called forth by faith.
Charity in truth feeds on hope and, at the same time, manifests it. As the
absolutely gratuitous gift of God, hope bursts into our lives as something not
due to us, something that transcends every law of justice. Gift by its nature
goes beyond merit, its rule is that of superabundance. It takes first place in
our souls as a sign of God's presence in us, a sign of what he expects from us.
Truth — which is itself gift, in the same way as charity — is greater than we
are, as Saint Augustine teaches[88]. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our
personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process,
truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received.
Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself
upon human beings”[89].
Because it is a gift received by everyone, charity in truth is a force that
builds community, it brings all people together without imposing barriers or
limits. The human community that we build by ourselves can never, purely by its
own strength, be a fully fraternal community, nor can it overcome every division
and become a truly universal community. The unity of the human race, a fraternal
communion transcending every barrier, is called into being by the word of
God-who-is-Love. In addressing this key question, we must make it clear, on the
one hand, that the logic of gift does not exclude justice, nor does it merely
sit alongside it as a second element added from without; on the other hand,
economic, social and political development, if it is to be authentically human,
needs to make room for the principle of gratuitousness as an expression of
fraternity.
35. In a climate of mutual trust, the market is the economic institution that
permits encounter between persons, inasmuch as they are economic subjects who
make use of contracts to regulate their relations as they exchange goods and
services of equivalent value between them, in order to satisfy their needs and
desires. The market is subject to the principles of so-called commutative
justice, which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between parties
to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church has unceasingly
highlighted the importance of distributive justice and social justice for the
market economy, not only because it belongs within a broader social and
political context, but also because of the wider network of relations within
which it operates. In fact, if the market is governed solely by the principle of
the equivalence in value of exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social
cohesion that it requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of
solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil its proper
economic function. And today it is this trust which has ceased to exist, and the
loss of trust is a grave loss. It was timely when Paul VI in Populorum
Progressio insisted that the economic system itself would benefit from the
wide-ranging practice of justice, inasmuch as the first to gain from the
development of poor countries would be rich ones[90]. According to the Pope, it
was not just a matter of correcting dysfunctions through assistance. The poor
are not to be considered a “burden”[91], but a resource, even from the purely
economic point of view. It is nevertheless erroneous to hold that the market
economy has an inbuilt need for a quota of poverty and underdevelopment in order
to function at its best. It is in the interests of the market to promote
emancipation, but in order to do so effectively, it cannot rely only on itself,
because it is not able to produce by itself something that lies outside its
competence. It must draw its moral energies from other subjects that are capable
of generating them.
36. Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the simple
application of commercial logic. This needs to be directed towards the pursuit
of the common good, for which the political community in particular must also
take responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave imbalances
are produced when economic action, conceived merely as an engine for wealth
creation, is detached from political action, conceived as a means for pursuing
justice through redistribution.
The Church has always held that economic action is not to be regarded as
something opposed to society. In and of itself, the market is not, and must not
become, the place where the strong subdue the weak. Society does not have to
protect itself from the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso
facto to entail the death of authentically human relations. Admittedly, the
market can be a negative force, not because it is so by nature, but because a
certain ideology can make it so. It must be remembered that the market does not
exist in the pure state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which
define it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments, can be
used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely selfish ends.
Instruments that are good in themselves can thereby be transformed into harmful
ones. But it is man's darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the
instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument that must be called to
account, but individuals, their moral conscience and their personal and social
responsibility.
The Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships
of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic
activity, and not only outside it or “after” it. The economic sphere is neither
ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and
parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be
structured and governed in an ethical manner.
The great challenge before us, accentuated by the problems of development in
this global era and made even more urgent by the economic and financial crisis,
is to demonstrate, in thinking and behaviour, not only that traditional
principles of social ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot
be ignored or attenuated, but also that in commercial relationships the
principle of gratuitousness and the logic of gift as an expression of fraternity
can and must find their place within normal economic activity. This is a human
demand at the present time, but it is also demanded by economic logic. It is a
demand both of charity and of truth.
37. The Church's social doctrine has always maintained that justice must be
applied to every phase of economic activity, because this is always concerned
with man and his needs. Locating resources, financing, production, consumption
and all the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral
implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral consequence. The social
sciences and the direction taken by the contemporary economy point to the same
conclusion. Perhaps at one time it was conceivable that first the creation of
wealth could be entrusted to the economy, and then the task of distributing it
could be assigned to politics. Today that would be more difficult, given that
economic activity is no longer circumscribed within territorial limits, while
the authority of governments continues to be principally local. Hence the canons
of justice must be respected from the outset, as the economic process unfolds,
and not just afterwards or incidentally. Space also needs to be created within
the market for economic activity carried out by subjects who freely choose to
act according to principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing
the production of economic value in the process. The many economic entities that
draw their origin from religious and lay initiatives demonstrate that this is
concretely possible.
In the global era, the economy is influenced by competitive models tied to
cultures that differ greatly among themselves. The different forms of economic
enterprise to which they give rise find their main point of encounter in
commutative justice. Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in order to
regulate relations of exchange between goods of equivalent value. But it also
needs just laws and forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is
more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The economy in the global
era seems to privilege the former logic, that of contractual exchange, but
directly or indirectly it also demonstrates its need for the other two:
political logic, and the logic of the unconditional gift.
38. My predecessor John Paul II drew attention to this question in Centesimus
Annus, when he spoke of the need for a system with three subjects: the market,
the State and civil society[92]. He saw civil society as the most natural
setting for an economy of gratuitousness and fraternity, but did not mean to
deny it a place in the other two settings. Today we can say that economic life
must be understood as a multi-layered phenomenon: in every one of these layers,
to varying degrees and in ways specifically suited to each, the aspect of
fraternal reciprocity must be present. In the global era, economic activity
cannot prescind from gratuitousness, which fosters and disseminates solidarity
and responsibility for justice and the common good among the different economic
players. It is clearly a specific and profound form of economic democracy.
Solidarity is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of
everyone with regard to everyone[93], and it cannot therefore be merely
delegated to the State. While in the past it was possible to argue that justice
had to come first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a complement,
today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there can be no justice in the
first place. What is needed, therefore, is a market that permits the free
operation, in conditions of equal opportunity, of enterprises in pursuit of
different institutional ends. Alongside profit-oriented private enterprise and
the various types of public enterprise, there must be room for commercial
entities based on mutualist principles and pursuing social ends to take root and
express themselves. It is from their reciprocal encounter in the marketplace
that one may expect hybrid forms of commercial behaviour to emerge, and hence an
attentiveness to ways of civilizing the economy. Charity in truth, in this case,
requires that shape and structure be given to those types of economic initiative
which, without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere logic of the
exchange of equivalents, of profit as an end in itself.
39. Paul VI in Populorum Progressio called for the creation of a model of market
economy capable of including within its range all peoples and not just the
better off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for all, a world
in which “all will be able to give and receive, without one group making
progress at the expense of the other”[94]. In this way he was applying on a
global scale the insights and aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written
when, as a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first proposed —
somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order, for its self-regulation, also
needed intervention from the State for purposes of redistribution. Not only is
this vision threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are
opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the demands of a fully
humane economy. What the Church's social doctrine has always sustained, on the
basis of its vision of man and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of
globalization.
When both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to an
agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over its respective
area of influence, in the long term much is lost: solidarity in relations
between citizens, participation and adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of
which stand in contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of exchange)
and giving through duty (the logic of public obligation, imposed by State law).
In order to defeat underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving
exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare structures, but above
all on gradually increasing openness, in a world context, to forms of economic
activity marked by quotas of gratuitousness and communion. The exclusively
binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while economic forms
based on solidarity, which find their natural home in civil society without
being restricted to it, build up society. The market of gratuitousness does not
exist, and attitudes of gratuitousness cannot be established by law. Yet both
the market and politics need individuals who are open to reciprocal gift.
40. Today's international economic scene, marked by grave deviations and
failures, requires a profoundly new way of understanding business enterprise.
Old models are disappearing, but promising new ones are taking shape on the
horizon. Without doubt, one of the greatest risks for businesses is that they
are almost exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting their
social value. Owing to their growth in scale and the need for more and more
capital, it is becoming increasingly rare for business enterprises to be in the
hands of a stable director who feels responsible in the long term, not just the
short term, for the life and the results of his company, and it is becoming
increasingly rare for businesses to depend on a single territory. Moreover, the
so-called outsourcing of production can weaken the company's sense of
responsibility towards the stakeholders — namely the workers, the suppliers, the
consumers, the natural environment and broader society — in favour of the
shareholders, who are not tied to a specific geographical area and who therefore
enjoy extraordinary mobility. Today's international capital market offers great
freedom of action. Yet there is also increasing awareness of the need for
greater social responsibility on the part of business. Even if the ethical
considerations that currently inform debate on the social responsibility of the
corporate world are not all acceptable from the perspective of the Church's
social doctrine, there is nevertheless a growing conviction that business
management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the proprietors, but
must also assume responsibility for all the other stakeholders who contribute to
the life of the business: the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various
elements of production, the community of reference. In recent years a new
cosmopolitan class of managers has emerged, who are often answerable only to the
shareholders generally consisting of anonymous funds which de facto determine
their remuneration. By contrast, though, many far-sighted managers today are
becoming increasingly aware of the profound links between their enterprise and
the territory or territories in which it operates. Paul VI invited people to
give serious attention to the damage that can be caused to one's home country by
the transfer abroad of capital purely for personal advantage[95]. John Paul II
taught that investment always has moral, as well as economic significance[96].
All this — it should be stressed — is still valid today, despite the fact that
the capital market has been significantly liberalized, and modern technological
thinking can suggest that investment is merely a technical act, not a human and
ethical one. There is no reason to deny that a certain amount of capital can do
good, if invested abroad rather than at home. Yet the requirements of justice
must be safeguarded, with due consideration for the way in which the capital was
generated and the harm to individuals that will result if it is not used where
it was produced[97]. What should be avoided is a speculative use of financial
resources that yields to the temptation of seeking only short-term profit,
without regard for the long-term sustainability of the enterprise, its benefit
to the real economy and attention to the advancement, in suitable and
appropriate ways, of further economic initiatives in countries in need of
development. It is true that the export of investments and skills can benefit
the populations of the receiving country. Labour and technical knowledge are a
universal good. Yet it is not right to export these things merely for the sake
of obtaining advantageous conditions, or worse, for purposes of exploitation,
without making a real contribution to local society by helping to bring about a
robust productive and social system, an essential factor for stable development.
41. In the context of this discussion, it is helpful to observe that business
enterprise involves a wide range of values, becoming wider all the time. The
continuing hegemony of the binary model of market-plus-State has accustomed us
to think only in terms of the private business leader of a capitalistic bent on
the one hand, and the State director on the other. In reality, business has to
be understood in an articulated way. There are a number of reasons, of a
meta-economic kind, for saying this. Business activity has a human significance,
prior to its professional one[98]. It is present in all work, understood as a
personal action, an “actus personae”[99], which is why every worker should have
the chance to make his contribution knowing that in some way “he is working ‘for
himself'”[100]. With good reason, Paul VI taught that “everyone who works is a
creator”[101]. It is in response to the needs and the dignity of the worker, as
well as the needs of society, that there exist various types of business
enterprise, over and above the simple distinction between “private” and
“public”. Each of them requires and expresses a specific business capacity. In
order to construct an economy that will soon be in a position to serve the
national and global common good, it is appropriate to take account of this
broader significance of business activity. It favours cross-fertilization
between different types of business activity, with shifting of competences from
the “non-profit” world to the “profit” world and vice versa, from the public
world to that of civil society, from advanced economies to developing countries.
“Political authority” also involves a wide range of values, which must not be
overlooked in the process of constructing a new order of economic productivity,
socially responsible and human in scale. As well as cultivating differentiated
forms of business activity on the global plane, we must also promote a dispersed
political authority, effective on different levels. The integrated economy of
the present day does not make the role of States redundant, but rather it
commits governments to greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and
prudence suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the State.
In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the State's role seems
destined to grow, as it regains many of its competences. In some nations,
moreover, the construction or reconstruction of the State remains a key factor
in their development. The focus of international aid, within a solidarity-based
plan to resolve today's economic problems, should rather be on consolidating
constitutional, juridical and administrative systems in countries that do not
yet fully enjoy these goods. Alongside economic aid, there needs to be aid
directed towards reinforcing the guarantees proper to the State of law: a system
of public order and effective imprisonment that respects human rights, truly
democratic institutions. The State does not need to have identical
characteristics everywhere: the support aimed at strengthening weak
constitutional systems can easily be accompanied by the development of other
political players, of a cultural, social, territorial or religious nature,
alongside the State. The articulation of political authority at the local,
national and international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction to
the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure that it does
not actually undermine the foundations of democracy.
42. Sometimes globalization is viewed in fatalistic terms, as if the dynamics
involved were the product of anonymous impersonal forces or structures
independent of the human will[102]. In this regard it is useful to remember that
while globalization should certainly be understood as a socio-economic process,
this is not its only dimension. Underneath the more visible process, humanity
itself is becoming increasingly interconnected; it is made up of individuals and
peoples to whom this process should offer benefits and development[103], as they
assume their respective responsibilities, singly and collectively. The
breaking-down of borders is not simply a material fact: it is also a cultural
event both in its causes and its effects. If globalization is viewed from a
deterministic standpoint, the criteria with which to evaluate and direct it are
lost. As a human reality, it is the product of diverse cultural tendencies,
which need to be subjected to a process of discernment. The truth of
globalization as a process and its fundamental ethical criterion are given by
the unity of the human family and its development towards what is good. Hence a
sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a person-based and
community-oriented cultural process of world-wide integration that is open to
transcendence.
Despite some of its structural elements, which should neither be denied nor
exaggerated, “globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It will be what
people make of it”[104]. We should not be its victims, but rather its
protagonists, acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth. Blind
opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude, incapable of recognizing
the positive aspects of the process, with the consequent risk of missing the
chance to take advantage of its many opportunities for development. The
processes of globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the
unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of wealth on a
world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they can lead to an increase in
poverty and inequality, and could even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary
to correct the malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions
between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the redistribution
of wealth does not come about through the redistribution or increase of poverty:
a real danger if the present situation were to be badly managed. For a long time
it was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of development,
and should be content to receive assistance from the philanthropy of developed
peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed this mentality in Populorum Progressio. Today
the material resources available for rescuing these peoples from poverty are
potentially greater than before, but they have ended up largely in the hands of
people from developed countries, who have benefited more from the liberalization
that has occurred in the mobility of capital and labour. The world-wide
diffusion of forms of prosperity should not therefore be held up by projects
that are self-centred, protectionist or at the service of private interests.
Indeed the involvement of emerging or developing countries allows us to manage
the crisis better today. The transition inherent in the process of globalization
presents great difficulties and dangers that can only be overcome if we are able
to appropriate the underlying anthropological and ethical spirit that drives
globalization towards the humanizing goal of solidarity. Unfortunately this
spirit is often overwhelmed or suppressed by ethical and cultural considerations
of an individualistic and utilitarian nature. Globalization is a multifaceted
and complex phenomenon which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all
its different dimensions, including the theological dimension. In this way it
will be possible to experience and to steer the globalization of humanity in
relational terms, in terms of communion and the sharing of goods.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLE - RIGHTS AND DUTIES - THE ENVIRONMENT
43. “The reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a
duty”[105]. Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone,
except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights, and they often
have great difficulty in taking responsibility for their own and other people's
integral development. Hence it is important to call for a renewed reflection on
how rights presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence[106].
Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one hand, appeals are
made to alleged rights, arbitrary and non-essential in nature, accompanied by
the demand that they be recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on
the other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged and are
violated in much of the world[107]. A link has often been noted between claims
to a “right to excess”, and even to transgression and vice, within affluent
societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic instruction and
elementary health care in areas of the underdeveloped world and on the outskirts
of large metropolitan centres. The link consists in this: individual rights,
when detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full meaning,
can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which is effectively unlimited
and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on rights leads to a disregard for duties.
Duties set a limit on rights because they point to the anthropological and
ethical framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that they do
not become licence. Duties thereby reinforce rights and call for their defence
and promotion as a task to be undertaken in the service of the common good.
Otherwise, if the only basis of human rights is to be found in the deliberations
of an assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time, and so the
duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common consciousness. Governments
and international bodies can then lose sight of the objectivity and
“inviolability” of rights. When this happens, the authentic development of
peoples is endangered[108]. Such a way of thinking and acting compromises the
authority of international bodies, especially in the eyes of those countries
most in need of development. Indeed, the latter demand that the international
community take up the duty of helping them to be “artisans of their own
destiny”[109], that is, to take up duties of their own. The sharing of
reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion
of rights.
44. The notion of rights and duties in development must also take account of the
problems associated with population growth. This is a very important aspect of
authentic development, since it concerns the inalienable values of life and the
family[110]. To consider population increase as the primary cause of
underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of view. Suffice it to
consider, on the one hand, the significant reduction in infant mortality and the
rise in average life expectancy found in economically developed countries, and
on the other hand, the signs of crisis observable in societies that are
registering an alarming decline in their birth rate. Due attention must
obviously be given to responsible procreation, which among other things has a
positive contribution to make to integral human development. The Church, in her
concern for man's authentic development, urges him to have full respect for
human values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced merely to
pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be reduced to technical
instruction aimed solely at protecting the interested parties from possible
disease or the “risk” of procreation. This would be to impoverish and disregard
the deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be acknowledged and
responsibly appropriated not only by individuals but also by the community. It
is irresponsible to view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise
to regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control. In either case
materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and individuals are ultimately
subjected to various forms of violence. Against such policies, there is a need
to defend the primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality[111], as
opposed to the State and its restrictive policies, and to ensure that parents
are suitably prepared to undertake their responsibilities.
Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic
resource. Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks not
least to the size of their population and the talents of their people. On the
other hand, formerly prosperous nations are presently passing through a phase of
uncertainty and in some cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth
rates; this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies. The
decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called “replacement level”,
also puts a strain on social welfare systems, increases their cost, eats into
savings and hence the financial resources needed for investment, reduces the
availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain pool” upon which
nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore, smaller and at times miniscule
families run the risk of impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure
effective forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant
confidence in the future and moral weariness. It is thus becoming a social and
even economic necessity once more to hold up to future generations the beauty of
marriage and the family, and the fact that these institutions correspond to the
deepest needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are called to
enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded
on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society[112],
and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs, while respecting
its essentially relational character.
45. Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has important
and beneficial repercussions at the level of economics. The economy needs ethics
in order to function correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which
is people-centred. Today we hear much talk of ethics in the world of economy,
finance and business. Research centres and seminars in business ethics are on
the rise; the system of ethical certification is spreading throughout the
developed world as part of the movement of ideas associated with the
responsibilities of business towards society. Banks are proposing “ethical”
accounts and investment funds. “Ethical financing” is being developed,
especially through micro-credit and, more generally, micro-finance. These
processes are praiseworthy and deserve much support. Their positive effects are
also being felt in the less developed areas of the world. It would be advisable,
however, to develop a sound criterion of discernment, since the adjective
“ethical” can be abused. When the word is used generically, it can lend itself
to any number of interpretations, even to the point where it includes decisions
and choices contrary to justice and authentic human welfare.
Much in fact depends on the underlying system of morality. On this subject the
Church's social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is based on
man's creation “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27), a datum which gives rise to the
inviolable dignity of the human person and the transcendent value of natural
moral norms. When business ethics prescinds from these two pillars, it
inevitably risks losing its distinctive nature and it falls prey to forms of
exploitation; more specifically, it risks becoming subservient to existing
economic and financial systems rather than correcting their dysfunctional
aspects. Among other things, it risks being used to justify the financing of
projects that are in reality unethical. The word “ethical”, then, should not be
used to make ideological distinctions, as if to suggest that initiatives not
formally so designated would not be ethical. Efforts are needed — and it is
essential to say this — not only to create “ethical” sectors or segments of the
economy or the world of finance, but to ensure that the whole economy — the
whole of finance — is ethical, not merely by virtue of an external label, but by
its respect for requirements intrinsic to its very nature. The Church's social
teaching is quite clear on the subject, recalling that the economy, in all its
branches, constitutes a sector of human activity[113].
46. When we consider the issues involved in the relationship between business
and ethics, as well as the evolution currently taking place in methods of
production, it would appear that the traditionally valid distinction between
profit-based companies and non-profit organizations can no longer do full
justice to reality, or offer practical direction for the future. In recent
decades a broad intermediate area has emerged between the two types of
enterprise. It is made up of traditional companies which nonetheless subscribe
to social aid agreements in support of underdeveloped countries, charitable
foundations associated with individual companies, groups of companies oriented
towards social welfare, and the diversified world of the so-called “civil
economy” and the “economy of communion”. This is not merely a matter of a “third
sector”, but of a broad new composite reality embracing the private and public
spheres, one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a means for
achieving human and social ends. Whether such companies distribute dividends or
not, whether their juridical structure corresponds to one or other of the
established forms, becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view
profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market and society. It
is to be hoped that these new kinds of enterprise will succeed in finding a
suitable juridical and fiscal structure in every country. Without prejudice to
the importance and the economic and social benefits of the more traditional
forms of business, they steer the system towards a clearer and more complete
assumption of duties on the part of economic subjects. And not only that. The
very plurality of institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which
is not only more civilized but also more competitive.
47. The strengthening of different types of businesses, especially those capable
of viewing profit as a means for achieving the goal of a more humane market and
society, must also be pursued in those countries that are excluded or
marginalized from the influential circles of the global economy. In these
countries it is very important to move ahead with projects based on subsidiarity,
suitably planned and managed, aimed at affirming rights yet also providing for
the assumption of corresponding responsibilities. In development programmes, the
principle of the centrality of the human person, as the subject primarily
responsible for development, must be preserved. The principal concern must be to
improve the actual living conditions of the people in a given region, thus
enabling them to carry out those duties which their poverty does not presently
allow them to fulfil. Social concern must never be an abstract attitude.
Development programmes, if they are to be adapted to individual situations, need
to be flexible; and the people who benefit from them ought to be directly
involved in their planning and implementation. The criteria to be applied should
aspire towards incremental development in a context of solidarity — with careful
monitoring of results — inasmuch as there are no universally valid solutions.
Much depends on the way programmes are managed in practice. “The peoples
themselves have the prime responsibility to work for their own development. But
they will not bring this about in isolation”[114]. These words of Paul VI are
all the more timely nowadays, as our world becomes progressively more
integrated. The dynamics of inclusion are hardly automatic. Solutions need to be
carefully designed to correspond to people's concrete lives, based on a
prudential evaluation of each situation. Alongside macro-projects, there is a
place for micro-projects, and above all there is need for the active
mobilization of all the subjects of civil society, both juridical and physical
persons.
International cooperation requires people who can be part of the process of
economic and human development through the solidarity of their presence,
supervision, training and respect. From this standpoint, international
organizations might question the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic and
administrative machinery, which is often excessively costly. At times it happens
that those who receive aid become subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor
serve to perpetuate expensive bureaucracies which consume an excessively high
percentage of funds intended for development. Hence it is to be hoped that all
international agencies and non-governmental organizations will commit themselves
to complete transparency, informing donors and the public of the percentage of
their income allocated to programmes of cooperation, the actual content of those
programmes and, finally, the detailed expenditure of the institution itself.
48. Today the subject of development is also closely related to the duties
arising from our relationship to the natural environment. The environment is
God's gift to everyone, and in our use of it we have a responsibility towards
the poor, towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When
nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of mere chance or
evolutionary determinism, our sense of responsibility wanes. In nature, the
believer recognizes the wonderful result of God's creative activity, which we
may use responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or otherwise,
while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation. If this vision is lost, we
end up either considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary,
abusing it. Neither attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as
the fruit of God's creation.
Nature expresses a design of love and truth. It is prior to us, and it has been
given to us by God as the setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of the
Creator (cf. Rom 1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to be
“recapitulated” in Christ at the end of time (cf. Eph 1:9-10; Col 1:19-20). Thus
it too is a “vocation”[115]. Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of
scattered refuse”[116], but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt
order, enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to till it
and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed that it is contrary to
authentic development to view nature as something more important than the human
person. This position leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism —
human salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely
naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also necessary to reject the
opposite position, which aims at total technical dominion over nature, because
the natural environment is more than raw material to be manipulated at our
pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets
forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless exploitation. Today
much harm is done to development precisely as a result of these distorted
notions. Reducing nature merely to a collection of contingent data ends up doing
violence to the environment and even encouraging activity that fails to respect
human nature itself. Our nature, constituted not only by matter but also by
spirit, and as such, endowed with transcendent meaning and aspirations, is also
normative for culture. Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment
through culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use of
freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law. Consequently,
projects for integral human development cannot ignore coming generations, but
need to be marked by solidarity and inter-generational justice, while taking
into account a variety of contexts: ecological, juridical, economic, political
and cultural[117].
49. Questions linked to the care and preservation of the environment today need
to give due consideration to the energy problem. The fact that some States,
power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy resources represents a
grave obstacle to development in poor countries. Those countries lack the
economic means either to gain access to existing sources of non-renewable energy
or to finance research into new alternatives. The stockpiling of natural
resources, which in many cases are found in the poor countries themselves, gives
rise to exploitation and frequent conflicts between and within nations. These
conflicts are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a heavy
toll of death, destruction and further decay. The international community has an
urgent duty to find institutional means of regulating the exploitation of
non-renewable resources, involving poor countries in the process, in order to
plan together for the future.
On this front too, there is a pressing moral need for renewed solidarity,
especially in relationships between developing countries and those that are
highly industrialized[118]. The technologically advanced societies can and must
lower their domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in
manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity among their
citizens. It should be added that at present it is possible to achieve improved
energy efficiency while at the same time encouraging research into alternative
forms of energy. What is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of
energy resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have access to
them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in the hands of whoever is
first to claim the spoils, or whoever is able to prevail over the rest. Here we
are dealing with major issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone
must responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future generations,
particularly on the many young people in the poorer nations, who “ask to assume
their active part in the construction of a better world”[119].
50. This responsibility is a global one, for it is concerned not just with
energy but with the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future
generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately exercise a
responsible stewardship over nature, in order to protect it, to enjoy its fruits
and to cultivate it in new ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies,
so that it can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On this
earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human family must find the
resources to live with dignity, through the help of nature itself — God's gift
to his children — and through hard work and creativity. At the same time we must
recognize our grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a
condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to cultivate it.
This means being committed to making joint decisions “after pondering
responsibly the road to be taken, decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant
between human beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative love
of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are journeying”[120]. Let us hope
that the international community and individual governments will succeed in
countering harmful ways of treating the environment. It is likewise incumbent
upon the competent authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic
and social costs of using up shared environmental resources are recognized with
transparency and fully borne by those who incur them, not by other peoples or
future generations: the protection of the environment, of resources and of the
climate obliges all international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness
to work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity with the
weakest regions of the planet[121]. One of the greatest challenges facing the
economy is to achieve the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources,
based on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not value-free.
51. The way humanity treats the environment influences the way it treats itself,
and vice versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review of its
life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone to hedonism and
consumerism, regardless of their harmful consequences[122]. What is needed is an
effective shift in mentality which can lead to the adoption of new life-styles
“in which the quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for
the sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices,
savings and investments”[123]. Every violation of solidarity and civic
friendship harms the environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn
upsets relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so integrated
into the dynamics of society and culture that by now it hardly constitutes an
independent variable. Desertification and the decline in productivity in some
agricultural areas are also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment
among their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their economic and
cultural development, nature itself is protected. Moreover, how many natural
resources are squandered by wars! Peace in and among peoples would also provide
greater protection for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can
generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful agreement about
the use of resources can protect nature and, at the same time, the well-being of
the societies concerned.
The Church has a responsibility towards creation and she must assert this
responsibility in the public sphere. In so doing, she must defend not only
earth, water and air as gifts of creation that belong to everyone. She must
above all protect mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be
called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration of nature is in
fact closely connected to the culture that shapes human coexistence: when “human
ecology”[124] is respected within society, environmental ecology also benefits.
Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that the weakening of one places
others at risk, so the ecological system is based on respect for a plan that
affects both the health of society and its good relationship with nature.
In order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with economic
incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite education is sufficient. These
are important steps, but the decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of
society. If there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a natural
death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made artificial, if human
embryos are sacrificed to research, the conscience of society ends up losing the
concept of human ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It
is contradictory to insist that future generations respect the natural
environment when our educational systems and laws do not help them to respect
themselves. The book of nature is one and indivisible: it takes in not only the
environment but also life, sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in
a word, integral human development. Our duties towards the environment are
linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in himself and in
relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold one set of duties while
trampling on the other. Herein lies a grave contradiction in our mentality and
practice today: one which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and
damages society.
52. Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they can only be
received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not, and cannot be, mankind, but
only God, who is himself Truth and Love. This principle is extremely important
for society and for development, since neither can be a purely human product;
the vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples is not based
simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us
and constitutes for all of us a duty to be freely accepted. That which is prior
to us and constitutes us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness
is, and in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to true
development.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE COOPERATION OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
53. One of the deepest forms of poverty a person can experience is isolation. If
we look closely at other kinds of poverty, including material forms, we see that
they are born from isolation, from not being loved or from difficulties in being
able to love. Poverty is often produced by a rejection of God's love, by man's
basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself, thinking himself to be
self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a
random universe. Man is alienated when he is alone, when he is detached from
reality, when he stops thinking and believing in a foundation[125]. All of
humanity is alienated when too much trust is placed in merely human projects,
ideologies and false utopias[126]. Today humanity appears much more interactive
than in the past: this shared sense of being close to one another must be
transformed into true communion. The development of peoples depends, above all,
on a recognition that the human race is a single family working together in true
communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side[127].
Pope Paul VI noted that “the world is in trouble because of the lack of
thinking”[128]. He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new
trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better understanding of
the implications of our being one family; interaction among the peoples of the
world calls us to embark upon this new trajectory, so that integration can
signify solidarity[129] rather than marginalization. Thinking of this kind
requires a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation. This is a
task that cannot be undertaken by the social sciences alone, insofar as the
contribution of disciplines such as metaphysics and theology is needed if man's
transcendent dignity is to be properly understood.
As a spiritual being, the human creature is defined through interpersonal
relations. The more authentically he or she lives these relations, the more his
or her own personal identity matures. It is not by isolation that man
establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation with others and with
God. Hence these relations take on fundamental importance. The same holds true
for peoples as well. A metaphysical understanding of the relations between
persons is therefore of great benefit for their development. In this regard,
reason finds inspiration and direction in Christian revelation, according to
which the human community does not absorb the individual, annihilating his
autonomy, as happens in the various forms of totalitarianism, but rather values
him all the more because the relation between individual and community is a
relation between one totality and another[130]. Just as a family does not
submerge the identities of its individual members, just as the Church rejoices
in each “new creation” (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17) incorporated by Baptism into her
living Body, so too the unity of the human family does not submerge the
identities of individuals, peoples and cultures, but makes them more transparent
to each other and links them more closely in their legitimate diversity.
54. The theme of development can be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of
all individuals and peoples within the one community of the human family, built
in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace. This
perspective is illuminated in a striking way by the relationship between the
Persons of the Trinity within the one divine Substance. The Trinity is absolute
unity insofar as the three divine Persons are pure relationality. The reciprocal
transparency among the divine Persons is total and the bond between each of them
complete, since they constitute a unique and absolute unity. God desires to
incorporate us into this reality of communion as well: “that they may be one
even as we are one” (Jn 17:22). The Church is a sign and instrument of this
unity[131]. Relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but be
enriched by reference to this divine model. In particular, in the light of the
revealed mystery of the Trinity, we understand that true openness does not mean
loss of individual identity but profound interpenetration. This also emerges
from the common human experiences of love and truth. Just as the sacramental
love of spouses unites them spiritually in “one flesh” (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5; Eph
5:31) and makes out of the two a real and relational unity, so in an analogous
way truth unites spirits and causes them to think in unison, attracting them as
a unity to itself.
55. The Christian revelation of the unity of the human race presupposes a
metaphysical interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an
essential element. Other cultures and religions teach brotherhood and peace and
are therefore of enormous importance to integral human development. Some
religious and cultural attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of
love and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing authentic
human development. There are certain religious cultures in the world today that
do not oblige men and women to live in communion but rather cut them off from
one other in a search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification of
psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation of different
religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even single individuals, together
with religious syncretism, can give rise to separation and disengagement. One
possible negative effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to
favour this kind of syncretism[132] by encouraging forms of “religion” that,
instead of bringing people together, alienate them from one another and distance
them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural traditions
persist which ossify society in rigid social groupings, in magical beliefs that
fail to respect the dignity of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to
occult powers. In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting
themselves, and authentic development is impeded.
For this reason, while it may be true that development needs the religions and
cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is
needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it
imply that all religions are equal[133]. Discernment is needed regarding the
contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who
wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of
respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion
of charity and truth. Since the development of persons and peoples is at stake,
this discernment will have to take account of the need for emancipation and
inclusivity, in the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man
and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and religions.
Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a human face”[134], contains this
very criterion within itself.
56. The Christian religion and other religions can offer their contribution to
development only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in regard
to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its political dimensions.
The Church's social doctrine came into being in order to claim “citizenship
status” for the Christian religion[135]. Denying the right to profess one's
religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon
public life has negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of
religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme, religious
fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons and their collaboration
for the progress of humanity. Public life is sapped of its motivation and
politics takes on a domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk
being ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent foundation or
because personal freedom is not acknowledged. Secularism and fundamentalism
exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between
reason and religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being purified by
faith: this also holds true for political reason, which must not consider itself
omnipotent. For its part, religion always needs to be purified by reason in
order to show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes
only at an enormous price to human development.
57. Fruitful dialogue between faith and reason cannot but render the work of
charity more effective within society, and it constitutes the most appropriate
framework for promoting fraternal collaboration between believers and
non-believers in their shared commitment to working for justice and the peace of
the human family. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the Council
fathers asserted that “believers and unbelievers agree almost unanimously that
all things on earth should be ordered towards man as to their centre and
summit”[136]. For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor
from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives rise to the duty
of believers to unite their efforts with those of all men and women of good
will, with the followers of other religions and with non-believers, so that this
world of ours may effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family
under the Creator's watchful eye. A particular manifestation of charity and a
guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation between believers and non-believers
is undoubtedly the principle of subsidiarity[137], an expression of inalienable
human freedom. Subsidiarity is first and foremost a form of assistance to the
human person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered
when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on their own, and
it is always designed to achieve their emancipation, because it fosters freedom
and participation through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects
personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is always capable of
giving something to others. By considering reciprocity as the heart of what it
is to be a human being, subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any
form of all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both of the
manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the plurality of subjects — as
well as the coordination of those plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is
particularly well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards
authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous universal power
of a tyrannical nature, the governance of globalization must be marked by
subsidiarity, articulated into several layers and involving different levels
that can work together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as
it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be pursued. This
authority, however, must be organized in a subsidiary and stratified way[138],
if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield effective results in
practice.
58. The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the principle of
solidarity and vice versa, since the former without the latter gives way to
social privatism, while the latter without the former gives way to paternalist
social assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule must
also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing issues concerning
international development aid. Such aid, whatever the donors' intentions, can
sometimes lock people into a state of dependence and even foster situations of
localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country. Economic aid, in
order to be true to its purpose, must not pursue secondary objectives. It must
be distributed with the involvement not only of the governments of receiving
countries, but also local economic agents and the bearers of culture within
civil society, including local Churches. Aid programmes must increasingly
acquire the characteristics of participation and completion from the grass
roots. Indeed, the most valuable resources in countries receiving development
aid are human resources: herein lies the real capital that needs to accumulate
in order to guarantee a truly autonomous future for the poorest countries. It
should also be remembered that, in the economic sphere, the principal form of
assistance needed by developing countries is that of allowing and encouraging
the gradual penetration of their products into international markets, thus
making it possible for these countries to participate fully in international
economic life. Too often in the past, aid has served to create only fringe
markets for the products of these donor countries. This was often due to a lack
of genuine demand for the products in question: it is therefore necessary to
help such countries improve their products and adapt them more effectively to
existing demand. Furthermore, there are those who fear the effects of
competition through the importation of products — normally agricultural products
— from economically poor countries. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that
for such countries, the possibility of marketing their products is very often
what guarantees their survival in both the short and long term. Just and
equitable international trade in agricultural goods can be beneficial to
everyone, both to suppliers and to customers. For this reason, not only is
commercial orientation needed for production of this kind, but also the
establishment of international trade regulations to support it and stronger
financing for development in order to increase the productivity of these
economies.
59. Cooperation for development must not be concerned exclusively with the
economic dimension: it offers a wonderful opportunity for encounter between
cultures and peoples. If the parties to cooperation on the side of economically
developed countries — as occasionally happens — fail to take account of their
own or others' cultural identity, or the human values that shape it, they cannot
enter into meaningful dialogue with the citizens of poor countries. If the
latter, in their turn, are uncritically and indiscriminately open to every
cultural proposal, they will not be in a position to assume responsibility for
their own authentic development[139]. Technologically advanced societies must
not confuse their own technological development with a presumed cultural
superiority, but must rather rediscover within themselves the oft-forgotten
virtues which made it possible for them to flourish throughout their history.
Evolving societies must remain faithful to all that is truly human in their
traditions, avoiding the temptation to overlay them automatically with the
mechanisms of a globalized technological civilization. In all cultures there are
examples of ethical convergence, some isolated, some interrelated, as an
expression of the one human nature, willed by the Creator; the tradition of
ethical wisdom knows this as the natural law[140]. This universal moral law
provides a sound basis for all cultural, religious and political dialogue, and
it ensures that the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not
detach itself from the common quest for truth, goodness and God. Thus adherence
to the law etched on human hearts is the precondition for all constructive
social cooperation. Every culture has burdens from which it must be freed and
shadows from which it must emerge. The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate in
cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help them grow in universal
brotherhood and solidarity, for the advancement of global and community
development.
60. In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis, development aid
for poor countries must be considered a valid means of creating wealth for all.
What aid programme is there that can hold out such significant growth prospects
— even from the point of view of the world economy — as the support of
populations that are still in the initial or early phases of economic
development? From this perspective, more economically developed nations should
do all they can to allocate larger portions of their gross domestic product to
development aid, thus respecting the obligations that the international
community has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by reviewing
their internal social assistance and welfare policies, applying the principle of
subsidiarity and creating better integrated welfare systems, with the active
participation of private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is
actually possible to improve social services and welfare programmes, and at the
same time to save resources — by eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent
claims — which could then be allocated to international solidarity. A more
devolved and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but no less
coordinated, would make it possible to harness much dormant energy, for the
benefit of solidarity between peoples.
One possible approach to development aid would be to apply effectively what is
known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing citizens to decide how to allocate a
portion of the taxes they pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into
the promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms of welfare
solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the area of solidarity for
development as well.
61. Greater solidarity at the international level is seen especially in the
ongoing promotion — even in the midst of economic crisis — of greater access to
education, which is at the same time an essential precondition for effective
international cooperation. The term “education” refers not only to classroom
teaching and vocational training — both of which are important factors in
development — but to the complete formation of the person. In this regard, there
is a problem that should be highlighted: in order to educate, it is necessary to
know the nature of the human person, to know who he or she is. The increasing
prominence of a relativistic understanding of that nature presents serious
problems for education, especially moral education, jeopardizing its universal
extension. Yielding to this kind of relativism makes everyone poorer and has a
negative impact on the effectiveness of aid to the most needy populations, who
lack not only economic and technical means, but also educational methods and
resources to assist people in realizing their full human potential.
An illustration of the significance of this problem is offered by the phenomenon
of international tourism[141], which can be a major factor in economic
development and cultural growth, but can also become an occasion for
exploitation and moral degradation. The current situation offers unique
opportunities for the economic aspects of development — that is to say the flow
of money and the emergence of a significant amount of local enterprise — to be
combined with the cultural aspects, chief among which is education. In many
cases this is what happens, but in other cases international tourism has a
negative educational impact both for the tourist and the local populace. The
latter are often exposed to immoral or even perverted forms of conduct, as in
the case of so-called sex tourism, to which many human beings are sacrificed
even at a tender age. It is sad to note that this activity often takes place
with the support of local governments, with silence from those in the tourists'
countries of origin, and with the complicity of many of the tour operators. Even
in less extreme cases, international tourism often follows a consumerist and
hedonistic pattern, as a form of escapism planned in a manner typical of the
countries of origin, and therefore not conducive to authentic encounter between
persons and cultures. We need, therefore, to develop a different type of tourism
that has the ability to promote genuine mutual understanding, without taking
away from the element of rest and healthy recreation. Tourism of this type needs
to increase, partly through closer coordination with the experience gained from
international cooperation and enterprise for development.
62. Another aspect of integral human development that is worthy of attention is
the phenomenon of migration. This is a striking phenomenon because of the sheer
numbers of people involved, the social, economic, political, cultural and
religious problems it raises, and the dramatic challenges it poses to nations
and the international community. We can say that we are facing a social
phenomenon of epoch-making proportions that requires bold, forward-looking
policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled effectively. Such
policies should set out from close collaboration between the migrants' countries
of origin and their countries of destination; it should be accompanied by
adequate international norms able to coordinate different legislative systems
with a view to safeguarding the needs and rights of individual migrants and
their families, and at the same time, those of the host countries. No country
can be expected to address today's problems of migration by itself. We are all
witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation and the aspirations that
accompany the flow of migrants. The phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult
to manage; but there is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties
concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the economic
development of the host country through their labour, besides that which they
make to their country of origin through the money they send home. Obviously,
these labourers cannot be considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They
must not, therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every
migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental, inalienable
rights that must be respected by everyone and in every circumstance[142].
63. No consideration of the problems associated with development could fail to
highlight the direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many cases,
poverty results from a violation of the dignity of human work, either because
work opportunities are limited (through unemployment or underemployment), or
“because a low value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially
the right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his or
her family”[143]. For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee
of Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an appeal for “a
global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144], supporting the strategy of
the International Labour Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral
impetus to this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every
country of the world. What is meant by the word “decency” in regard to work? It
means work that expresses the essential dignity of every man and woman in the
context of their particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively
associating workers, both men and women, with the development of their
community; work that enables the worker to be respected and free from any form
of discrimination; work that makes it possible for families to meet their needs
and provide schooling for their children, without the children themselves being
forced into labour; work that permits the workers to organize themselves freely,
and to make their voices heard; work that leaves enough room for rediscovering
one's roots at a personal, familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees
those who have retired a decent standard of living.
64. While reflecting on the theme of work, it is appropriate to recall how
important it is that labour unions — which have always been encouraged and
supported by the Church — should be open to the new perspectives that are
emerging in the world of work. Looking to wider concerns than the specific
category of labour for which they were formed, union organizations are called to
address some of the new questions arising in our society: I am thinking, for
example, of the complex of issues that social scientists describe in terms of a
conflict between worker and consumer. Without necessarily endorsing the thesis
that the central focus on the worker has given way to a central focus on the
consumer, this would still appear to constitute new ground for unions to explore
creatively. The global context in which work takes place also demands that
national labour unions, which tend to limit themselves to defending the
interests of their registered members, should turn their attention to those
outside their membership, and in particular to workers in developing countries
where social rights are often violated. The protection of these workers, partly
achieved through appropriate initiatives aimed at their countries of origin,
will enable trade unions to demonstrate the authentic ethical and cultural
motivations that made it possible for them, in a different social and labour
context, to play a decisive role in development. The Church's traditional
teaching makes a valid distinction between the respective roles and functions of
trade unions and politics. This distinction allows unions to identify civil
society as the proper setting for their necessary activity of defending and
promoting labour, especially on behalf of exploited and unrepresented workers,
whose woeful condition is often ignored by the distracted eye of society.
65. Finance, therefore — through the renewed structures and operating methods
that have to be designed after its misuse, which wreaked such havoc on the real
economy — now needs to go back to being an instrument directed towards improved
wealth creation and development. Insofar as they are instruments, the entire
economy and finance, not just certain sectors, must be used in an ethical way so
as to create suitable conditions for human development and for the development
of peoples. It is certainly useful, and in some circumstances imperative, to
launch financial initiatives in which the humanitarian dimension predominates.
However, this must not obscure the fact that the entire financial system has to
be aimed at sustaining true development. Above all, the intention to do good
must not be considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce
goods. Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical foundation of their
activity, so as not to abuse the sophisticated instruments which can serve to
betray the interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the search
for positive results are mutually compatible and must never be detached from one
another. If love is wise, it can find ways of working in accordance with
provident and just expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of
the experience of credit unions.
Both the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard weaker parties
and discourage scandalous speculation, and experimentation with new forms of
finance, designed to support development projects, are positive experiences that
should be further explored and encouraged, highlighting the responsibility of
the investor. Furthermore, the experience of micro-finance, which has its roots
in the thinking and activity of the civil humanists — I am thinking especially
of the birth of pawnbroking — should be strengthened and fine-tuned. This is all
the more necessary in these days when financial difficulties can become severe
for many of the more vulnerable sectors of the population, who should be
protected from the risk of usury and from despair. The weakest members of
society should be helped to defend themselves against usury, just as poor
peoples should be helped to derive real benefit from micro-credit, in order to
discourage the exploitation that is possible in these two areas. Since rich
countries are also experiencing new forms of poverty, micro-finance can give
practical assistance by launching new initiatives and opening up new sectors for
the benefit of the weaker elements in society, even at a time of general
economic downturn.
66. Global interconnectedness has led to the emergence of a new political power,
that of consumers and their associations. This is a phenomenon that needs to be
further explored, as it contains positive elements to be encouraged as well as
excesses to be avoided. It is good for people to realize that purchasing is
always a moral — and not simply economic — act. Hence the consumer has a
specific social responsibility, which goes hand-in- hand with the social
responsibility of the enterprise. Consumers should be continually educated[145]
regarding their daily role, which can be exercised with respect for moral
principles without diminishing the intrinsic economic rationality of the act of
purchasing. In the retail industry, particularly at times like the present when
purchasing power has diminished and people must live more frugally, it is
necessary to explore other paths: for example, forms of cooperative purchasing
like the consumer cooperatives that have been in operation since the nineteenth
century, partly through the initiative of Catholics. In addition, it can be
helpful to promote new ways of marketing products from deprived areas of the
world, so as to guarantee their producers a decent return. However, certain
conditions need to be met: the market should be genuinely transparent; the
producers, as well as increasing their profit margins, should also receive
improved formation in professional skills and technology; and finally, trade of
this kind must not become hostage to partisan ideologies. A more incisive role
for consumers, as long as they themselves are not manipulated by associations
that do not truly represent them, is a desirable element for building economic
democracy.
67. In the face of the unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a
strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for a reform of the
United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and
international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can acquire
real teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways of
implementing the principle of the responsibility to protect[146] and of giving
poorer nations an effective voice in shared decision-making. This seems
necessary in order to arrive at a political, juridical and economic order which
can increase and give direction to international cooperation for the development
of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to revive economies
hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration of the present crisis and the
greater imbalances that would result; to bring about integral and timely
disarmament, food security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the
environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is urgent need of a
true world political authority, as my predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated
some years ago. Such an authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe
consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to seek to establish
the common good[147], and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral
human development inspired by the values of charity in truth. Furthermore, such
an authority would need to be universally recognized and to be vested with the
effective power to ensure security for all, regard for justice, and respect for
rights[148]. Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure compliance
with its decisions from all parties, and also with the coordinated measures
adopted in various international forums. Without this, despite the great
progress accomplished in various sectors, international law would risk being
conditioned by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The integral
development of peoples and international cooperation require the establishment
of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the
management of globalization[149]. They also require the construction of a social
order that at last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between
moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and the economic and
civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of the United Nations.
CHAPTER SIX
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES AND TECHNOLOGY
68. The development of peoples is intimately linked to the development of
individuals. The human person by nature is actively involved in his own
development. The development in question is not simply the result of natural
mechanisms, since as everybody knows, we are all capable of making free and
responsible choices. Nor is it merely at the mercy of our caprice, since we all
know that we are a gift, not something self-generated. Our freedom is profoundly
shaped by our being, and by its limits. No one shapes his own conscience
arbitrarily, but we all build our own “I” on the basis of a “self” which is
given to us. Not only are other persons outside our control, but each one of us
is outside his or her own control. A person's development is compromised, if he
claims to be solely responsible for producing what he becomes. By analogy, the
development of peoples goes awry if humanity thinks it can re-create itself
through the “wonders” of technology, just as economic development is exposed as
a destructive sham if it relies on the “wonders” of finance in order to sustain
unnatural and consumerist growth. In the face of such Promethean presumption, we
must fortify our love for a freedom that is not merely arbitrary, but is
rendered truly human by acknowledgment of the good that underlies it. To this
end, man needs to look inside himself in order to recognize the fundamental
norms of the natural moral law which God has written on our hearts.
69. The challenge of development today is closely linked to technological
progress, with its astounding applications in the field of biology. Technology —
it is worth emphasizing — is a profoundly human reality, linked to the autonomy
and freedom of man. In technology we express and confirm the hegemony of the
spirit over matter. “The human spirit, ‘increasingly free of its bondage to
creatures, can be more easily drawn to the worship and contemplation of the
Creator'”[150]. Technology enables us to exercise dominion over matter, to
reduce risks, to save labour, to improve our conditions of life. It touches the
heart of the vocation of human labour: in technology, seen as the product of his
genius, man recognizes himself and forges his own humanity. Technology is the
objective side of human action[151] whose origin and raison d'etre is found in
the subjective element: the worker himself. For this reason, technology is never
merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations towards development, it
expresses the inner tension that impels him gradually to overcome material
limitations. Technology, in this sense, is a response to God's command to till
and to keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to humanity, and it
must serve to reinforce the covenant between human beings and the environment, a
covenant that should mirror God's creative love.
70. Technological development can give rise to the idea that technology is
self-sufficient when too much attention is given to the “how” questions, and not
enough to the many “why” questions underlying human activity. For this reason
technology can appear ambivalent. Produced through human creativity as a tool of
personal freedom, technology can be understood as a manifestation of absolute
freedom, the freedom that seeks to prescind from the limits inherent in things.
The process of globalization could replace ideologies with technology[152],
allowing the latter to become an ideological power that threatens to confine us
within an a priori that holds us back from encountering being and truth. Were
that to happen, we would all know, evaluate and make decisions about our life
situations from within a technocratic cultural perspective to which we would
belong structurally, without ever being able to discover a meaning that is not
of our own making. The “technical” worldview that follows from this vision is
now so dominant that truth has come to be seen as coinciding with the possible.
But when the sole criterion of truth is efficiency and utility, development is
automatically denied. True development does not consist primarily in “doing”.
The key to development is a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and
grasping the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context of the
holistic meaning of the individual's being. Even when we work through satellites
or through remote electronic impulses, our actions always remain human, an
expression of our responsible freedom. Technology is highly attractive because
it draws us out of our physical limitations and broadens our horizon. But human
freedom is authentic only when it responds to the fascination of technology with
decisions that are the fruit of moral responsibility. Hence the pressing need
for formation in an ethically responsible use of technology. Moving beyond the
fascination that technology exerts, we must reappropriate the true meaning of
freedom, which is not an intoxication with total autonomy, but a response to the
call of being, beginning with our own personal being.
71. This deviation from solid humanistic principles that a technical mindset can
produce is seen today in certain technological applications in the fields of
development and peace. Often the development of peoples is considered a matter
of financial engineering, the freeing up of markets, the removal of tariffs,
investment in production, and institutional reforms — in other words, a purely
technical matter. All these factors are of great importance, but we have to ask
why technical choices made thus far have yielded rather mixed results. We need
to think hard about the cause. Development will never be fully guaranteed
through automatic or impersonal forces, whether they derive from the market or
from international politics. Development is impossible without upright men and
women, without financiers and politicians whose consciences are finely attuned
to the requirements of the common good. Both professional competence and moral
consistency are necessary. When technology is allowed to take over, the result
is confusion between ends and means, such that the sole criterion for action in
business is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the
consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research. Often,
underneath the intricacies of economic, financial and political
interconnections, there remain misunderstandings, hardships and injustice. The
flow of technological know-how increases, but it is those in possession of it
who benefit, while the situation on the ground for the peoples who live in its
shadow remains unchanged: for them there is little chance of emancipation.
72. Even peace can run the risk of being considered a technical product, merely
the outcome of agreements between governments or of initiatives aimed at
ensuring effective economic aid. It is true that peace-building requires the
constant interplay of diplomatic contacts, economic, technological and cultural
exchanges, agreements on common projects, as well as joint strategies to curb
the threat of military conflict and to root out the underlying causes of
terrorism. Nevertheless, if such efforts are to have lasting effects, they must
be based on values rooted in the truth of human life. That is, the voice of the
peoples affected must be heard and their situation must be taken into
consideration, if their expectations are to be correctly interpreted. One must
align oneself, so to speak, with the unsung efforts of so many individuals
deeply committed to bringing peoples together and to facilitating development on
the basis of love and mutual understanding. Among them are members of the
Christian faithful, involved in the great task of upholding the fully human
dimension of development and peace.
73. Linked to technological development is the increasingly pervasive presence
of the means of social communications. It is almost impossible today to imagine
the life of the human family without them. For better or for worse, they are so
integral a part of life today that it seems quite absurd to maintain that they
are neutral — and hence unaffected by any moral considerations concerning
people. Often such views, stressing the strictly technical nature of the media,
effectively support their subordination to economic interests intent on
dominating the market and, not least, to attempts to impose cultural models that
serve ideological and political agendas. Given the media's fundamental
importance in engineering changes in attitude towards reality and the human
person, we must reflect carefully on their influence, especially in regard to
the ethical-cultural dimension of globalization and the development of peoples
in solidarity. Mirroring what is required for an ethical approach to
globalization and development, so too the meaning and purpose of the media must
be sought within an anthropological perspective. This means that they can have a
civilizing effect not only when, thanks to technological development, they
increase the possibilities of communicating information, but above all when they
are geared towards a vision of the person and the common good that reflects
truly universal values. Just because social communications increase the
possibilities of interconnection and the dissemination of ideas, it does not
follow that they promote freedom or internationalize development and democracy
for all. To achieve goals of this kind, they need to focus on promoting the
dignity of persons and peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and
placed at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and supernatural
fraternity. In fact, human freedom is intrinsically linked with these higher
values. The media can make an important contribution towards the growth in
communion of the human family and the ethos of society when they are used to
promote universal participation in the common search for what is just.
74. A particularly crucial battleground in today's cultural struggle between the
supremacy of technology and human moral responsibility is the field of
bioethics, where the very possibility of integral human development is radically
called into question. In this most delicate and critical area, the fundamental
question asserts itself force-fully: is man the product of his own labours or
does he depend on God? Scientific discoveries in this field and the
possibilities of technological intervention seem so advanced as to force a
choice between two types of reasoning: reason open to transcendence or reason
closed within immanence. We are presented with a clear either/ or. Yet the
rationality of a self-centred use of technology proves to be irrational because
it implies a decisive rejection of meaning and value. It is no coincidence that
closing the door to transcendence brings one up short against a difficulty: how
could being emerge from nothing, how could intelligence be born from
chance?[153] Faced with these dramatic questions, reason and faith can come to
each other's assistance. Only together will they save man. Entranced by an
exclusive reliance on technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in
an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off
from everyday life[154].
75. Paul VI had already recognized and drawn attention to the global dimension
of the social question[155]. Following his lead, we need to affirm today that
the social question has become a radically anthropological question, in the
sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but also how it is
manipulated, as bio-technology places it increasingly under man's control. In
vitro fertilization, embryo research, the possibility of manufacturing clones
and human hybrids: all this is now emerging and being promoted in today's highly
disillusioned culture, which believes it has mastered every mystery, because the
origin of life is now within our grasp. Here we see the clearest expression of
technology's supremacy. In this type of culture, the conscience is simply
invited to take note of technological possibilities. Yet we must not
underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our future, or the powerful
new instruments that the “culture of death” has at its disposal. To the tragic
and widespread scourge of abortion we may well have to add in the future —
indeed it is already surreptiously present — the systematic eugenic programming
of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a pro-euthanasia mindset is making
inroads as an equally damaging assertion of control over life that under certain
circumstances is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are
cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in turn foster a
materialistic and mechanistic understanding of human life. Who could measure the
negative effects of this kind of mentality for development? How can we be
surprised by the indifference shown towards situations of human degradation,
when such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is and is not
human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of what
to put forward today as worthy of respect. Insignificant matters are considered
shocking, yet unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated. While the
poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich, the world of
affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those knocks, on account of a
conscience that can no longer distinguish what is human. God reveals man to
himself; reason and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate to us what is good,
provided we want to see it; the natural law, in which creative Reason shines
forth, reveals our greatness, but also our wretchedness insofar as we fail to
recognize the call to moral truth.
76. One aspect of the contemporary technological mindset is the tendency to
consider the problems and emotions of the interior life from a purely
psychological point of view, even to the point of neurological reductionism. In
this way man's interiority is emptied of its meaning and gradually our awareness
of the human soul's ontological depths, as probed by the saints, is lost. The
question of development is closely bound up with our understanding of the human
soul, insofar as we often reduce the self to the psyche and confuse the soul's
health with emotional well-being. These over-simplifications stem from a
profound failure to understand the spiritual life, and they obscure the fact
that the development of individuals and peoples depends partly on the resolution
of problems of a spiritual nature. Development must include not just material
growth but also spiritual growth, since the human person is a “unity of body and
soul”[156], born of God's creative love and destined for eternal life. The human
being develops when he grows in the spirit, when his soul comes to know itself
and the truths that God has implanted deep within, when he enters into dialogue
with himself and his Creator. When he is far away from God, man is unsettled and
ill at ease. Social and psychological alienation and the many neuroses that
afflict affluent societies are attributable in part to spiritual factors. A
prosperous society, highly developed in material terms but weighing heavily on
the soul, is not of itself conducive to authentic development. The new forms of
slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many people fall can be
explained not only in sociological and psychological terms but also in
essentially spiritual terms. The emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned,
despite the availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads to
suffering. There cannot be holistic development and universal common good unless
people's spiritual and moral welfare is taken into account, considered in their
totality as body and soul.
77. The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from recognizing
anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone. Yet everyone
experiences the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life. Knowing is not
simply a material act, since the object that is known always conceals something
beyond the empirical datum. All our knowledge, even the most simple, is always a
minor miracle, since it can never be fully explained by the material instruments
that we apply to it. In every truth there is something more than we would have
expected, in the love that we receive there is always an element that surprises
us. We should never cease to marvel at these things. In all knowledge and in
every act of love the human soul experiences something “over and above”, which
seems very much like a gift that we receive, or a height to which we are raised.
The development of individuals and peoples is likewise located on a height, if
we consider the spiritual dimension that must be present if such development is
to be authentic. It requires new eyes and a new heart, capable of rising above a
materialistic vision of human events, capable of glimpsing in development the
“beyond” that technology cannot give. By following this path, it is possible to
pursue the integral human development that takes its direction from the driving
force of charity in truth.
CONCLUSION
78. Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he
is. In the face of the enormous problems surrounding the development of peoples,
which almost make us yield to discouragement, we find solace in the sayings of
our Lord Jesus Christ, who teaches us: “Apart from me you can do nothing” (Jn
15:5) and then encourages us: “I am with you always, to the close of the age”
(Mt 28:20). As we contemplate the vast amount of work to be done, we are
sustained by our faith that God is present alongside those who come together in
his name to work for justice. Paul VI recalled in Populorum Progressio that man
cannot bring about his own progress unaided, because by himself he cannot
establish an authentic humanism. Only if we are aware of our calling, as
individuals and as a community, to be part of God's family as his sons and
daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision and muster new energy in the
service of a truly integral humanism. The greatest service to development, then,
is a Christian humanism[157] that enkindles charity and takes its lead from
truth, accepting both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open
towards our brothers and sisters and towards an understanding of life as a
joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of solidarity. On the other hand,
ideological rejection of God and an atheism of indifference, oblivious to the
Creator and at risk of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute
some of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which excludes God
is an inhuman humanism. Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us in the
promotion and building of forms of social and civic life — structures,
institutions, culture and ethos — without exposing us to the risk of becoming
ensnared by the fashions of the moment. Awareness of God's undying love sustains
us in our laborious and stimulating work for justice and the development of
peoples, amid successes and failures, in the ceaseless pursuit of a just
ordering of human affairs. God's love calls us to move beyond the limited and
the ephemeral, it gives us the courage to continue seeking and working for the
benefit of all, even if this cannot be achieved immediately and if what we are
able to achieve, alongside political authorities and those working in the field
of economics, is always less than we might wish[158]. God gives us the strength
to fight and to suffer for love of the common good, because he is our All, our
greatest hope.
79. Development needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer,
Christians moved by the knowledge that truth-filled love, caritas in veritate,
from which authentic development proceeds, is not produced by us, but given to
us. For this reason, even in the most difficult and complex times, besides
recognizing what is happening, we must above all else turn to God's love.
Development requires attention to the spiritual life, a serious consideration of
the experiences of trust in God, spiritual fellowship in Christ, reliance upon
God's providence and mercy, love and forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of
others, justice and peace. All this is essential if “hearts of stone” are to be
transformed into “hearts of flesh” (Ezek 36:26), rendering life on earth
“divine” and thus more worthy of humanity. All this is of man, because man is
the subject of his own existence; and at the same time it is of God, because God
is at the beginning and end of all that is good, all that leads to salvation:
“the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you
are Christ's; and Christ is God's” (1 Cor 3:22-23). Christians long for the
entire human family to call upon God as “Our Father!” In union with the
only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray to the Father and to ask him, in
the words that Jesus himself taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living
according to his will, to receive the daily bread that we need, to be
understanding and generous towards our debtors, not to be tempted beyond our
limits, and to be delivered from evil (cf. Mt 6:9-13).
At the conclusion of the Pauline Year, I gladly express this hope in the
Apostle's own words, taken from the Letter to the Romans: “Let love be genuine;
hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love one another with brotherly
affection; outdo one another in showing honour” (Rom 12:9-10). May the Virgin
Mary — proclaimed Mater Ecclesiae by Paul VI and honoured by Christians as
Speculum Iustitiae and Regina Pacis — protect us and obtain for us, through her
heavenly intercession, the strength, hope and joy necessary to continue to
dedicate ourselves with generosity to the task of bringing about the
“development of the whole man and of all men”[159].
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 29 June, the Solemnity of the Holy Apostles
Peter and Paul, in the year 2009, the fifth of my Pontificate.
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
[1] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio (26 March 1967), 22: AAS
59 (1967), 268; Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 69.
[2] Address for the Day of Development (23 August 1968): AAS 60 (1968), 626-627.
[3] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace: AAS 94 (2002),
132-140.
[4] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 26.
[5] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (11 April 1963): AAS 55
(1963), 268-270.
[6] Cf. no. 16: loc. cit., 265.
[7] Cf. ibid., 82: loc. cit., 297.
[8] Ibid., 42: loc. cit., 278.
[9] Ibid., 20: loc. cit., 267.
[10] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 36; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima
Adveniens (14 May 1971), 4: AAS 63 (1971), 403-404; John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Centesimus Annus (1 May 1991), 43: AAS 83 (1991), 847.
[11] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[12] Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social
Doctrine of the Church, 76.
[13] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address at the Inauguration of the Fifth General
Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the Caribbean (Aparecida, 13 May
2007).
[14] Cf. nos. 3-5: loc. cit., 258-260.
[15] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (30 December
1987), 6-7: AAS 80 (1988), 517-519.
[16] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 14: loc. cit., 264.
[17] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est (25 December 2005),
18: AAS 98 (2006), 232.
[18] Ibid., 6: loc cit., 222.
[19] Cf. Benedict XVI, Christmas Address to the Roman Curia, 22 December 2005.
[20] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 3: loc. cit.,
515.
[21] Cf. ibid., 1: loc. cit., 513-514.
[22] Cf. ibid., 3: loc. cit., 515.
[23] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14 September 1981),
3: AAS 73 (1981), 583-584.
[24] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 3: loc. cit.,
794-796.
[25] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 3: loc. cit., 258.
[26] Cf. ibid., 34: loc. cit., 274.
[27] Cf. nos. 8-9: AAS 60 (1968), 485-487; Benedict XVI, Address to the
participants at the International Congress promoted by the Pontifical Lateran
University on the fortieth anniversary of Paul VI's Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”,
10 May 2008.
[28] Cf. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995), 93: AAS 87 (1995),
507-508.
[29] Ibid., 101: loc. cit., 516-518.
[30] No. 29: AAS 68 (1976), 25.
[31] Ibid., 31: loc. cit., 26.
[32] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 41: loc.
cit., 570-572.
[33] Cf. ibid.; Id., Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 5, 54: loc. cit., 799,
859-860.
[34] No. 15: loc. cit., 265.
[35] Cf. ibid., 2: loc. cit., 258; Leo XIII, Encyclical Letter Rerum Novarum (15
May 1891): Leonis XIII P.M. Acta, XI, Romae 1892, 97-144; John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 8: loc. cit., 519-520; Id.,
Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 5: loc. cit., 799.
[36] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 2, 13: loc. cit., 258, 263-264.
[37] Ibid., 42: loc. cit., 278.
[38] Ibid., 11: loc. cit., 262; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus, 25: loc. cit., 822-824.
[39] Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 15: loc. cit., 265.
[40] Ibid., 3: loc. cit., 258.
[41] Ibid., 6: loc. cit., 260.
[42] Ibid., 14: loc. cit., 264.
[43] Ibid.; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 53-62: loc.
cit., 859-867; Id., Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 13-14:
AAS 71 (1979), 282-286.
[44] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 12: loc. cit.,
262-263.
[45] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.
[46] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[47] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Fourth National
Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October 2006.
[48] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 16: loc. cit., 265.
[49] Ibid.
[50] Benedict XVI, Address to young people at Barangaroo, Sydney, 17 July 2008.
[51] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 20: loc. cit., 267.
[52] Ibid., 66: loc. cit., 289-290.
[53] Ibid., 21: loc. cit., 267-268.
[54] Cf. nos. 3, 29, 32: loc. cit., 258, 272, 273.
[55] Cf. Encyclical Letter, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 28: loc. cit., 548-550.
[56] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 9: loc. cit., 261-262.
[57] Cf. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 20: loc. cit., 536-537.
[58] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 22-29: loc. cit.,
819-830.
[59] Cf. nos. 23, 33: loc. cit., 268-269, 273-274.
[60] Cf. loc. cit., 135.
[61] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 63.
[62] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 24: loc. cit.,
821-822.
[63] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6 August 1993), 33,
46, 51: AAS 85 (1993), 1160, 1169-1171, 1174-1175; Id., Address to the Assembly
of the United Nations, 5 October 1995, 3.
[64] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 47: loc. cit., 280-281; John
Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42: loc. cit., 572-574.
[65] Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Food Day: AAS 99 (2007),
933-935.
[66] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 18, 59, 63-64: loc.
cit., 419-421, 467-468, 472-475.
[67] Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, 5.
[68] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace, 4-7, 12-15: AAS
94 (2002), 134-136, 138-140; Id., Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace, 8:
AAS 96 (2004), 119; Id., Message for the 2005 World Day of Peace, 4: AAS 97
(2005), 177-178; Benedict XVI, Message for the 2006 World Day of Peace, 9-10:
AAS 98 (2006), 60-61; Id., Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, 5, 14: loc.
cit., 778, 782-783.
[69] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace, 6: loc. cit.,
135; Benedict XVI, Message for the 2006 World Day of Peace, 9-10: loc. cit.,
60-61.
[70] Cf. Benedict XVI, Homily at Mass, Islinger Feld, Regensburg, 12 September
2006.
[71] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 1: loc. cit.,
217-218.
[72] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 28: loc. cit.,
548-550.
[73] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 19: loc. cit., 266-267.
[74] Ibid., 39: loc. cit., 276-277.
[75] Ibid., 75: loc. cit., 293-294.
[76] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 28: loc. cit.,
238-240.
[77] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 59: loc. cit., 864.
[78] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 40, 85: loc. cit., 277,
298-299.
[79] Ibid., 13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[80] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14 September 1998), 85:
AAS 91 (1999), 72-73.
[81] Cf. ibid., 83: loc. cit., 70-71.
[82] Benedict XVI, Address at the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
[83] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 33: loc. cit.,
273-274.
[84] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2000 World Day of Peace, 15: AAS 92
(2000), 366.
[85] Catechism of the Catholic Church, 407; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus, 25: loc. cit., 822-824.
[86] Cf. no. 17: AAS 99 (2007), 1000.
[87] Cf. ibid., 23: loc. cit., 1004-1005.
[88] Saint Augustine expounds this teaching in detail in his dialogue on free
will (De libero arbitrio, II, 3, 8ff.). He indicates the existence within the
human soul of an “internal sense”. This sense consists in an act that is
fulfilled outside the normal functions of reason, an act that is not the result
of reflection, but is almost instinctive, through which reason, realizing its
transient and fallible nature, admits the existence of something eternal, higher
than itself, something absolutely true and certain. The name that Saint
Augustine gives to this interior truth is at times the name of God (Confessions
X, 24, 35; XII, 25, 35; De libero arbitrio II, 3, 8), more often that of Christ
(De magistro 11:38; Confessions VII, 18, 24; XI, 2, 4).
[89] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 3: loc. cit., 219.
[90] Cf. no. 49: loc. cit., 281.
[91] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 28: loc. cit., 827-828.
[92] Cf. no. 35: loc. cit., 836-838.
[93] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 38: loc.
cit., 565-566.
[94] No. 44: loc. cit., 279.
[95] Cf. ibid., 24: loc. cit., 269.
[96] Cf. Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 36: loc. cit., 838-840.
[97] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 24: loc. cit., 269.
[98] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 32: loc. cit.,
832-833; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 25: loc. cit.,
269-270.
[99] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 24: loc. cit., 637-638.
[100] Ibid., 15: loc. cit., 616-618.
[101] Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 27: loc. cit., 271.
[102] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian
Freedom and Liberation Libertatis Conscientia (22 March 1987), 74: AAS 79
(1987), 587.
[103] Cf. John Paul II, Interview published in the Catholic daily newspaper La
Croix, 20 August 1997.
[104] John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences, 27
April 2001.
[105] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 17: loc. cit., 265-266.
[106] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2003 World Day of Peace, 5: AAS 95
(2003), 343.
[107] Cf. ibid.
[108] Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, 13: loc. cit.,
781-782.
[109] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 65: loc. cit., 289.
[110] Cf. ibid., 36-37: loc. cit., 275-276.
[111] Cf. ibid., 37: loc. cit., 275-276.
[112] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Apostolate of Lay
People Apostolicam Actuositatem, 11.
[113] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 14: loc. cit., 264;
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 32: loc. cit., 832-833.
[114] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 77: loc. cit., 295.
[115] John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 6: AAS 82 (1990),
150.
[116] Heraclitus of Ephesus (Ephesus, c. 535 B.C. - c. 475 B.C.), Fragment
22B124, in H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der Vorsokratiker, Weidmann,
Berlin, 1952, 6(th) ed.
[117] Pontifical Council for Justice And Peace, Compendium of the Social
Doctrine of the Church, 451-487.
[118] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 10: loc. cit.,
152-153.
[119] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 65: loc. cit., 289.
[120] Benedict XVI, Message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, 7: AAS 100 (2008),
41.
[121] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the United Nations
Organization, New York, 18 April 2008.
[122] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 13: loc. cit.,
154-155.
[123] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 36: loc. cit., 838-840.
[124] Ibid., 38: loc. cit., 840-841; Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World
Day of Peace, 8: loc. cit., 779.
[125] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 41: loc. cit.,
843-845.
[126] Cf. ibid.
[127] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 20: loc. cit.,
422-424.
[128] Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 85: loc. cit., 298-299.
[129] Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1998 World Day of Peace, 3: AAS 90
(1998), 150; Address to the Members of the Vatican Foundation “Centesimus Annus
– Pro Pontifice”, 9 May 1998, 2; Address to the Civil Authorities and Diplomatic
Corps of Austria, 20 June 1998, 8; Message to the Catholic University of the
Sacred Heart, 5 May 2000, 6.
[130] According to Saint Thomas “ratio partis contrariatur rationi personae”, In
III Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 2; also “Homo non ordinatur ad communitatem politicam
secundum se totum et secundum omnia sua”, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 21, a. 4, ad
3.
[131] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church
Lumen Gentium, 1.
[132] Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Sixth Public Session of the Pontifical
Academies of Theology and of Saint Thomas Aquinas, 8 November 2001, 3.
[133] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on the Unicity
and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the Church Dominus Iesus (6 August
2000), 22: AAS 92 (2000), 763-764; Id., Doctrinal Note on some questions
regarding the participation of Catholics in political life (24 November 2002),
8: AAS 96 (2004), 369-370.
[134] Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi, 31: loc. cit., 1010; Address to
the Participants in the Fourth National Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona,
19 October 2006.
[135] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 5: loc. cit., 798-800;
Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Fourth National Congress of the
Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October 2006.
[136] No. 12.
[137] Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May 1931): AAS 23
(1931), 203; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 48: loc. cit.,
852-854; Catechism of the Catholic Church, 1883.
[138] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, loc. cit., 274.
[139] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 10, 41: loc. cit.,
262, 277-278.
[140] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to Members of the International Theological
Commission, 5 October 2007; Address to the Participants in the International
Congress on Natural Moral Law, 12 February 2007.
[141] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Bishops of Thailand on their “Ad Limina”
Visit, 16 May 2008.
[142] Cf. Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and Itinerant
People, Instruction Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi (3 May 2004): AAS 96 (2004),
762-822.
[143] John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 8: loc. cit., 594-598.
[144] Jubilee of Workers, Greeting after Mass, 1 May 2000.
[145] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus Annus, 36: loc. cit.,
838-840.
[146] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization, New York, 18 April 2008.
[147] Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, loc. cit., 293;
Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of
the Church, 441.
[148] Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 82.
[149] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 43: loc.
cit., 574-575.
[150] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 41: loc. cit., 277-278;
cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 57.
[151] Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 5: loc. cit.,
586-589.
[152] Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 29: loc. cit., 420.
[153] Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Fourth National
Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October 2006; Id., Homily at Mass,
Islinger Feld, Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
[154] Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on certain
bioethical questions Dignitas Personae (8 September 2008): AAS 100 (2008),
858-887.
[155] Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 3: loc. cit., 258.
[156] Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in
the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 14.
[157] Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 42: loc. cit., 278.
[158] Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi, 35: loc. cit., 1013-1014.
[159] Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, 42: loc. cit., 278.
© Copyright 2009 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
On the Economic Crisis and Cultural Values
"Providence Always Helps Those Who Do Good"
ROMANO CANAVESE, Italy, JULY 19, 2009 - Here is a translation of the public address Benedict XVI gave before praying the midday Angelus in Romano Canavese, close to Les Combes in the Aosta Valley of northern Italy where he spent some vacation days.
* * *
Dear Brothers and Sisters!
I have come with great joy to your beautiful city, to your beautiful church, the native city of my chief colleague, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, secretary of state, with whom I had already worked for many years in the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
As you see, because of my accident, I am a bit limited in my movements, but my heart is fully present, and I am here with you with great joy!
At this moment I would like to say thank you with my whole heart to everyone: many have shown me, at this time, their closeness, their warmth, their affection and have prayed for me, and in this way they have reinforced the network of prayer that unites us in every part of the world.
First of all, I would like to say thank you to the doctors and the medical personnel of Aosta who have treated me with such diligence, with such competence and friendship and -- as you see -- with success -- we hope!
I would also like to say thank you to all the government and Church officials and to all the simple people who wrote me or showed me their affection and their closeness.
I would then like above all to greet your bishop, Bishop Arrigo Miglio, and thank him for the kind words, full of friendship, that also taught me a little about the historical and present situation of this city of yours. And I would also like to thank his Excellency Luigi Betazzi for his presence. I greet the mayor, who gave me a beautiful gift, [and] the civil and military authorities; I greet the pastor and the other priests, the men and women religious, the heads of the ecclesiastical associations and movements and all of the citizenry, with a special thought for the children, the young people, the families, the sick, the persons in need. To all and to each my most lively gratitude goes out for the welcome that you have reserved for me in this brief sojourn with you.
This morning you celebrated the Eucharist and Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone has certainly already explained the Word of God to you, which the liturgy offers for our meditation on this 16th Sunday of Ordinary Time. As the Lord invites the disciples to come away to listen to him in a more intimate setting, I also would like to be engaged with you, recalling that precisely listening to and welcoming the Gospel is what brought your local community about, whose name recalls the relationship of two millennia that the Canavese have with Rome. As his Excellency said, your land was bathed in the blood of martyrs at an early date. Among them was St. Solutore -- I must confess that until now I did not know his name but I am always grateful to discover new saint intercessors! -- and together with St. Peter the Apostle, he is the patron of your church.
Your imposing parish church is an eloquent witness to a long history of faith. This church dominates a large part of the Canavese landscape, whose inhabitants are known for their love and attachment to work. Presently, however, I know that here too, in Ivrea, many families are experiencing a difficult economic situation because of the scarcity of jobs. In regard to this problem -- as his Excellency also recalled -- I have spoken many times and I wanted to treat it more deeply in my recent encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." I hope that it will be able to mobilize forces to renew the world!
Dear friends, do not be discouraged! Providence always helps those who do good and dedicate themselves to justice; it helps those who do not think only of themselves but of those who are worse off. And you know this well, because your grandparents had to emigrate because there was a lack of work, but then economic development brought well-being and others immigrated here from [other parts of] Italy and from foreign countries. The fundamental values of the family and respect for human life, sensibility for social justice, the capacity to endure toil and sacrifice, the strong link to Christian faith through parish life and especially through participation at Holy Mass, have been your strength over the centuries. These same values will permit today's generations to build their future with hope, giving life to a true solidarity and a fraternal society, in which all the various spheres, institutions and economy are permeated by an evangelical spirit.
I address the young people in a special way, who must think about education. Here, as everywhere, you must ask what sort of culture is emerging around you; what examples and models are proposed to you, and you must determine whether they are such as to encourage you to follow the ways of the Gospel and authentic freedom. Youth is full of resources, but it must be helped to overcome the temptation of easy and illusory ways, to find the road of true and abundant life.
Dear brothers and sisters! In this land of yours, rich in Christian traditions and human values, numerous vocations have flourished among men and women, especially for the Salesian family, like that of Cardinal Bertone, who was born in this very parish of yours, was baptized in this church, and grew up in a family where he assimilated a genuine faith. Your diocese owes much to the sons and daughters of Don Bosco, to their widespread and fruitful presence in this whole area from the time when the holy founder was still alive. May this be a further encouragement to your diocesan community to commit itself more and more to the field of education and vocational accompaniment. For this let us invoke the protection of Mary, the Virgin Assumed, Patroness of the Diocese, Help of Christians, a mother loved and venerated in a special way in numerous shrines dedicated to her among the mountains of the Gran Paradiso and on the plain of the Po. May her maternal presence show the way of hope to all and lead them along it as the star led the Magi. May the Madonna of the Star watch over all you from the hill that dominates Ivrea, Monte Stella, which is dedicated to her and to the Magi Kings. Let us now entrust ourselves to the Madonna with filial confidence, invoking her with the prayer of the Angelus.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A NEW
SOCIAL ENCYCLICAL: Introduction and commentaries
VATICAN CITY, 7 JUL 2009 (VIS) - On July 7, 2009, the Holy See Press Office held
a press conference to present Benedict XVI's new Encyclical "Caritas in veritate".
Participating in the event were Cardinal Renato Raffaele Martino, president of
the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace; Cardinal Paul Josef Cordes,
president of the Pontifical Council "Cor Unum"; Archbishop Giampaolo Crepaldi,
secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, recently appointed as
bishop of Trieste, Italy, and Stefano Zamagni, professor of political economy at
the University of Bologna, Italy and consultor of the Pontifical Council for
Justice and Peace.
In his remarks Cardinal Martini spoke of the need for a new social Encyclical
twenty years after John Paul II's "Centesimus Annus" of 1991, and dedicated some
attention to changes that have taken place over the last two decades.
"The political ideologies that characterised the period prior to 1989 seem to
have lost their virulence, but have been replaced by the new ideology of
technology", he said. "Various aspects of globalisation have been accentuated,
due on the one hand to the fact that there are no longer two opposing power
blocs and, on the other, to the worldwide computer network. ... Religions have
returned to the centre of the world stage. ... Certain large countries have
emerged from a situation of backwardness, notably changing the world
geopolitical balance. ... The problem of international governance remains
vital".
These "great novelties ... would be enough by themselves to motivate the writing
of a new social Encyclical", said the cardinal, "yet there is another reason:
... 'Caritas in veritate' was conceived by the Holy Father as a commemoration of
the fortieth anniversary of Paul VI's 'Populorum Progressio'" although the theme
of this new Encyclical "is not the 'development of peoples', but 'integral human
development'. ... We could say, then, that the perspective of 'Populorum
Progressio' has been broadened".
"'Caritas in veritate' clearly shows not only that the pontificate of Paul VI
was no 'backward step' for Church social doctrine, as has unfortunately often
been said, but that that Pope made a significant contribution to forming a view
of the social doctrine of the Church in the wake of 'Gaudium et spes' and
earlier tradition, and provided the foundation upon which John Paul II could
then build".
For his part, Archbishop Crepaldi spoke of various new topics dealt with in this
Encyclical. "For the first time the two fundamental rights: to life and to
religious freedom", he said, "are given explicit and extensive space in a social
Encyclical. ... They are", he went on, "organically linked to the question of
development. ... In 'Caritas in veritate' the so-called 'anthropological
question' becomes to all intents and purposes a 'social question'".
Another two themes contained in the Encyclical are: the environment - in which
nature is seen not as a "deposit of natural resources" but as "created word"
entrusted to the human beings "for the good of everyone" - and technology - "the
first time an Encyclical deals with this theme so fully". And the archbishop
went on: "The continuous reference to Truth and Love infuses 'Caritas in
veritate' with great freedom of thought which cuts through all the ideologies
that unfortunately still weigh upon the question of development".
Cardinal Cordes explained how, "if the Pope's first Encyclical 'Deus caritas est'
on the theology of charity contained certain indications on social doctrine, we
now find ourselves with a text entirely dedicate to this subject".
After highlighting how "the social doctrine of the Church is an element of
evangelisation", the cardinal warned against reading it "outside the context of
the Gospel and its announcement", because doctrine "is born and must be
interpreted in the light of the revelation".
The president of the Pontifical Council "Cor Unum" explained that "the heart of
social doctrine is always mankind", and he went on: "The anthropological
question requires us to respond to a central question: what kind of man do we
wish to promote?. ... Can a civilisation survive without fundamental points of
reference, without looking to eternity, denying mankind an answer to his most
profound questions? Can there be true development without God?"
Referring finally to the concept of progress, the cardinal highlighted the fact
that the Encyclical, "apart from unifying the two dimensions [of human promotion
and announcement of the faith], introduces a further element into the concept of
progress, that of hope", to which the Pope dedicated his second Encyclical "Spe
salvi".
Professor Zamagni pointed out that the Encyclical is favourable "to the concept
of the market typical of the civil economy, according to which it possible to
experience human coexistence within a normal economic framework, and not outside
or on the margins thereof".
"There are", he explained, "three structural factors to the current crisis. The
first concerns the radical change in the relationship between finance and the
production of goods and services that has become consolidated over the last
thirty years. ... The second factor is the spread, at the level of popular
culture, of the ethos of efficiency as the ultimate criterion with which to
judge and justify economic matters. ... The third cause is connected to the
specificity of the cultural environment that has become consolidated over recent
decades on the crest, on the one hand, of globalisation and, on the other, of
the advent of the third industrial revolution, that of information technology".
SUMMARY OF ENCYCLICAL "CARITAS IN VERITATE"
VATICAN CITY, 7 JUL 2009 ( VIS ) - Given below is a summary of Benedict XVI's
new Encyclical "Caritas in veritate" (Charity in Truth) on integral human
development in charity and truth.
The Encyclical published today - which comprehends an introduction, six chapters
and a conclusion - is dated 29 June 2009, Solemnity of Sts. Peter and Paul,
Apostles.
A summary of the Encyclical released by the Holy See Press Office explains that
in his introduction the Pope recalls how "charity is at the heart of the
Church's social doctrine". Yet, given the risk of its being "misinterpreted and
detached from ethical living", he warns how "a Christianity of charity without
truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool of good sentiments,
helpful for social cohesion, but of little relevance".
The Holy Father makes it clear that development has need of truth. In this
context he dwells on two "criteria that govern moral action": justice and the
common good. All Christians are called to charity, also by the "institutional
path" which affects the life of the "polis", that is, of social coexistence.
The first chapter of the Encyclical focuses on the message of Paul VI's "Populorum
Progressio" which "underlined the indispensable importance of the Gospel for
building a society according to freedom and justice. ... The Christian faith
does not rely on privilege or positions of power, ... but only on Christ". Paul
VI "pointed out that the causes of underdevelopment are not primarily of the
material order". They lie above all in the will, in the mind and, even more so,
in "the lack of brotherhood among individuals and peoples".
"Human Development in Our Time" is the theme of the second chapter. If profit,
the Pope writes, "becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper
means and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks destroying
wealth and creating poverty". In this context he enumerates certain
"malfunctions" of development: financial dealings that are "largely
speculative", migratory flows "often provoked by some particular circumstance
and then given insufficient attention", and "the unregulated exploitation of the
earth's resources". In the face of these interconnected problems, the Pope calls
for "a new humanistic synthesis", noting how "development today has many
overlapping layers: ... The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but
inequalities are on the increase", and new forms of poverty are coming into
being.
At a cultural level, the Encyclical proceeds, the possibilities for interaction
open new prospects for dialogue, but a twofold danger exists: a "cultural
eclecticism" in which cultures are viewed as "substantially equivalent", and the
opposing danger of "cultural levelling and indiscriminate acceptance of types of
conduct and lifestyles". In this context Pope Benedict also mentions the scandal
of hunger and express his hope for "equitable agrarian reform in developing
countries".
The Pontiff also dwells on the question of respect for life, "which cannot in
any way be detached from questions concerning the development of peoples",
affirming that "when a society moves towards the denial or suppression of life,
it ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for
man's true good".
Another question associated with development is that of the right to religious
freedom. "Violence", writes the Pope, "puts the brakes on authentic
development", and "this applies especially to terrorism motivated by
fundamentalism".
Chapter three of the Encyclical - "Fraternity, Economic Development and Civil
Society" - opens with a passage praising the "experience of gift", often
insufficiently recognised "because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view
of life". Yet development, "if it is to be authentically human, needs to make
room for the principle of gratuitousness". As for the logic of the market, it
"needs to be directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which the
political community in particular must also take responsibility".
Referring to "Centesimus Annus", this Encyclical highlights the "need for a
system with three subjects: the market, the State and civil society" and
encourages a "civilising of the economy". It highlights the importance of
"economic forms based on solidarity" and indicates how "both market and politics
need individuals who are open to reciprocal gift".
The chapter closes with a fresh evaluation of the phenomenon of globalisation,
which must not be seen just as a "socio-economic process". Globalisation needs
"to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide
integration that is open to transcendence" and able to correct its own
malfunctions.
The fourth chapter of the Encyclical focuses on the theme: "The Development of
People. Rights and Duties. The Environment". Governments and international
organisations, says the Pope, cannot "lose sight of the objectivity and
'inviolability' of rights". In this context he also dedicates attention to "the
problems associated with population growth".
He reaffirms that sexuality "cannot be reduced merely to pleasure or
entertainment". States, he says, "are called to enact policies promoting the
centrality and the integrity of the family".
"The economy needs ethics in order to function correctly", the Holy Father goes
on, and "not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which is people-centred". This
centrality of the human person must also be the guiding principle in
"development programmes" and in international co-operation. "International
organisations", he suggests, "might question the actual effectiveness of their
bureaucratic and administrative machinery, which is often excessively costly".
The Holy Father also turns his attention to the energy problem, noting how "the
fact that some States, power groups and companies hoard non-renewable energy
resources represents a grave obstacle to development in poor countries. ...
Technologically advanced societies can and must lower their domestic energy
consumption", he says, at the same time encouraging "research into alternative
forms of energy".
"The Co-operation of the Human Family" is the title and focus of chapter five,
in which Pope Benedict highlights how "the development of peoples depends, above
all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family". Hence
Christianity and other religions "can offer their contribution to development
only if God has a place in the public realm".
The Pope also makes reference to the principle of subsidiarity, which assists
the human person "via the autonomy of intermediate bodies". Subsidiarity, he
explains, "is the most effective antidote against any form of all-encompassing
welfare state" and is "particularly well-suited to managing globalisation and
directing it towards authentic human development".
Benedict XVI calls upon rich States "to allocate larger portions of their gross
domestic product to development aid", thus respecting their obligations. He also
express a hope for wider access to education and, even more so, for "complete
formation of the person", affirming that yielding to relativism makes everyone
poorer. One example of this, he writes, is that of the perverse phenomenon of
sexual tourism. "It is sad to note that this activity often takes place with the
support of local governments", he says.
The Pope then goes on to consider the "epoch-making" question of migration.
"Every migrant", he says, "is a human person who, as such, possesses
fundamental, inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in every
circumstance".
The Pontiff dedicates the final paragraph of this chapter to the "strongly felt
need" for a reform of the United Nations and of "economic institutions and
international finance. ... There is", he says, "urgent need of a true world
political authority" with "effective power".
The sixth and final chapter is entitled "The Development of Peoples and
Technology". In it the Holy Father warns against the "Promethean presumption" of
humanity thinking "it can re-create itself through the 'wonders' of technology".
Technology, he says, cannot have "absolute freedom".
"A particularly crucial battleground in today's cultural struggle between the
supremacy of technology and human moral responsibility is the field of
bioethics", says Benedict XVI, and he adds: "Reason without faith is doomed to
flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence". The social question has, he
says, become an anthropological question. Research on embryos and cloning is
"being promoted in today's highly disillusioned culture which believes it has
mastered every mystery". The Pope likewise expresses his concern over a possible
"systematic eugenic programming of births".
In the conclusion to his Encyclical Benedict XVI highlights how "development
needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer", just as it needs
"love and forgiveness, self-denial, acceptance of others, justice and peace".
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cardinal Bertone on "Caritas in Veritate"
"It Is Also Possible to Do Business by Pursuing Aims That Serve Society"
ROME, AUG. 22, 2009 - Here is a translation of a speech Benedict XVI's secretary of state, Cardinal Tarcisio Bertone, gave to the Italian Senate last month. The July 28 discourse was a reflection on the Pope's third encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate."
* * *
Benedict XVI begins his Encyclical with a deep, comprehensive introduction in which he reflects on and analyzes the words of the title which closely link "caritas" and "veritas": love and truth. This is not only a sort of "explicatio terminorum", an initial explanation which seeks to point out the fundamental principles and perspectives of his entire teaching. Indeed, like the musical theme of a symphony, the theme of truth and charity then recurs throughout the document precisely because, as the Pope writes, in it is "the principal driving force behind the authentic development of every person and of all humanity" [1].
But, we ask ourselves, which truth and which love are meant? There is no doubt that today these very concepts give rise to suspicion especially the term "truth" or are the object of misunderstanding, and this is especially the case with the term "love". This is why it is important to make clear which truth and which love the Pope is addressing in his new Encyclical. The Holy Father explains that these two fundamental realities are neither extrinsic to man nor even imposed upon him in the name of any kind of ideological vision; rather, they are deeply rooted within the person. Indeed, "love and truth", the Pope says, "are the vocation planted by God in the heart and mind of every human person" [2], the person who, according to Sacred Scripture, has been created precisely "as an image of the Creator", in other words of the "God of the Bible, who is both "Agápe" and "Lógos": Charity and Truth, Love and Word [3].
This reality is testified to us not only by biblical Revelation but can be grasped by every person of good will who uses right reason in reflecting on himself [4]. In this regard, several passages of an important and meaningful Document that came out just before Caritas in veritate seem to illustrate this view clearly. The International Theological Commission in recent months has given us a text entitled "The Search for Universal Ethics: A New Look at Natural Law". It addresses topics of great importance which I wish to point out and to recommend especially in this context of the Senate, that is, an institution whose main function is legislative. Indeed, as the Holy Father said to the United Nations Assembly in New York during his Visit last year to their headquarters [5], sometimes called the "glass palace", speaking about the foundation of human rights: These rights "are based on the natural law inscribed on human hearts and present in different cultures and civilizations. Removing human rights from this context would mean restricting their range and yielding to a relativistic conception, according to which the meaning and interpretation of rights could vary and their universality would be denied in the name of different cultural, political, social and even religious outlooks". These reflections do not apply solely to human rights. They apply to every intervention by the legitimate authority called to regulate the life of the community in accordance with true justice by means of legislation that is not the result of a mere conventional agreement but aims at the authentic good of the person and of society and hence refers to this natural law.
Now, expounding on the reality of natural law, the International Theological Commission describes precisely how truth and love are essential requirements of every person and are deeply rooted in his being. "In his search for moral good, the human person should recognize what he is and be aware of the fundamental inclinations of his nature" [6], which orient him toward the goods necessary for his moral fulfilment. As is well known, "a distinction has traditionally been made between three important forms of natural dynamism.... The first, in common with every essential being, is comprised of the fundamental instinct to preserve and develop one's own existence. The second, which is shared by all living beings, includes the inclination to reproduce in order to perpetuate the species. The third, which is proper to man as a rational being, constitutes the inclination to know the truth about God and to live in society" [7]. Examining in depth this third form of dynamism which is found in every individual, the International Theological Commission declares that it is "specific to the human being as a spiritual being, endowed with reason, capable of knowing the truth, of entering into dialogue with others and of forming social relationships.... His integral well-being is thus closely linked to community life, which is organized in a political society by virtue of a natural inclination and not a mere convention. The person's relational character is also expressed in his tendency to live in communion with God or the Absolute....
Of course, it may be denied by those who refuse to admit the existence of a personal God, but it remains implicitly present in the search for truth and for meaning that is present in every human being" [8].
Man, therefore, through the "breadth of reason" [9], is made to know the truth in its full depth by "broadening [his] concept of reason", in other words, not limiting himself to acquiring technical knowledge in order to dominate material reality but rather opening himself to the very encounter with the Transcendent and to living fully the interpersonal dimension of love, "the principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with family members or within small groups) but also of macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones)" [10]. "Veritas" and "caritas" themselves point out to us the requirements of the natural law which Benedict XVI places as a fundamental criterion for moral reflection on the current socio-economic reality: "'Caritas in veritate' is the principle around which the Church's social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form in the criteria that govern moral action" [11].
Using a cogent expression, the Holy Father thus affirms that "the Church's social teaching... is "caritas in veritate in re sociali": the proclamation of the truth of Christ's love in society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is truth" [12].
What the Encyclical suggests is neither ideological nor exclusively reserved to those who share belief in the divine Revelation. Rather, it is based on fundamental anthropological realities such as, precisely, truth and charity properly understood or, as the Encyclical itself says, given to the human being and received by him, but neither planned nor willed by him [13]. Benedict XVI wants to remind everyone that it is only by being anchored to this double criterion of "veritas" and "caritas", inseparably bound together, that it is possible to build the authentic good of the human being who is made for truth and love. According to the Holy Father, "only in charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane and humanizing value" [14].
After this indispensable introduction, of which I have chosen to highlight some of the anthropological and theological aspects of the Papal text that may have attracted fewer comments from journalists, I would now like to explain just a few points, without claiming to cover the vast content of the Encyclical. Moreover, authoritative commentators have already published specific reflections on it in L'Osservatore Romano and elsewhere.
An important message that comes to us from Caritas in veritate is the invitation to supersede the now obsolete dichotomy between the financial sphere and the social sphere. Modernity has bequeathed to us the idea on the basis of which, if we are to be able to operate in the field of the economy, it is essential to achieve a profit and to be motivated chiefly by self-interest; as if to say that if we do not seek the highest profit we are not proper entrepreneurs. Should this not be the case, we must be content with belonging to the social sphere.
This conceptualization, that confuses the market economy that is the genus with its own particular species which is the capitalist system, has led to identifying the economy with the place where wealth or income is generated, and society with the place of solidarity for its fair distribution.
Caritas in veritate tells us instead that it is also possible to do business by pursuing aims that serve society and are inspired by pro-social motives. This is a practical way, if not the only one, of bridging the gap between the economic and the social spheres, given that an economic activity which did not incorporate the social dimension would not be ethically acceptable. It is likewise true that a social policy concerned only with redistribution, that failed to reckon with the available resources, would not be sustainable in the long run: in fact, production must precede distribution.
We should be particularly grateful to Benedict XVI for wishing to emphasize the fact that economic action is not separate from or alien to the cornerstones of the Church's social teaching such as: the centrality of the human person, solidarity, subsidariety, the common good.
It is necessary to supersede the current concept which expects the Church's social teaching and values to be confined to social activities, while experts in efficiency would be charged with guiding the economy. It is the merit and certainly not a secondary one of this Encyclical to contribute to remedying this gap which is both cultural and political.
Contrary to what people think, efficiency is not the fundamentum divisionis for distinguishing between what is business and what is not, for the simple reason that "efficiency" is a category that belongs to the order of means and not of ends. Indeed, efficiency is indispensable in order to achieve as well as possible the purpose one has freely chosen to give one's action. The entrepreneur who gives priority to efficiency that is an end in itself risks being caught by one of the most frequent causes of the destruction of wealth today, as the current economic and financial crisis sadly confirms.
To expand briefly on this theme, to say "market" means saying "competition", in the sense that the market cannot exist where there is no competition (even if the opposite is not true). And there is no one who can fail to see that the fruitfulness of competition lies in the fact that it implies tension, the dialectic that presupposes the presence of another and the relationship with another. Without tension there is no movement, but the movement this is the point to which tension gives rise can also be fatal; in other words it can generate death.
If the purpose of economic action is not synonymous with striving for a common goal as the Latin etymology "cum-petere" would clearly indicate but rather with Hobbes' theory, "mors tua, vita mea" [your death is my life], then the social bond is reduced to commercial relations and economic activity tends to become inhuman, hence ultimately inefficient. Therefore, even in competition, "the Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it or "after" it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral, nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it must be structured and governed in an ethical manner" [15].
Well, the advantage by no means small that Caritas in veritate offers us is to give special consideration to the concept of market, typical of the tradition of the thought of civil economics, according to which it is possible to live the experience of human sociality within a normal economic life and not outside or beside it. This concept might be defined as an alternative, both regarding the concept that sees the market as a place for the exploitation and abuse of the weak by the strong, and the concept which, in line with anarchic-liberalistic thought, sees it as a place that can provide solutions to all the problems of society.
This way of doing business is differentiated from that of the traditional Smithian economy, which sees the market as the only institution truly necessary for democracy and freedom. The Church's social doctrine, on the other hand, reminds us that a sound society is certainly the product of the market and of freedom, but there are needs that stem from the principle of brotherhood that can neither be avoided nor be referred solely to the private sphere or to philanthropy. Rather, the Church's social doctrine proposes a humanism with various dimensions, in which the market is not combated or "controlled" but is seen as an important institution in the public sphere a sphere which far exceeds State control which, if it is conceived of and lived as a place that is also open to the principles of reciprocity and of giving, can construct a healthy civil coexistence.
I shall now examine one of the themes in the Encyclical which seems to me to have attracted some public interest because of the newness of the principles of brotherhood and free giving in economic activity. "Social and political development, if it is to be authentically human", Pope Benedict XVI says, needs "to make room for the principle of gratuitousness" [16]. "Internal forms of solidarity" are essential. The chapter on the cooperation of the human family is significant in this regard. In it the Pope stresses that "the development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a single family", which is why "thinking of this kind requires a deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation". And further: "The theme of development can be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of all individuals and peoples within the one community of the human family, built in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice and peace" [17].
The key word that today expresses this need better than any other is "brotherhood". It was the Franciscan school of thought that gave this term the meaning it has retained over the course of time and that constitutes the complement and exaltation of the principle of solidarity. In fact, whereas solidarity is the principle of social organization that permits those who are unequal to become equal through their equal dignity and their fundamental rights, the principle of brotherhood is that principle of social organization which permits equals to be different, in the sense that they are able to express their plan of life or their charism in different ways.
Let me explain more clearly. The periods we have left behind us, the 19th century and especially the 20th century, were marked by great battles both cultural and political in the name of solidarity. This was a good thing; only think of the history of the trade union movement and of the fight to obtain civil rights. The point is that a society oriented to the common good cannot stop at solidarity because it needs a solidarity that reflects brotherhood, given that while a fraternal society also shows solidarity, the opposite is not necessarily true.
If one overlooks the unsustainability of a human society in which the sense of brotherhood is lacking and in which everything revolves around improving transactions based on the exchange of equivalents or to increasing transfers actuated by public structures for social assistance it then becomes clear why, in spite of the quality of the intellectual forces at work, we have not yet found a credible solution to the great trade-off between efficiency and equity. Caritas in veritate helps us to realize that society can have no future if the principle of brotherhood is lost. In other words, society cannot progress if the logic of "giving in order to have" or of "giving as a duty" is the only one that exists and develops. This is why neither the liberal-individualistic vision of the world, in which (almost) everything is exchange, nor the State-centred vision of society, in which (almost) everything is based on obligation, are reliable guides to lead us out of the shallows in which our societies today have run aground.
Then we ask ourselves the question: why is the perspective of the common good as it has been formulated by the Church's social doctrine, which was banished from the scene for at least two centuries, re-emerging like an underground river? Why is the transition from national markets to the global market that has taken place over the last 25 years rendering the topic of the common good timely once again? I note in passing that what is occurring is part of a broader movement of ideas in economics, a movement whose goal is the link between a religious sense and economic performance. On the basis of the consideration that religious beliefs are of crucial importance in forging people's cognitive maps and in shaping the social norms of behaviour, this movement of ideas is seeking to investigate how far the prevalence in a specific country (or territory) of a certain religious matrix influences the formation of categories of economic thought, welfare programmes, educational policies and so forth. After a long period, during which the celebrated theses of secularization appeared to have had the last word on the religious question at least insofar as the economic field is concerned what is happening today appears truly paradoxical.
It is not difficult to explain the return to the contemporary cultural debate in the perspective of the common good, a true and proper symbol of Catholic ethics in the social and economic field. As John Paul ii explained on many occasions, the Church's social teaching should not be considered as yet another ethical theory as regards the numerous theories already available in literature. Instead it should be seen as their "common grammar", since it is based on a specific viewpoint, the preservation of the human good. In truth, while the various ethical theories are rooted either in the search for rules (as happens in the positivist doctrine of natural law), or in action (as in Rawls' neo-contractualism or neo-utilitarianism), the social doctrine of the Church embraces "being with" as its Archimedean point. The ethical sense of the common good explains that in order to understand human action we must see it from the perspective of the acting person [18] and not from the viewpoint of the third person (as does natural law) or of the impartial spectator (as Adam Smith had suggested). In fact since the moral good is a practical reality, it is known first and foremost by those who practise it rather than by those who theorize about it. They can identify it and hence choose it unhesitatingly every time it is questioned.
Next, let us speak of the principle of free giving in the economy. What would be the practical consequence of applying the principle of free giving in economic activity? Pope Benedict XVI replies that the market and politics need "individuals who are open to reciprocal gift" [19]. The consequence of acknowledging that the principle of gratuitousness has a priority place in economic life has to do with the dissemination of culture and of the practice of reciprocity.
Together with democracy, reciprocity defined by Benedict XVI as "the heart of what it is to be a human being" [20] is a founding value of a society. Indeed, it could also be maintained that democratic rule draws its ultimate meaning from reciprocity.
In what "places" is reciprocity at home? In other words, where is it practised and nourished? The family is the first of these places: only think of the relationships between parents and children and between siblings. It is in the context of one's family that the relationship characteristic of brotherhood and based on giving develops. Then there are the cooperative, the social enterprise and associations in their various forms. Is it not true that the relationship between family members or the members of a cooperative are relations of reciprocity? Today we know that a country's civil and economic progress depends fundamentally on the extent to which reciprocity is practised by its citizens. Today there is an immense need for cooperation: this is why we need to extend the forms of free giving and to reinforce those that already exist. Societies that uproot the tree of reciprocity from their land are destined to decline, as history has been teaching us for years.
What is the proper role of the gift? It is to make people understand that beside the goods of justice are the goods of gratuitousness and, consequently, that the society whose members are content with the goods of justice alone is not authentically human. The Pope speaks of "the astonishing experience of gift" [21].
What is the difference? The goods of justice are those that derive from a duty. The goods of giving freely are those that are born from an obbligatio. That is, they are goods born from the recognition that I am bound to another and that, in a certain sense he is a constitutive part of me. This is why the logic of gratuitousness cannot be simplistically reduced to a purely ethical dimension. Indeed, gratuitousness is not an ethical virtue. Justice, as Plato formerly taught, is an ethical virtue, and we are all in agreement as to the importance of justice; but gratuitousness concerns rather the supra-ethical dimension of human action because its logic is superabundance, whereas the logic of justice is the logic of equivalence. Well, Caritas in veritate tells us that to function well and to progress, a society needs to have in its economic praxis people who understand what the goods of gratuitousness entail, in other words, who understand that we must let the principle of gratuitousness circulate anew in the channels of our society.
Benedict XVI asks us to restore the principle of gift to the public sphere. The authentic gift affirming the primacy of relationship over its reciprocation, of the inter-subjective bond over the good that is given, of personal identity over assets must find room for expression everywhere, in every context of human action, including the economy. The message that Caritas in veritate offers us is to think of gratuitousness hence brotherhood as a symbol of the human condition and thus to see the practice of giving as the indispensable prerequisite for the State and the market to function, with the common good as their goal. Without the widespread practice of giving, it would still be possible to have an efficient market and an authoritative (and even just) State, but people would certainly not be helped to achieve joie de vivre. Because, even if efficiency and justice are combined, they are not enough to guarantee people's happiness.
In Caritas in veritate Pope Benedict XVI reflects on the profound (and not on the immediate) causes of the current crisis. It is not my intention to review them and I shall limit myself to summing up the three principal factors of the crisis, identified and examined.
The first concerns the radical change in the relationship between finance and the production of goods and services which has gradually been consolidated in the past 30 years. From the mid-1970s various Western countries have based their promises of pension funds on investments that depended on the sustainable profitability of the new financial instruments, thereby exposing the real economy to the caprices of finance and generating the growing need to earmark value-added quotas to the remuneration of savings invested in these. The pressure on businesses deriving from stock exchanges and private equity funds have had repercussions in various directions: on directors, obliged to continuously improve the performance of their management in order to receive a growing number of stock options; on consumers, to convince them to buy more and more, even in the absence of purchasing power; on businesses of the real economy to convince them to increase the value for the shareholder.
And so it was that the persistent demand for increasingly brilliant financial results had repercussions on the entire economic system, to the point that it became a true and proper cultural model.
The second factor that contributed to causing the crisis was the dissemination in popular culture of the ethos of efficiency as the ultimate criterion of judgement and the justification of the financial reality. On the one hand, this ended by legitimizing greed which is the best known and most widespread form of avarice as a sort of civic virtue: the greed market that replaces the free market. "Greed is good, greed is right", preached Gordon Gekko, who starred in Wall Street, the famous 1987 film.
Lastly, in Caritas in veritate the Pope does not omit to reflect on the cause of the causes of the crisis: the specificity of the cultural matrix that was consolidated in recent decades on the wave of the globalization process on the one hand, and on the other, with the advent of the third industrial revolution, the revolution of information technology. One specific aspect of this matrix concerns the ever more widespread dissatisfaction with the way of interpreting the principle of freedom. As is well known, there are three constitutive dimensions of freedom: autonomy, immunity, and empowerment.
Autonomy means freedom of choice: one is not free unless one is in a position to choose. Immunity, on the other hand, means the absence of coercion by some external agent. It is substantially negative freedom (in other words it is "freedom from"). Lastly, empowerment (literally: the capacity for action) means the capacity to choose, that is, for achieving the objectives, at least in part or to some extent, that the person has set himself. One is not free even if one succeeds (even only partially) in realizing one's plan of life.
As can be understood, the challenge is to bring together all three dimensions of freedom: this is the reason why the paradigm of the common good appears as a particularly interesting perspective to explore.
In the light of what has been said above, we can understand why the financial crisis cannot claim to be an unexpected or inexplicable event. This is why, without taking anything from the indispensable interventions in a regulatory key or from the necessary new forms of control, we shall not succeed in preventing similar episodes from arising in the future unless the evil is attacked at the root, or in other words, unless we intervene by dealing with the cultural matrix that supports the economic system. This crisis sends a double message to the Government authorities. In the first place, that the sacrosanct criticism of the "intervening State" can in no way ignore the central role of the "regulatory State". Secondly, that the public authorities at different levels of government, must allow, indeed enhance, the emergence and reinforcement of a pluralist financial market. A market, in other words, should allow different people to work in conditions of objective parity to achieve the specific aim they have set themselves. I am thinking of the regional banks, of cooperative credit banks, ethical banks, of various ethical foundations. These are bodies that not only propose creative finance to their branches but above all play a complementary, hence balancing, role with regard to the agents of speculative finance. If in recent decades the financial authorities had removed the many restrictions that burden agents in alternative finance, today's crisis would not have had the devastating power that we are experiencing.
Before concluding, I would like to thank Hon. Mr Renato Schifani, President of the Senate of the Italian Republic, for permitting me to explain to this qualified audience several features of Benedict XVI's latest Encyclical.
In a certain way it is as if today the Holy Father were returning to the Headquarters of the Senate of the Republic, where, in the Library of the Senate on 13 May 2004, the then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger gave an unforgettable "lectio magistralis" on the theme: "Europe. Its spiritual foundations yesterday, today and tomorrow".
It is interesting to note how, in that discourse, among other things the future Pontiff touched on certain topics that we rediscover today in his most recent Encyclical. Let us think, for example, of the affirmation of the profound reason for the dignity of the person and of his rights: "they are not created by the legislator", the then- Cardinal Ratzinger said, "nor are they conferred upon citizens, "but rather they exist through their own law, they are always to be respected by the legislator, they are given to him in advance as values of a superior order". This validity of human dignity prior to any political action and any political decision refers ultimately to the Creator; he alone can establish values that are based on the essence of the human being and are intangible. That there are values that cannot be manipulated by anyone is the true and proper guarantee of our freedom and of human greatness; the Christian faith sees in this the mystery of the Creator and of the condition of the image of God who has conferred them on man". In Caritas in veritate Benedict XVI repeats that "human rights risk being ignored" when "they are robbed of their transcendent foundation" [22], that is, when people forget that "God is the guarantor of man's true development, inasmuch as, having created him in his image, he also established the transcendent dignity of men and women" [23].
Further, in the "lectio magistralis" given five years ago, the current Pontiff recalled that "a second point in which the European identity appears is marriage and the family. Monogamic marriage, as a fundamental structure of the relationship between a man and a woman and at the same time as a cell in the formation of the State community, was forged on the basis of biblical faith. It has given its special features and its special humanity to Western and Eastern Europe, also and precisely because the form of fidelity and renunciation outlined here must always be acquired anew, with great effort and much suffering.
Europe would no longer be Europe if this fundamental cell of its social edifice were to disappear or to be essentially altered". In Caritas in veritate this warning is extended until it becomes universal, we might say global, and reaches all who are responsible for public life; we read in it, in fact: "It is thus becoming a social and even economic necessity once more to hold up to future generations the beauty of marriage and the family, and the fact that these institutions correspond to the deepest needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the primary vital cell of society, and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs, while respecting its essentially relational character" [24].
Of course, Caritas in veritate is addressed, as it says in its official title, to all the members of the Catholic Church and to "all people of good will". Yet, because of the principles it illumines, the problems it tackles and the guidelines it offers, it seems to me that this Papal Document which gave rise to so many expectations beforehand and then to so much attention and appreciation, especially in the social, political and economic contexts can find a special echo in this institutional Headquarters of the Senate of the Republic. I am convinced that, over and above differences in training and in personal conviction, those who have the delicate and honourable responsibility of representing the Italian people and of exercising legislative power during their mandate, may find in the Pope's words a lofty and profound inspiration for carrying out their mission so as to respond adequately to the ethical, cultural and social challenges which call us into question today and which, with great lucidity and completeness, the Encyclical Caritas in veritate sets before us. My hope is that this document of the ecclesial Magisterium which I have endeavoured to describe to you today, at least in part, may find here the attention it deserves and thus bear positive and abundant fruit for the good of every person and of the entire human family, starting with the beloved Italian Nation.
--- --- ---
Notes
[1] Caritas in veritate, n. 1
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid., n. 3.
[4] "Truth is the light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of charity" (ibid.).
[5] Discourse to the General Assembly of the United Nations Organization, 18 April 2008.
[6] The Search for Universal Ethics: A New Look at Natural Law, n. 45.
[7] Ibid., n. 46.
[8] Ibid., n. 50.
[9] Discourse to the University of Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
[10] Caritas in Veritate, n. 2
[11] Ibid., n. 6.
[12] Ibid., n. 5.
[13] "Truth which is itself a gift, in the same way as charity is greater than we are, as St Augustine teaches. Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is first of all given to us. In every cognitive process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better, received. Truth, like love, 'is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings'" (Caritas in Veritate, n. 34).
[14] Ibid., n. 9.
[15] Ibid., n. 36.
[16] Ibid., n. 34.
[17] Ibid., nn. 53-54.
[18] Cf. Veritatis Splendor, n. 78.
[19] Cf. ibid., nn. 35-39.
[20] Ibid., n. 57.
[21] Ibid., n. 34.
[22] Ibid., n. 56.
[23] Ibid., n. 29.
[24] Ibid., n. 44.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Caritas in Veritate, by
Pope Benedict XVI,
Abridged by Dr. John A. Gueguen
POPULORUM PROGRESSIO
In view of the problem of development presented today as compared with forty
years ago, a fresh reading of Populorum Progressio within the context of Paul
VI’s magisterium, its connection with the Second Vatican Council, and the
Church’s social doctrine, recalls that the Church is at the service of the world
in terms of love and truth. According to Paul, the whole Church is engaged in
promoting authentic development of the whole person: Integral human development
is a vocation involving responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone.
Without a transcendent vision of the person; without God, man ends up promoting
a dehumanized form of development.
Pope Paul already recognized and drew attention to the global dimension of the
social question. In his time, negative ideologies weakened cultures and
idealized technical progress, detaching it from moral evaluation (the links
between life ethics and social ethics). He repeatedly underlined the urgent need
for reform in the face of great injustices and called for courageous action
without delay. By turning the light of the Gospel on the social questions of his
time, Paul VI saw that evangelization is the missionary aspect of the Church’s
social doctrine, that progress is a vocation concerned with man’s pilgrimage
through history, that a humanism open to the Absolute gives life its true
meaning. This vision of development is what makes his encyclical still timely,
amid the competing anthropological visions put forward in today’s society. A
vocation requires a free and responsible answer, an assumption of shared
responsibility. Because of the central place of charity in the Christian
vocation to development, it helps to promote the whole man and the advancement
and fraternity of all men, both on the natural and the supernatural plane:
Christ fully reveals humanity to itself. This is the central message of
Populorum Progressio, valid for today and for all time.
II
THE THEME OF DEVELOPMENT
Forty years from the Encyclical Populorum Progressio of Pope Paul VI, I intend
to revisit his teachings on integral human development, applying them to the
present moment. Love in truth is a great challenge for the Church in our time,
when the interdependence of nations is not matched by ethical interaction of
consciences that would give rise to truly human development. An empiricist and
skeptical view of life is incapable of grasping the values by which to direct
it.
The human race, a single family, must be transformed into true communion. It is
not in isolation that man establishes his worth, but in his relations with
others and with God. The theme of development is inclusive of all individuals
and peoples within the one community of the human family illuminated by the
relationship among the Persons of the Trinity. Human relationships cannot but be
enriched by reference to this divine model. God desires to incorporate us into
His Communion.
Some religious and cultural attitudes, however, retard or even obstruct
authentic human development by giving rise to separation and disengagement,
alienating people and distancing them from reality instead of bringing them
together. It becomes difficult for love and truth to assert themselves, and
development is impeded. In the universal human community discernment of and
respect for the common good has to be based on charity and truth. Christianity
contains this criterion within itself. Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the
possibility of fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and
religious faith. Religion always has to be purified by reason.
Human development, closely bound up with our understanding of the soul, must
include not just material growth but also spiritual growth. Everyone experiences
the many immaterial and spiritual dimensions of life. But the contemporary
technological mindset loses awareness of the soul’s ontological depths, and
man’s interiority is emptied of its meaning. A purely psychological point of
view fails to understand the spiritual life. Despite the availability of
countless therapies, when man is far from God he is unsettled and ill at ease.
Social and psychological alienation, many neuroses, and slavery to drugs are
attributable in part to spiritual factors. To be authentic, development requires
new eyes and a new heart capable of rising above a materialistic vision of human
events. By following this path, it is possible to pursue the integral
development that takes its direction from charity in truth.
Charity in truth is the principal force behind development of every person and
of all humanity. Charity “rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). In Christ charity
in truth becomes a vocation to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his
plan: He himself is the Truth (Jn 14:6).
Truth needs to be sought, found, and expressed within charity, but charity needs
to be understood, confirmed, and practiced in the light of truth. It is creative
love, redemptive love. Charity promotes and animates the wisdom capable of
directing man in light of his beginning and final end. Deeds without knowledge
are blind, and knowledge without love is sterile. Charity in truth requires
knowledge that goes beyond human understanding; science cannot indicate by
itself the path toward integral human development. Intelligence and love are not
in separate compartments: love is rich in intelligence, and intelligence is full
of love. Moral evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand; charity
must animate them as a harmonious interdisciplinary whole marked by unity and
distinction.
The challenge of development is closely linked to technological progress. It is
a response to God’s command to till and keep the land. Technology expresses the
dominion of spirit over matter; ‘freed from bondage to creatures we are more
easily drawn to worship and contemplation of the Creator.’
But if the development of technology gives rise to the intoxicating idea that it
is self-sufficient—an expression of absolute freedom from the limits inherent in
things—it holds us back from encountering being and truth by making efficiency
and utility the sole criteria. Our actions always remain subject to human
limitations; our freedom is authentic only when it responds to moral
responsibility. Without formation in the ethically responsible use of
technology, development could come to be considered a purely technical matter.
True development is impossible without upright consciences tuned to the
requirements of the common good. Professional competence must be accompanied by
moral consistency.
Development goes awry if humanity thinks it can recreate itself through the
‘wonders’ of technology, just as economic development is exposed as a
destructive sham if it relies on the ‘wonders’ of finance to sustain consumerist
growth. In the face of such Promethean presumption, we must fortify love for a
freedom that is truly human because of the good that underlies it. Our freedom
is shaped by our being and by its limits (the natural moral law). A ‘self’ is
given to us. Each of us is outside his own control. A person’s development is
compromised if he claims to be solely responsible for producing what he becomes.
A particularly crucial battleground in today’s cultural struggle between the
supremacy of technology and moral responsibility is the field of bioethics,
where the very possibility of integral human development is radically called
into question. In this most delicate and critical area, the fundamental question
asserts itself forcefully: Is man the product of his own labor or does he depend
on God? In this field, scientific discoveries and the possibilities of
technological intervention seem so advanced as to force a choice between reason
that is open to transcendence and reason that is closed within immanence.
Self-centered use of technology proves to be irrational because it implies a
decisive rejection of meaning and value. Entranced by exclusive reliance on
technology, reason without faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own
omnipotence. Only together will they save man.
Technological development is also linked to the increasingly pervasive presence
of the means of social communication, an integral part of life today. The
meaning and purpose of the media must be sought within an anthropological
perspective: They can have a civilizing effect when geared toward a vision of
the person and the common good that reflects universal values. The media can
make an important contribution toward the growth in natural and supernatural
communion of the human family when, inspired by charity at the service of truth,
they promote the dignity of persons and universal participation in the common
search for what is just.
Human beings interpret and shape the natural environment through culture, which
is given direction by the responsible use of freedom in accordance with the
moral law. Consequently integral human development cannot ignore coming
generations, but needs to be marked by solidarity and intergenerational justice.
Protection of the environment, of resources, and of the climate obliges
international leaders to act jointly in good faith. The Church, too, has a
responsibility to defend not only the earth, the ecological system; she must
above all protect mankind (human ecology) from self-destruction. The book of
nature is one and indivisible: it includes not only the environment but also
life, education, sexuality, marriage, the family—the overall moral tenor of
society.
Nature expresses a design of love and truth. It is prior to us; it has been
given to us by God as the setting for our life. The Christian vision of nature
as the fruit of God’s creation is closely related to the duties arising from our
relationship to the natural environment, its responsible use with respect for
the balance of creation. The Creator has given nature an inbuilt order. But
nature is not more important than the human person—a naturalistic position that
leads to neopaganism or a new pantheism. These distorted notions do as much harm
to development as reckless exploitation of the environment. Besides care and
preservation of the environment, responsible stewardship over nature requires
improved energy efficiency through a worldwide redistribution of energy
resources.
Humanity is becoming increasingly interconnected. Hence a commitment is needed
to promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide
integration that is open to transcendence. Guided by charity and truth, and
acting in the light of reason, a possibility opens for large-scale
redistribution of wealth on a world-wide scale. But globalization also presents
difficulties and dangers. The humanizing goal of solidarity is often overwhelmed
or suppressed by individualistic and utilitarian ethical and cultural
considerations. The principal concern must be to improve actual living
conditions.
Basic rights are violated in much of the world. Hence it is important to call
for a renewed reflection on how rights presuppose duties. The sharing of
reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion
of rights. The vocation to development is not based simply on human choice, but
is an intrinsic part of a plan that is prior to us and constitutes a duty to be
freely accepted. Subsistent Love and Truth shows us what goodness is and in what
our true happiness consists. He shows us the path to true development.
Although the human being is made for gift, modern man is selfishly closed in
upon himself as a consequence of original sin, present in social conditions and
in the structure of society. This has given rise to serious errors in education,
politics, social action and morals. The conviction that man is self-sufficient
has led him to confuse happiness with material prosperity. Likewise, the
conviction that the economy must be autonomous has led man to abuse the economic
process in a destructive way. These convictions have led to economic, social,
and political systems that trample on personal and social freedom.
Charity in truth feeds on hope. As a gratuitous gift of God, hope bursts into
our lives. Truth, too, is a gift, in the same way as charity: the truth of
ourselves is given to us. Truth, like love, is not something we produce; it
imposes itself upon us. Because it is a gift received by everyone, charity in
truth brings people together and builds community. Thus economic, social, and
political development needs to make room for the principle of gratuitousness,
the logic of gift, as an expression of fraternity.
III
THE WORLD TODAY
Another logic—commercial logic, the logic of the market—regulates giving and
receiving between parties to a transaction (commutative justice). But without
social cohesion, solidarity and mutual trust (distributive and social justice),
the market cannot completely fulfill its proper economic function. Today this
trust has ceased to exist—a grave loss. Economic activity (commercial logic)
needs to be directed toward the pursuit of the common good. Economic activity
must include friendship, solidarity, and reciprocity because that is part of
human activity. It must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.
A great challenge before us is for gratuitousness and the logic of gift to find
their place within normal economic activity. It is a demand of charity and of
truth. For economic activity inevitably has moral implications: Every economic
decision has moral consequences. Hence all the canons of justice must be
respected. In a global era economic life needs both contracts (commutative
justice—conditional exchanges) and the spirit of gift (forms of redistribution:
distributive justice—unconditional gift). Fraternal reciprocity must be present,
an economy of gratuitousness, to foster solidarity and the common good.
Solidarity is a sense of responsibility on the part of everyone with regard to
everyone. Without gratuitousness there can be no justice.
Today’s economic scene (the corporate world) requires a new way of understanding
business enterprise, the broader significance of business activity. With
attentiveness to ways of civilizing the economy, charity in truth aims at a
higher goal than the mere commercial logic of exchange, profit-oriented private
and public enterprise. The State’s role seems destined to grow, for political
authority (local, national, international) is one of the best ways to give
direction to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to ensure
that it does not undermine the foundations of democracy.
The new elements in the development of peoples today demand new solutions in the
light of an integral vision of the human person purified by charity. Further and
deeper reflection on the meaning of the economy and its goals is required so as
to correct its dysfunctions and deviations—a profound and far-sighted revision
of the current model of development, of the earth’s ecological health, and of
the cultural and moral crisis of man.
More than forty years after Populorum Progressio, its basic
concern—progress—remains an open question. How difficult the process of
decolonization has been because of new forms of colonialism, and because of
continued dependence and grave irresponsibility within newly independent
countries. The principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide
interdependence (globalization). Without the guidance of charity in truth this
great opportunity could cause unprecedented damage. Hence charity in truth is
about knowing and directing these powerful new forces within the perspective of
that ‘civilization of love’ whose seed God has plantgged in every people, in
every culture.
Today the social question has become a radically anthropological question. In
today’s highly disillusioned culture the very origin of life is within our
grasp. Biotechnology places it increasingly under man’s control: eugenic
programming of births, in vitro fertilization, embryo research, the possibility
of manufacturing clones and human hybrids. We must not underestimate the
disturbing scenarios that threaten our future—indeed are already surreptitiously
present—or the powerful new instruments the ‘culture of death’ has at its
disposal. The scourge of abortion and a pro-euthanasia mindset are equally
damaging assertions of control over life (its materialistic and mechanistic
understanding).
Who could measure the negative effects for development of this kind of
mentality? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and selective determination of
what is put forward today as worthy of respect. Insignificant matters are
considered shocking while unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated
and situations of human degradation are treated with indifference on account of
a conscience that can no longer distinguish what is from what is not human. God
reveals man to man himself. Reason and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate
what is good, provided we want to see it. The natural law reveals our greatness,
but also our wretchedness insofar as we fail to recognize the call to moral
truth.
The economic, social, and political goal of rescuing peoples from hunger,
deprivation, diseases and illiteracy is weighed down by malfunction and dramatic
problems of the current crisis, political irresponsibility, badly managed and
largely speculative financial dealing, migration of peoples given insufficient
attention, unregulated exploitation of the earth’s resources—all this requires a
new humanistic synthesis taken up with confidence and hope. Cuts in social
spending and downsizing of social security systems pose great danger for the
fundamental human rights of workers. Our world is in need of cultural renewal to
rediscover fundamental values. The current crisis requires us to re-plan our
journey. It is an opportunity for discernment of a new vision of the future. It
is appropriate to address the difficulties of the present time with confidence
rather than resignation.
By liberating ourselves from ideologies that oversimplify reality, we can
examine objectively the full human dimension of the problems: wealth is growing,
but new forms of poverty are emerging along with dehumanizing deprivation,
corruption and illegality, and diversion of international aid. A comprehensive
new plan for development is a duty that needs to be discharged in the new
context of international trade and finance that has brought new forms of
political participation and altered the political powers of States. Those powers
need to be remodeled in order to address the challenges of today’s profoundly
changed environment. New forms of cooperation, international and local, are
urgently needed.
In the face of human decline, food shortages, waste of social resources,
unemployment and economic marginalization of persons and their families, I would
like to remind everyone, especially governments, that the primary capital to be
safeguarded and valued is man. What is missing is a network of economic
institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to food and water and
promoting agricultural development and agrarian reform. Today the possibility of
interaction between cultures has increased, but cultural eclecticism, cultural
relativism, and cultural leveling do not serve true intercultural dialogue.
Humanity runs new risks of enslavement and manipulation when culture is
separated from our common human nature that transcends it.
The question of acceptance and respect for life cannot be detached from the
development of peoples. Poverty still provokes high rates of infant mortality,
while in developed countries an anti-birth mentality promotes legislation
contrary to life that imposes mandatory birth control, as if cultural progress
required demographic control, contraception, sterilization, and even abortion
and euthanasia. Cultivating openness to life is at the center of true
development. When a society moves toward the denial or suppression of life, it
ends up no longer finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for
man’s true good. Acceptance of life strengthens moral fiber and makes people
capable of mutual help. Nations should promote productive action marked by
solidarity and respect for the fundamental right to life of every person.
Morally responsible openness to life represents a rich social and economic
resource. Smaller, miniscule families risk impoverishing social relations. They
are symptomatic of scant confidence in the future and moral weariness. It is
thus becoming a social and even economic necessity to hold up to future
generations the beauty of marriage and the family, and the fact that these
institutions correspond to the deepest needs and dignity of the person. States
are called to promote the centrality and integrity of the family founded on
marriage between a man and a woman as the primary vital cell of society, and to
assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs.
There is a special need to defend the primary competence of the family in the
area of sexuality. Problems associated with population growth concern the
inalienable values of life and the family. Attention must obviously be given to
responsible procreation, especially in societies that are experiencing an
alarming decline in their birth rate. The Church urges respect for human values
in the exercise of sexuality. It cannot be reduced to pleasure or entertainment,
nor can sex education be reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at
protection from disease or the ‘risk’ of procreation. This would be to
impoverish and disregard the deeper meaning of sexuality.
Another aspect of modern life that is closely connected to development is denial
of the right to religious freedom (religious fanaticism, indifference, practical
atheism). Some even kill in the holy name of God (terrorism, fundamentalism).
God is the guarantor of man’s true development. As his beloved creatures endowed
with an immortal soul, men and women have transcendent dignity and are destined
to supernatural life. When the State deprives citizens of the moral and
spiritual strength needed to respond generously to divine love it impedes
integral human development.
In the face of unrelenting global interdependence there is a strongly felt need
for reform of the United Nations and of international financial institutions in
order to arrive at a political, juridical, and economic order that can direct
international cooperator, bring about disarmament, food security, and peace,
protect the environment, and regulate migration. For the overall management of
globalization and a greater degree of international ordering (as Bl. John XXIII
indicated some years ago), there is urgent need for a universally recognized
world political authority vested with the effective power to ensure security for
all, regard for justice and respect for rights, inspired by charity in truth,
regulated by international law, and observing the principles of subsidiarity and
solidarity for the common good—a social order that conforms to the moral order.
Without God man neither knows which way to go, nor even understands who he is.
In the face of the enormous problems surrounding the development of peoples and
contemplating the vast amount of work to be done, we are sustained by our faith
that God is present alongside those who come together in his name to work for
justice. As Paul VI said, man cannot bring about his own progress unaided,
because by himself he cannot establish an authentic humanism. In the interest of
a truly integral humanism, the greatest service to development, then, is a
Christian humanism that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth,
understanding life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of
solidarity. A humanism that excludes God is inhuman. Only a humanism open to the
Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic
life—structures, institutions, culture, and ethos—without exposing us to the
risk of becoming ensnared by the fashions of the moment. Amid successes and
failures, what we are able to achieve is always less than we might wish for.
IV
THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE
The Church does not have technical solutions to offer; her mission is to truth
in every time and circumstance. She searches for the truth that sets us free,
proclaims it tirelessly, and recognizes it wherever it is manifested. Her social
doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is found,
and mediates it within changing life-patterns of peoples and nations. The
Church’s social doctrine came into being in order to claim ‘citizenship status’
for the Christian religion, to bring the truths of faith to bear on public life,
that this world may effectively correspond to the divine plan.
The Church’s social doctrine allows faith, theology, metaphysics, and science to
collaborate in the service of humanity, formulating a guiding synthesis for the
integral good of man in his various dimensions. What the Church’s social
doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man and society, is
corroborated today by the dynamics of globalization.
There are not two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar.
There is a single teaching, consistent and ever new. Coherence does not mean a
closed system, but dynamic faithfulness to a light received, illuminating with
an unchanging light the new problems that are constantly emerging. The social
doctrine is built on the foundation of the Apostles and Fathers of the Church,
as further explored by the great doctors, and attested by the saints and martyrs
for justice and peace. It is the Prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give
it apostolic guidance and to discern the new demands of evangelization. In this
way, the Church, taught by her Lord, examines and interprets the signs of the
times, offering the world ‘a global vision of the human race.’
In all cultures there are examples of ethical convergence as an expression of
the one human nature willed by the Creator. A universal moral law (the natural
law) ensures that the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not
become detached from the common quest for truth and goodness. Thus, adherence to
the law etched on human hearts is the precondition for all constructive social
cooperation. By becoming incarnate in cultures and at the same time transcending
them, the Christian faith can help them grow in universal brotherhood
(solidarity) for the advancement of global development.
The Church’s social doctrine is based on man’s creation ‘in the image of God’
(Gen 1:27); this gives rise to the inviolable dignity of the human person and
the transcendent value of natural moral norms. “Caritas in veritate” is the
principle around which the Church’s social doctrine turns; it takes practical
form in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to consider two of
these with special relevance to development in a globalized society: justice and
the common good.
Justice, the virtue that prompts us to give the other what is “his,” is the
primary path of charity. It strives to build the earthly city according to law
and justice, rights and duties, relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and
communion. To strive toward the common good of the social community is a
requirement of justice in charity. In a globalized society it extends to the
whole human family, to all peoples and nations. When animated by charity, the
common good is a principal factor of development.
The governance of globalization must be marked by the principle of subsidiarity
as closely linked to the principle of solidarity and vice versa. Subsidiarity is
a form of assistance to the person via the autonomy of intermediate bodies when
individuals and groups are unable to accomplish something on their own. It is
stratified on different levels of government coordinated and working together
(for just and equitable international trade, for example). It is always designed
to foster freedom and participation through assumption of responsibility.
Subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against an all-encompassing welfare
state.
Specific areas where the Church’s traditional teaching can provide guidance:
greater access to education, a precondition for the complete formation of
persons; peace-building; tourism that is able to promote mutual understanding;
collaboration in addressing today’s problems of migration; unemployment and
underemployment; the right to a just wage and personal security for workers and
their families; work freely chosen that expresses the essential dignity of every
man and woman and permits workers to organize and make their voices heard;
improved formation in professional skills and technology; welfare policies and
systems; rediscovery of the ethical foundations of financial structures and
operating methods that serve the interests of savers; protection from the risks
of usury and despair for the weakest sectors of society; genuinely transparent
marketing and purchasing procedures that respect moral principles and the social
responsibility of consumers; harnessing energy. In all of these areas, if love
is wise it can find ways to work in accord with provident and just expediency,
especially at a time of general economic downturn.
Charity is at the heart of the Church’s social doctrine. It gives substance to
personal relationships to God and neighbor—friends, family members, small
groups; and to social, economic, and political relationships. In light of reason
and faith, it gives direction to moral responsibility—social, juridical,
cultural, political, and economic. In the present social and cultural context,
where there is no longer any real place for God in the world, culture
relativizes truth and falls prey to subjective emotions and opinions. Charity
promotes communication and communion that leads to human development by moving
beyond cultural and historical limitations.
Development needs Christians with their arms raised in prayer, moved by the
knowledge that truth-filled love, caritas in veritate is given to us.
Recognizing what is happening, even in the most difficult times, we must above
all turn to God’s love, rendering life on earth ‘divine’ and thus more worthy of
humanity. God is at the beginning of all that is good, all that leads to
salvation. Through her intercession, may the Virgin Mary, proclaimed Mater
Ecclesiae by Paul VI (Mother of the Church), and honored by Christians as
Speculum Iustitiae and Regina Pacis (Mirror of Justice, Queen of Peace), protect
us and obtain for us the strength, hope, and joy to continue our dedication to
the task of bringing about ‘development of the whole man and of all men.’
[The Encyclical is documented by 159 notes, drawn almost entirely from the Papal
and Conciliar Magisterium of the Church: Paul VI (principally Populorum
Progressio) and the documents of the Second Vatican Council (principally Gaudium
et Spes). Other quotations are from Leo XIII, Pius XI, John XXIII (Pacem in
Terris), John Paul II (principally Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, commemorating the
twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio, and Centesimus Annus), and
Benedict XVI.]
[This digest of Pope Benedict’s words and the organizational scheme were
prepared by Dr. John A. Gueguen, Professor Emeritus, Illinois State University:
jguegu@ilstu.edu]
CARITAS IN VERITATE
Background
“If all the sons and daughters of the Church would know how to be tireless
missionaries of the Gospel, a new flourishing of holiness and renewal would
spring up in this world that thirsts for love and for truth.” Pope John Paul I
(1978).
“The Cross is being increasingly banished from theology and reinterpreted as
just a vexing mischance or a purely political event. The Cross as
reconciliation, as a means of forgiving and saving, is incompatible with a
certain modern mode of thought. Only when the relationship between truth and
love is rightly comprehended can the Cross be comprehensible in its true
theological depth. Forgiveness has to do with truth. That is why it requires the
Son’s Cross and our conversion. Forgiveness is, in fact, the restoration of
truth, the renewal of being, and the vanquishing of the lies that lurk in every
sin; sin is by nature a departure from the truth of one’s own nature and, by
consequence, from the truth of God the Creator.” Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger,
Co-Workers of the Truth (1992).
“Repentance is truth. It tries to see things as they really are…. Repentance
seeks to know the truth. And with the truth of what he has done, man comes to
God and says, “I am guilty before you. I admit it….I love you. I judge myself as
you judge me. But you are love, and I appeal to this love. With all that I am I
give myself to the mystery of your love….Human repentance corresponds to divine
forgiveness. To the living God who is able to forgive there corresponds the man
of living faith who is able to repent. Both constitute a single mystery of holy
life.” Romano Guardini, The Living God (1997).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Some other commentaries
Caritas in Veritate Brendan MacPartlin SJ
(Pope Benedict XVI’s third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate,
was released on 7th July 2009. Brendan MacPartlin SJ considers the vision
delivered in this long awaited document, which picks up on the themes of
Populorum Progressio to look at issues of development and social action:
‘Charity in truth drives the authentic development of all persons.’)
Pope Benedict’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate, released on 7 July 2009, builds
on the seminal work of Paul VI’s Populorum Progressio, published over forty
years ago in 1967. Upon re-reading Populorum Progressio (‘On the Development of
Peoples’) now, I am so taken by its relevance today and by the works of justice
yet to be done that I feel the need for action rather than for another Papal
letter. But having read Caritas in Veritate, I am glad to have taken the time to
contemplate the learned discussion and the updated description of global social
developments that it offers.
The first words and early paragraphs introduce the name of the encyclical,
Caritas in Veritate (‘Charity in Truth’), and the integrating relationship
between the two components of the title. The language used invites contemplation
on the affective component: the introductory paragraphs describe love as an
extraordinary force that has its origin in God and leads us to discover our own
truth that reflects the face of Christ, who is Truth. Truth needs to be sought,
found and expressed in the relationships of charity, and charity needs to be
understood, confirmed and practised in the light of truth, if neither is to be
emptied of meaning. Charity in truth drives the authentic development of all
persons. It is the principle behind social teaching and gives rise to criteria
for social action such as, for instance, justice and the common good. Love in
truth when it comes to social affairs is the great challenge for the Church in a
world that is becoming globalised.
The first of six chapters revisits the message of Populorum Progressio. Benedict
XVI endorses the work of his venerable predecessor Paul VI, not only this letter
but the overall Magisterium of Paul VI, especially his social Magisterium.
Specifically, Benedict refers to the earlier Pope’s vision of development as a
vocation that derives from a transcendent call. This vision is still timely in
our day. Caritas in Veritate urges us to mobilise ourselves at the level of the
‘heart’, so as to ensure that current economic and social processes evolve
towards fully human outcomes.
Chapter two addresses ‘Human Development in our Time’. Paul VI’s vision of
‘development’ was multi-levelled and included economic participation, social
solidarity, democratic stability and freedom from misery. His vision has not
been achieved but instead technocratic models of development have been
implemented. The malfunctions of these models and the succession of crises that
they have inflicted suggest that we need a new humanistic synthesis that
incorporates an ethics and an anthropology. The current crisis is an opportunity
for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future. Benedict
provides a succinct, multi-layered analysis of the emergence of a global market
since Populorum Progressio assigned a central role, now surpassed, to ‘public
authorities’. Paul VI said that we needed to think more; Benedict says that, in
a new and complex context, integral human development requires the interaction
of different levels of human knowledge guided by intelligence and love. Truth
and charity are not in different compartments, he says: love is rich in
intelligence and intelligence is full of love.
Chapter three addresses the role of fraternity and civil society in economic
development. Benedict notes that for some time now we have been able to include
the economy in the list of areas where we experience the pernicious effects of
sin. But the more astonishing experience is that of gratuitousness, which
imposes itself on everyone in the gift of love and truth. It is a force that
builds community, bringing all people together beyond barriers and limits in a
fraternal communion. Benedict then addresses the market, an institution that
permits exchange relations between economic subjects which, if governed by
fairness and justice, generates trust and functions well. It is the
responsibility of the political community to direct the logic of the market to
the service of the common good. Human agency directs these systems, for good or
ill, and therefore there is a need for personal and social responsibility.
Authentic human relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can be
conducted within economic activity, not only outside it or ‘after’ it. The
demand of economic logic, the demand of humanity and the demand of charity and
truth each require that the grace of intelligence and love, and the gift of
fraternity, must find their place within normal economic activity. Benedict
notes that recent scandals have given rise to a new appreciation of the role of
social responsibility in business and politics. Similarly, globalisation is
neither good nor bad of itself, but will be what people make of it. It is a
complex phenomenon that must be grasped in all its dimensions, including the
theological dimension, and steered in relational terms: that is, in terms of
communion and the sharing of goods.
A criticism levelled in recent years at Populorum Progressio was that it
overlooked, in an otherwise excellent social analysis, the issue of ecology and
the environment. Benedict devotes his fourth chapter to the themes of justice
and the environment and their relationship to development. He treats justice in
terms of duties and rights and applies it to population growth, the defence of
life, ethics in the economy and international cooperation. He then turns to our
duties arising from our relationship with the natural environment. Nature
expresses a design of love and truth; it contains a grammar that provides goals
and criteria for its wise and respectful use. The challenges of
intergenerational justice and the energy problem require international
solidarity to achieve solutions: we need to review our lifestyles to include the
quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion if we are to achieve a human
ecology that benefits environmental ecology. The decisive issue is the moral
tenor of society and the Church must assert in the public sphere our
responsibility towards creation. Truth and love show us what our happiness
consists in, and this is the road to development.
Chapter five develops the theme of the cooperation of the human family. The
development of peoples depends on recognising that the human race is a single
family working together in communion and not merely a group of subjects who
happen to live side by side. This requires a better understanding of the
category of ‘relation’, which can be gained through theology and metaphysics as
well as social sciences. In light of the revealed mystery of the Trinity we
understand that communion and individual identity support each other. Our
experience of love and truth between man and woman similarly reinforces our
ideas of communion and individual identity. Reason and faith also contribute to
a virtuous cycle of development which falters in the absence of either.
Solidarity and subsidiarity, understood and articulated in many layers, can
contribute to a globalisation that is cooperative rather than tyrannical.
Cooperation for development is not just an economic phenomenon but also an
opportunity for encounter between cultures and peoples.
The chapter then moves from the synthesis of concepts to comment on concrete
processes with a bearing on development. It comments perceptively on development
aid, international tourism, migration, labour unions, the financial system, and
consumer associations. Those of us who admire the contemplation of ideas may be
grateful for the encyclical’s inclusion of these live issues. But I suspect that
our more empirical colleagues in the field may generate controversy on specific
points, such as the gentle suggestion that trade unions might look at wider
concerns than the specific category of labour for which they were formed, or
that they should identify civil society rather than politics as the proper
setting for their necessary activity of defending labour. One wonders where
actors in the labour market or in social partnership belong.
Chapter six addresses technological progress and its undisputed link to
development. Against technocratic reductionism, Caritas in Veritate asserts that
there cannot be holistic development and universal common good without taking
into account people’s spiritual and moral welfare. This is a simple summary of a
rich treatment of the technology of financial and political engineering, of
peace building, of social communications, of biology and of psychology. Whereas
Paul VI introduced the global dimension of the social question, Benedict affirms
that the social question has become a radically anthropological question.
Authentic human development requires the new eyes and new heart of a
spirituality that is capable of glimpsing the ‘beyond’ that technology cannot
give.
The conclusion follows from this. Development comes from people because they are
the subjects of their own existences. But it is also from God, who freely gives
us the truth and love that show us who we are and where we should go. God calls
us to the communion of a family. God transforms our hearts of stone into hearts
of flesh that can give the greatest service of an authentic humanism to the
integral development of peoples.
In this encyclical, Pope Benedict takes it from the top. He is noted for his
talent in the contemplation of ideas and in the systematic ordering of concepts.
He gives us, in this letter, an awesome synthesis of the concepts and concerns
of Catholic Social Teaching. He enlightens the obscurities of our social
discourses, restores direction to social debate and inspires hope and energy for
social action and love for the future and its peoples. Caritas in Veritateis a
magnificent gift to the world from Catholic Social Teaching. It does well in
giving a descriptive account of the activities and perspectives found in the
spheres of social action. But I suspect that the voice of those who accompany
and serve the poor at the frontiers of marginalisation could add value to the
experiential component of this otherwise admirable reflection and call to action
for the development of peoples.
Brendan MacPartlin SJ works with migrant workers in Dublin and Northern Ireland
and coordinates the social apostolate of the Conference of European Provincials.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Father Schall: Encyclical Reconnects Rights and Duties
"Caritas in Veritate" Is a Guide For Temporal Life
By Father James V. Schall, SJ
WASHINGTON, D.C., JULY 8, 2009 - Benedict XVI's new social encyclical, "Caritas
in Veritate," takes its place in the Church's on-going effort accurately to
state the fundamentals of human living. It is not what our eternal life is
about, but what our temporal life is about, seen in the light of our eternal
life. We do not de-emphasize one or the other, but take them according to their
own truth as related to each other.
Though it repeats many of the matters that were dealt with in "Deus Caritas Est"
and "Spe Salvi," Benedict's two previous encyclicals, this new document is not
really intelligible without the profound analy sis of modern ideology and the
last things that were found in the earlier encyclicals on love and hope.
In "Spe Salvi," the Pope stated that politics could not be politics if it
confused itself with eschatology. That is, if we think that our political life
is our transcendent life, we in effect lose the proper dimensions of both. In
the present encyclical, Benedict XVI basically states what we can and should do
in this world seen now as the arena of the actions that form our souls.
The title of this encyclical, "Caritas in Veritate," is significant. Of the
three basic kinds of love -- philia, eros and agape -- none is safe if it is not
pursued according to the truth of things, of the proper object of love. Just as
we cannot love something that is not loveable, so we cannot love something
unless we know what it is, which is saying the same thing in other words. The
separation of truth and love in the name of love or "kindness" is th e
characteristic of our times. Love, it is said, covers a multitude of sins. In
the modern world, it eliminates them altogether if truth is not a component of
love. "Two loves built two cities," very opposite cities, as Augustine said.
One of the first things to note in this encyclical is that everything is seen
against a metaphysical and theological background. Much is made of justice; even
more of "gift." Our very existence is a "gift." We do not create ourselves, nor
does God need to create us for some completion in himself.
The encyclical, distantly following Aristotle on friendship and benevolence, is
quite aware that more is needed and expected of us than just what is our "right"
or what is "due." An ancient criticism of Christians was that they were so
interested in the next world that they did not have time for this world. This
encyclical suggests the opposite is true. Only if we have the next world right
will we act rightly and nobly in this one.
The encyclical is also a reflection on Paul VI's "Populorum Progressio," written
just over 40 years ago. Benedict rethinks the notion of "development," a word
that relates to the old Aristotelian notion of habits and how we acquire them.
Benedict XVI follows a fine line that seeks to accept everything in modernity
that is good and defensible, while at the same time pointing out its real
problems. He is a natural law thinker.
But on the other hand, he always begins from where we are. Whether he speaks of
business, finance, tourism, political structures, world poverty or economics, he
begins with human beings already having acted in their public lives to make
themselves into a certain kind of being based on what they are given to be in
nature. Catholic social thought is not utopian, even when it insists that things
can and ought to be better.
Particularly pleasing was the way in whic h Pope Benedict finally came to terms
with the ambiguity from modern political philosophy in the word "rights." In
many ways, nothing has been more destructive to Catholic social thought than its
uncritical use of the word "rights." Benedict admonishes us that we first begin
with "duties." We can use the word "rights" provided it has a fixed content and
does not mean -- what it in fact means in modern philosophy -- whatever we want
or legislate.
When it comes to essentials, "Caritas in Veritate" is frank and to the point --
that is, what it means to be "charitable," what it means to be "truthful."
--- --- ---
Jesuit Father James V. Schall is a professor of political philosophy at
Georgetown University and a prolific author. He most recent book is "The Mind
That Is Catholic" (C UA Press).
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gabriel Martinez: New Encyclical Reflects Common Sense
Pope Takes Business Ethics to Transcendent Level
By Gabriel Martinez
NAPLES, Florida, JULY 8, 2009 - As I read the latest encyclical by Benedict XVI,
a thought arose: No one understands an encyclical on Catholic social teaching.
When prominent people in authority speak on the economy, politics, or society,
we expect to express themselves in the categories of political parties. When
they fail to toe the line, we find ways to discount or ignore we do not like.
The key insight of the free-marketeer is that voluntary exchange must be
mutually beneficial. The key insight of the left-liberal is that fair outcomes
must be deliberately planned for.
The key double insight of Catholic social teaching, on the other hand, is that
we are created in the image of God and that we are sinner s. That is, we build
an economy, politics, or culture that is human, if we remember that we are
creatures who received our being as a gift, called by God to be like him and
with him; and that our economy, our politics, and our culture are inhuman
insofar as we forget it.
This position is often refreshingly commonsensical. Instead of, say, "idealizing
technical progress, or contemplating the utopia of a return to humanity's
original natural state," the Pope naturally mistrusts what comes from the hand
of man, but also relies on the "human capacity to exercise control over the
deviations of development." Capacity implies responsibility, but it also implies
that this responsibility is often abdicated in the name of a system, an idea, or
a vice.
Or take another example. Some thinkers give the benefit of the doubt to the
forces of the market and strive to protect it from the depredations of religion,
custom or the state. Common sense and Catholic social teaching tell us that it
requires a special kind of faith to assume that what is personally vicious can
be socially virtuous.
Other thinkers instinctively trust in the capacity of social deliberation and
rational planning to achieve desirable outcomes, which are not defined in
relation to nature, blind to the obvious point that even well-intentioned,
law-abiding people can make mistakes. Good intentions are not enough, common
sense and Catholic social teaching tell us: action unmoored from the truth is
ultimately wasteful and always soul-destroying.
In one of its most lucid passages, the encyclical points out that the exclusive
pursuit of shareholder-value maximization is a risk for businesses. Maximization
of shareholder value encourages faceless management, distance from stakeholders,
and a short-term focus. But the benefits are only temporary.
Over the long haul, business benefits from permanence and from social ties.
Skeptical of outsourci ng (and doing honor to his name), Benedict XVI insists on
geographical stability: cultivating stakeholders and making long-term profits
are not substitutes, but complements.
Even more, Benedict XVI insists on the need to create a space for "the logic of
gift" (which I wish he had explained more). This idea is one example of why
encyclicals, like "Populorum Progressio" and "Caritas in Veritate," often sound
appallingly naïve.
We are taught, from first grade to business school, that grown-ups with their
feet on the ground look out for themselves -- and that they ought to look out
for themselves, either to protect that fragile beauty called capitalism or
because no one else looks after you anyway. We are taught that we should not
care about the other fellow, unless it yields quantifiable results. We are
fanatically brainwashed, and so we do not understand.
Accepting an "economy of communion" requires a dramati c expansion of the set of
goods that one values, a huge increase in the virtue of patience, a drastic
acceptance of uncertainty and unknowability, and a jarring openness to faith and
hope. The human being so described is radically different from the human being
of the business school, from what one would be taught in a Corporate Finance
class. The "return on investment" is the fruit of not seeking the return, but of
seeking the Kingdom of Heaven and its justice (and all the rest will be added
unto you).
How different this is (and how hard it is to see the difference) from the
nauseating insistence to follow our heart, to do what feels right, because
there's no such thing as truth! We are told that any non-selfishness not only
sounds naïve, but that it should sound naïve and as unmoored from common sense
as possible.
While politicians give us slogans and pretty words, without reference to the
truth of the human person, the Pope sounds th e warning note: "On this subject
the Church's social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is based
on man's creation 'in the image of God' (Genesis 1:27), a datum which gives rise
to the inviolable dignity of the human person and the transcendent value of
natural moral norms.
"When business ethics prescinds from these two pillars, it inevitably risks
losing its distinctive nature and it falls prey to forms of exploitation; more
specifically, it risks becoming subservient to existing economic and financial
systems rather than correcting their dysfunctional aspects."
* * *
Gabriel Martinez is chair of the Economics Department at Ave Maria University.
He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Notre Dame, and has worked at the
Inter-American Development Bank in Washington, D.C., and at the Ministry of
Government in Ecuador.
--------------------------------------------------------------
Father Barron: A First Look at "Caritas in Veritate"
Encyclical Connects "Life Ethics" With "Social Ethics"
By Father Robert Barron
SKOKIE, Illinois, JULY 8, 2009 - I've just finished a first reading of Benedict
XVI's new encyclical "Caritas in Veritate." It is a dense and complex text,
deeply in continuity with the mainstream of the Catholic social teaching
tradition, but also fresh, filled with new ideas and proposals.
Let me highlight just a few of the major themes. Very much in line with his
predecessor Pope John Paul II, Benedict XVI insists on the tight connection
between love and truth. In a telling phrase, the Pope says that love without
truth devolves into sentimentality, and truth without love becomes cold and
calculating. The coming together of the two, which is the structuring logic of
the Church's social teaching, is grounded i n the God who is, simultaneously,
Agape (love) and Logos (reason).
A real innovation of this letter is the connection that Benedict XVI makes
between "social ethics" and "life ethics." He argues that Pope Paul VI's "Populorum
Progressio" -- whose 40th anniversary "Caritas in Veritate" celebrates -- is
best read in tandem with that Pope's controversial encyclical "Humanae Vitae."
The radical openness to life, which Paul VI defended in "Humanae Vitae," should
be the inspiration for the Church's social doctrine, which is intended to foster
the full flourishing of communal life at all levels. Benedict XVI makes this
point even clearer when he comments that societies that de-emphasize life, even
to the point of fostering artificial contraception and abortion, suffer quite
practical economic hardships.
Another "novum" in this remarkable text is the Pope's insistence that, alongside
of the contract ual logic of the marketplace (one gives in order to receive),
and the legal logic of the political realm (one gives because one is obliged to
give), there must be the logic of sheer gratuity (one gives simply because it is
good to do so). Without this third element, both the economic and political
devolve into something less than fully human.
As many have already commented, Benedict XVI places special emphasis on the
obligation to care for the environment. In fact, nowhere else in Catholic social
teaching is there such an extended discussion of this issue. He makes the
helpful clarification that, as believers in creation, we must avoid both an
idolization of nature and an exploitation of it. As created, the world is not
divine, but it is a kind of sacrament of God; hence it shouldn't be seen as
absolute, but it should be cared for in a spirit of stewardship.
What might prove most controversial in the encyclical is Benedict XVI's call for
a kind of world gove rnment, a truly international political entity with the
requisite power to preside over world political and economic affairs. In saying
so, he echoes Pope John XXIII's praise of the United Nations in "Pacem in Terris."
One might be forgiven for suspecting that this proposal, given political
realities on the ground, might be a bit utopian.
A final note concerning style. I must say that much of "Caritas in Veritate"
didn't "sound" like Benedict XVI. Joseph Ratzinger is a very gracious writer,
and his style is marked by a deep Scriptural and patristic sensibility. I must
say I found this literary and theological élan missing in large sections of this
letter.
Nonetheless, there is much to learn from this wonderful text -- a worthy
addition to the impressive collection of papal letters that constitute the
social teaching of the Catholic Church.
* * *
Father Barron is the Francis Cardinal George Chair of Fait h and Culture at
University of St. Mary of the Lake/Mundelein Seminary in Mundelein, Illinois. He
is also the founder of Word on Fire Ministries.
---------------------------------------------
Caritas in Veritate
When Pope Benedict XVI's third encyclical, Caritas in Veritate, was released on
July 7, it sparked world-wide discussion and commentary. Catholic World Report
asked a group of leading Catholic intellectuals to reflect on the encyclical,
its place in the larger body of Catholic social teaching, and Pope Benedict's
vision of a well-ordered and just society.
J. Brian Benestad, Francis J. Beckwith, Father Joseph Fessio, S.J., Richard
Garnett, Thomas S. Hibbs, Paul Kengor, George Neumayr, Joseph Pearce, Tracey
Rowland, Father James V. Schall, and Rev. Robert A. Sirico share their thoughts
on Caritas in Veritate, below.
J. Brian Benestad:
In 1986 the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) issued the
Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation under the signature of its
prefect, Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. The Instructionsays that Catholic social
doctrine (CSD) had to emerge from the practice of the Christian faith. “The
Church’s social teaching is born of the encounter of the Gospel message and of
its demands (summarized in the supreme commandment of love of God and neighbor
in justice) with the problems emanating from the life of society” (no. 72). CSD
helps people to know what love and justice require in the various circumstances
of life, knowledge that would escape many without instruction. In his book on
the morals of the Catholic Church St. Augustine had underscored the difficulty
of carrying out the commandment to love’s one’s neighbor: “From this commandment
are the duties pertaining to human society, about which it is difficult not to
err.” In other words, it is easy for human beings to love one another badly both
in personal encounters and in devising proposals for the common good of society.
Pope Benedict’s new encyclical builds on the earlier CDF Instruction by
emphasizing that love has to be guided by truth. “‘Caritas in veritate’ is the
principle around which the Church’s social doctrine turns.” If society’s work
for justice (“the minimum measure” of love) were guided by truth, argues the
Pope, society would not permit abortion, euthanasia, embryonic stem cell
research, same-sex marriage, the priority of rights over duties, and the
exclusion of religion from the public square. Love of neighbor is not compatible
with these practices.
The 1986 Instruction also sheds light on the different levels of teaching found
in Caritas in Veritateby distinguishing between permanently valid principles and
“contingent judgments” in CSD (no. 72). Unlike Pope Benedict’s two previous
encyclicals this one contains a number of contingent judgments aimed at
overcoming the current economic crisis, such as the argument for a “true world
political authority.”
Drawing upon Pope Paul VI’s 1967 encyclical Populorum Progressio, Pope Benedict
offers the world a vision of development that is richer and more complete than
the common understanding. He reminds us of Paul VI’s teaching that “life in
Christ is the first and principal factor in development.” This means development
should aim at the “greatest possible perfection” for every single person, in
addition to overcoming poverty, disease, unemployment, ignorance, etc.
By way of conclusion, I would simply say that Caritas in Veritate is proposing a
Christian humanism to improve the productivity, ethics, and dignity of the
economic life of nations. The practice of the virtues by all participants in
modern economies, the Pope argues, is more important for a functioning market
than any set of structures devised by policy makers.
J. Brian Benestad is professor of theology at the University of Scranton.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Francis J. Beckwith:
That theological anthropology is the proper starting point in discovering the
good for which human beings were designed is the animating principle behind Pope
Benedict XVI’s encyclical Caritas in Veritate (or “Charity in Truth”). For
without true knowledge of the human person, one cannot know how to properly
direct one’s love (or “charity”) to one’s fellow human being. As Benedict
writes, “Without truth, without trust and love for what is true, there is no
social conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving private
interests and the logic of power, resulting in social fragmentation, especially
in a globalized society at difficult times like the present” (5).
For Benedict, who and what we are, the question of theological anthropology, is
the key to a proper understanding of our relationship to one another, our
economic progress and regress, the nature of the family and marriage, humanity’s
stewardship for the environment, the rule of law, intergenerational justice, as
well as our openness to human life at its outset, its end, and the time in
between. Yes, Caritas in Veritate mentions all these topics as well as several
others. But the answer to the question of what constitutes integral human
development—i.e., what are we and what is the good for us as individuals and as
a whole?—is the unifying principle that connects them all.
The categories that dominate our public discourse in the United States—left,
right, liberal, conservative, etc.—play no role in illuminating the message of
Caritas in Veritate. This is why it is a fool’s errand to attempt to
artificially divide Catholic social teachings into its left and right wings, as
if the Church’s rejection of economic libertarianism and proclamation of the
principles of subsidiary and solidarity is a call to socialism or the government
ownership of the means of production, or that the Church’s embracing of the
exclusivity of male-female marriage and its defense of the sanctity of all human
life from conception until natural death means that the Church does not believe
in individual liberty.
This “binary model,” as Benedict calls it (41), unnaturally limits our vision of
the multilayered and interdependent goods that lead to integral human
development, and thus, results in true freedom for the individual to pursue the
good. According to the Pope, if we believe that our faith and all that it
entails for theological anthropology and the good life is true, we can
coherently claim that liberty, rightly understood, prohibits us from rejecting
certain unassailable truths about ourselves without which liberty loses its
point.
For the Church, the Sermon on the Mount cannot be separated from “Honor thy
Father and Mother,” “Thou shalt not commit adultery,” and “Thou shalt not
steal.” This is not a seamless garment. For it is not an artifice constructed by
our wills. It is a living organism, made by God, whose parts work in concert for
the benefit of the whole. Thus, the “justice” in social justice refers to a
rightly ordered polity, not to the outcomes and/or processes advocated by the
ideologies of a Ludwig Von Mises or a Karl Marx. In Christian theology, you can
gain the whole world and lose your own soul (Luke 9:25). To paraphrase St. Paul,
that’s a stumbling block to the Austrians and foolishness to the Marxists.
Francis J. Beckwith is Professor of Philosophy and Church-State Studies, and
Resident Scholar in the Institute for the Studies of Religion, Baylor
University.
Father Joseph Fessio, S.J.:
Pope Benedict has something for everyone in Caritas in Veritate—from praising
profit (21) to defending the environment (48). But in these cases, as in all the
others, he calls for a discernment and a purification by faith and reason (56)
that should temper immoderate and one-sided enthusiasms.
Once again Pope Benedict shows himself to be a theologian of synthesis and
fundamental principles. In the titles of his three encyclicals he has used only
five nouns: God, Love, Hope, Salvation, and Truth—the most fundamental of
realities. And in the opening greeting of this encyclical he succinctly
describes the contents: “on integral human development in charity and truth.”
Note that from this very greeting Pope Benedict has changed the whole framework
of the debate on “the social question.” This was expected to be—and is—his
encyclical on “social justice.” And indeed “justice” and “rights” find their
proper place in a larger synthesis. But the priority is established from the
outset, the foundation is laid, with “charity” and “truth.”
Read more of Father Fessio's reflections on Caritas in Veritate here.
Father Joseph Fessio, S.J. is editor of Ignatius Press and publisher of Catholic
World Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Richard Garnett:
It was predictable, but is nevertheless regrettable, that many pundits and
partisans would respond to Caritas in Veritate not so much by engaging Pope
Benedict’s profoundly Christian humanism but instead by hunting through the text
for quotations they could deploy in support of their own pet policies. (The
Pope, for his part, urged “all people of good will” to “liberate [themselves]
from ideologies, which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways.”) Rather
than reflecting carefully on the Pope’s central proposal, namely, that
“[f]idelity to man requires fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee
of freedom and of the possibility of integral human development,” commentators
who might ordinarily roll their eyes at policy suggestions from the bishop of
Rome are happy to uproot from the encyclical’s inspiring, challenging vision a
few talking points about environmental stewardship, trade unionism, or the
redistribution of wealth.
Caritas in Veritate is not, however, merely a papal reflection on the current
economic crisis or the implications of globalization. In keeping with the
Catholic social teaching tradition, and with the work of his predecessor, the
letter is about the person—about who we are and why it matters. Beneath, and
supporting, the various statements and suggestions regarding specific policy
questions is the bedrock of Christian moral anthropology, of the good news about
the dignity, vocation, and destiny of man.
To content oneself with harvesting talking points in support of this or that
policy is to miss the point, and the promise, of the letter. We cannot, however
high-sounding our stated intentions, expect to achieve true human flourishing
through a politics that does not care about or denies the truth—and there is a
truth—about the person, namely, that by creating us in his image, God has
“establish[ed] the transcendent dignity of men and women and feeds [our] innate
yearning to ‘be more.’ Man is not a lost atom in a random universe: he is God’s
creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal soul and whom he has always
loved.” “And now,” the Pope is challenging us to ask, “what follows?”
Richard Garnett is professor of law at Notre Dame University.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thomas S. Hibbs:
“Democracy in good faith no longer has any essential reproach to make against
the church. From now on it can hear the question the church poses, that it alone
poses, the question, Quid sit homo?—What is man?”
The French political philosopher Pierre Manent frames in quite dramatic terms
the situation of the Church in the democratic era. Amid the shallow media
debates over whether the latest papal encyclical, Pope Bendict XVI’s Caritas in
Veritate, leans left or right, there is a good chance that readers will miss the
central philosophical claim of the document: “the social question has become a
radically anthropological question” (italics in the original text). By
subordinating all economic systems to the question of the common good,
understood as integral human flourishing, the document opposes reductionism,
whether in theory or practice, in liberal or conservative forms.
There is a lot of talk already about the document’s dizzying capaciousness, the
way it seems to want to discuss everything and embrace almost everything, even
things that seem on the surface incompatible. It is easy enough to affirm the
Pope’s affirmation of both subsidiarity and globalism, but the document, largely
because it does not say enough about the nature of the common good, leaves us
guessing a bit as to the principles needed to spell out the relationship.
Further reflection about these matters would have to begin, not just from the
question, “What is man?”, but also from the queries such as, “What does it mean
for human persons to hold things in common?” and “What are the peculiar forms of
social life in which human persons now hold—and can learn how better to
hold—things in common?”
Even to raise these questions is to sense how distant we are from the world of
contemporary political discourse, where the tendency is toward the
privatization, not just of religion, but of questions concerning the good,
individual and communal. Indeed, a pressing question for a document such as
Caritas in Veritate is this: why is it so easily ignored by the wider society,
both by the media, political leaders, and ordinary citizens? Catholics fawning
over Obama will quickly retort that he has embraced Catholic social thought,
especially in the form of Cardinal Bernardin’s “seamless garment.” Aside from
the fact that he ignores Bernardin’s insistence on the non-negotiable priority
of the sanctity of human life, as well as Benedict’s claim that “openness to
life is at the center of true development,” Obama seems to need instruction in
the dictionary definition of “seamless.”
For Manent, democracy—increasingly defined by the pursuit of a freedom
unfettered by any external restraint, authority, or law—“neither wants to nor
can respond” to the questions raised above. The Pope is not quite so despairing,
but his own document gives us reason to think that its teaching will at best be
distorted when not smugly dismissed. Benedict makes, as some in the media have
noticed, numerous references to the current economic crisis, but he also speaks
of other crises, including the one arising from a Promethean spirit of
technological mastery, the will to remake both human life and the natural
environment according to our unrestrained desires. Benedict astutely points to
numerous signs of the fraying of the project of mastery. Our task, as
sympathetic readers, is to communicate the teaching of Caritas in Veritate to
others, so that they in turn may be better able to articulate the hopes and
fears of our time—a time in which the meaning of humanity itself is very much in
doubt.
Thomas S. Hibbs is Distinguished Professor of Ethics & Culture and Dean of the
Honors College at Baylor University.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paul Kengor:
The truth will set you free, and the Truth is Jesus Christ. In this encyclical,
the Holy Father is reminding us, exhorting us, to link charity to truth—to
Christ. Doing so gives meaning not only to human charity but to human life and
human development. As the Holy Father states in his opening, this linking of
charity to Truth, to God—not to emotionalism, not to politics, not to purely
selfish impulses—ought to be “the principle driving force behind the authentic
development of every person and of all humanity.” Or, to the contrary, as the
Holy Father states in his closing, “A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman
humanism.”
The timing for this encyclical is crucial, as the global economy suffers, and,
by extension, as charitable giving suffers. Of course, suffering didn’t prevent
Jesus Christ from offering the ultimate expression of charity, one that was
human as well as divine. We who call ourselves Christians, or followers of
Christ, need to emulate Christ and the cross he bore, during tough times as well
as easy times.
Already, some are misinterpreting this encyclical in how it weighs the state
versus the market. I personally see what I’ve always seen in the Church’s
encyclicals: a healthy balance. In section 38, Pope Benedict warns of seeking
“profit as an end in itself.” This is hardly controversial. As Christians, we
must have charity, as we must have faith, and we must be mindful of a charitable
purpose in our lives, sharing our economic blessings in a way that serves human
dignity and the human family—a recurring theme of Caritas in Veritate. That is
especially imperative in a modern society of unspeakable prosperity.
Charity needs to be coupled always to Christ. As the Holy Father says, it “needs
Christians.” The message of this encyclical couldn’t be timelier.
Paul Kengor is professor of political science at Grove City College in Grove
City, Pennsylvania.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Neumayr:
Woe to those who call good evil and evil good, says Holy Scripture. Modern
political life largely revolves around this kind of lying. We witness daily the
routine corruption of language in public life: a blizzard of noble-sounding
words—among them, “hope,” “progress,” “development,” “the common good,”
“rights,” “solidarity”—grossly disconnected from the God-determined realities to
which they are supposed to refer.
In Caritas in Veritate, Pope Benedict XVI says in effect: Woe to those who call
degradation “development,” selfishness “charity,” regress “progress,” and wrongs
“rights.” His encylical letter is a sustained debunking of modern liberalism’s
most complacent claims and habitual abuse of words.
How, he asks for example, can the “developed” nations of the world profess to be
charitable when they don’t even aspire to basic justice? Treating human beings
fairly—not aborting them, not killing them in old age or disability, not
corrupting them in their youth, not exploiting them for science, etc.—is the
“minimum measure” of charity, writes Pope Benedict, drawing upon Pope Paul VI’s
phrase. In his deluded sentimentality, modern man somehow thinks he can leapfrog
over justice and get to charity. Not so. Are “social justice” liberals in the
Church who support a right to abortion listening?
How, Pope Benedict also asks, can the modern world claim to respect nature when
it doesn’t even respect human nature? How can it plausibly demand discipline and
sacrifice for the “purity” of nature in future ages while encouraging impurities
in human nature in the present one? Modern life’s hedonism, he notes, cuts
against its environmentalism: humans who degrade themselves will also degrade
nature, no matter how many conservation bills are passed.
This is the age of rhetoric without results, a world elite that speaks of
“empowering” the poor while impoverishing them, solving the “population problem”
while creating a real one (underpopulation), and advancing “humanitarianism”
while killing humans. Caritas in Veritate upends their tired and destructive
assumptions, drawing the world’s attention back to the organizing principle of
all true charity and development: that man’s good can only be secured if we
consult and obey the God who designed it.
George Neumayr is editor of Catholic World Report.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph Pearce:
Caritas in Veritate is food for the soul, nourishing us with the wisdom we need
to make sense of the crazy, accelerating times in which we live. With his usual
profundity and eloquence, the Holy Father diagnoses the major crises afflicting
our wayward world and prescribes the solutions. Rooting his diagnosis and cure
in the “charity in truth” which “is at the heart of the Church’s social
doctrine,” Pope Benedict analyzes a plethora of modern problems with the
succinct brilliance to which we have become accustomed.
Commenting on the global financial crisis, the Holy Father is forthright in his
condemnation of the destructive consequences of immoral investment practices and
candid in his exposé of the naiveté of free market libertarians. He sees the
crisis as “an opportunity for discernment, in which to shape a new vision for
the future.”
The Pope’s “new vision” is, however, inseparable from the timeless and
magisterial vision of the Church down the ages, the marriage of the ever ancient
and ever new, and Benedict, as always, builds his arguments on those of his
illustrious forebears. And yet this ancient wisdom cuts through the cant of
modernity with unerring incisiveness.
Thus, to take but a few salient examples, subsidiarity is seen as the solution
to development in poor countries, openness to life is placed “at the center of
true development,” and “the right to religious freedom” is seen as integral to
authentic human growth. In consequence, the economic imperialism of
macro-corporations and international financial institutions is condemned as
running rough-shod over the rights to subsidiarity in poor countries, the
culture of death is seen as fostering the hedonism that leads to societal and
ecological breakdown, and secular fundamentalism is stunting humanity’s growth
through its efforts to exclude religion from the public sphere.
Toward the end of his breathtakingly brilliant encyclical, Pope Benedict tells
us that true development “needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in
prayer.” Having read Caritas in Veritate we should all raise our arms toward God
to thank him for sending us such a sagacious Pontiff.
Joseph Pearce is writer-in-residence and associate professor of literature at
Ave Maria University.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tracey Rowland:
The intellectual center of this encyclical is that “A humanism which excludes
God is an inhuman humanism.” It rests a notion of authentic human development
upon the principle enshrined inGaudium et Spes 22, that the human person only
has self-understanding to the extent that he or she knows Christ and
participates in the Trinitarian communion of love. As the Pope says, “Life in
Christ is the first and principle factor of development.” The whole document is
a plea to understand the limitations of a secularist notion of development.
Behind secularism lies the error of Pelagius which in contemporary times takes
the form of trust in education and institutions without reference to God or the
interior dynamics of the human soul. A purely secularist notion of development
reduces the human person to a kind of economic machine somehow designed for the
accumulation of wealth.
Such a truncated concept of development has fostered government policies hostile
to the more spiritual elements of human life, including relationships of
reciprocal self-giving in love. Abortion is encouraged, couples are persecuted
for having more than one child, and international aid is linked to the
acceptance of contraceptives. The questions covered in Humanae Vitae are thus
not merely those of purely individual morality, but indicate a strong link
between life ethics and social ethics. The concept which links the two is that
of a “human ecology.”
Secularist notions of development also fail to comprehend the root cause of drug
addiction and depression which is the malnutrition of the human soul, made for
communion with God but imprisoned within a materialist universe. When cultures
no longer serve the deepest needs of human nature and actually narrow the
spiritual horizons of people, people don’t know who they are and feel depressed.
The remedy for this pandemic in contemporary Western culture is to grasp the
fact that truth is something which is given to us as a gift: “In every cognitive
process, truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or better,
received. Truth, like love, ‘is neither planned nor willed, but somehow imposes
itself upon human beings’” (34).
Caritas in Veritate is a masterful synthesis of the Trinitarian anthropology of
Gaudium et Spes and the subsequent insights of Paul VI and John Paul II, applied
to the contemporary context. The core theological ideas were all present in
Ratzinger’s essay on the notion of human dignity in Gaudium et Spes, written in
the late 1960s.
At the more practical level this encyclical is exciting in that it calls for a
reform of the United Nations and the economic institutions of international
finance. It is clear that the general tendency of such institutions to equate
human development with the success of capitalism and democracy or material
progress is utterly inadequate when measured against the Gospel’s standard.
Tracey Rowland is Dean of the John Paul II Institute in Melbourne, Australia.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
James V. Schall, S.J.:
Benedict XVI is, happily, incapable of dealing with something unless he deals
with everything. Journalists will rapidly read this documents looking for items
that are “news-worthy,” that is, ones that criticize business, the government,
the media, or the Church. They will not concentrate on the overall scope of what
Benedict is about here.
The encyclical is wide-ranging and seeks to say something about everything. It
is known to be a document initially prepared by others from various disciplines
and sectors of the Church and curia, but finally organized by the Pope, no mean
feat. Benedict’s first two encyclicals were composed mostly by himself. The
difference is telling in reading this document. The document has a kind of
“touch on everything” feeling about it. However, what it does consider at some
depth, things such as business, profit, life, and the relation of politics to
metaphysics and revelation, are very good.
Benedict sets this encyclical within a broader framework so that we can see the
limited but important status that public life has. The whole document is
concerned with our relation to each other, especially to the poor and weak. It
is stronger on what the rich owe to the poor than in what the poor must
themselves do if they are to be not poor. The discussion of the other religions
in their relation to issues of development is quite frank. The Pope understands
that many of their basic beliefs and attitudes are incompatible with a more
developed human life. But this criticism is not taken to mean that allowing
freedom of religion is not the basic human duty of the state.
This encyclical, moreover, does something that I have been concerned about for
many years. It is very careful how it uses the term “rights.” The Pope clearly
spells how “rights” and “democracy” in their modern meanings can lead to a
violation of human dignity if they are grounded in no standard or understanding
of human nature, including fallen human nature.
But the great insight is that all reality is gift-oriented. The very title of
the encyclical has to do with the fact that we cannot call “charity” something
that is not rooted in the truth of what man is. The terms “mercy” or
“compassion” have often lent themselves to a process whereby they overturned
what was objectively true in the man.
The encyclical is finally cast in the context of the Trinity, of the
relationships in which we are created. The person is not “rights”-oriented but
duty- and gift-oriented. The encyclical is a great document that puts things
together, metaphysical things, natural law things, revelational things,
political things, economic things; all things are seen in relation to each man’s
relation to God, to his transcendent destiny which, as is stated in Spe Salvi,
is already social. Caritas in Veritate is thus a continuation of Deus Caritas
Est, and Spe Salvi. Deus Caritas est. Deus Logos est. Deus Trinitas est.
James V. Schall, S.J. is professor of government at Georgetown University.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Robert A. Sirico:
In the first social encyclical of his pontificate, Caritas in Veritate (“Charity
in Truth”), Pope Benedict XVI insists on a close relationship between morality
and the economy in order to promote a “holistic understanding and a new
humanistic synthesis.” This new document is focused not on specific systems of
economics but rather on areas of morality and the theological underpinnings of
culture.
The background for this new encyclical is the global economic crisis that has
taken place within a moral vacuum bare of truth and rampant with materialism.
While the Pope does not offer any detailed analysis of the cause or solution to
the crisis, he nonetheless urges that the crisis become “an opportunity for
discernment, in which to shape a new vision for the future” (no. 21).
Never employing either the word “greed” or “capitalism” in the over 30,000 word
document (despite some media hype), the crisis itself he attributes to “badly
managed and largely speculative financial dealing” without naming the specific
institutions that made this possible. The market, Benedict says, “is shaped by
the cultural configurations which define it and give it direction. Economy and
finance, as instruments, can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated
by purely selfish ends.”
Those who prophesied that this would be Benedict’s opportunity to “overthrow”
capitalism, or that conservatives would be “shocked and disappointed,” must
themselves be rather sad today. While it is explicitly not the purpose of the
document to offer strict structural models that nations should adopt (no. 9),
the principle of subsidiarity—which prefers proximate and private action of the
state—a preference for trade over government-to-government aid for developing
countries, and a rightly understood globalization are all affirmed.
This is a complex and rich document that will require much study and thought in
the years ahead. What is clear and non-negotiable from Benedict’s perspective is
that to understand the challenges facing the world economy it is first necessary
to understand the august nature of the human person who must always be at the
center of economic decisions. Caritas in Veritate enables us to see, at a new
depth, the way in which the whole of the human reality must be taken into
consideration in order to construct social institutions worthy of man.
Rev. Robert A. Sirico is president and co-founder of the Acton Institute.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
A summary of the Encyclical by Jeff Mirus:
What the Encyclical Says:
Introduction
The purpose of the introduction is to recall that charity is at the heart of the
Church’s social doctrine and that charity is inseparable from truth:
Truth needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of charity,
but charity in its turn needs to be understood, confirmed and practiced in the
light of truth. In this way, not only do we do a service to charity enlightened
by truth, but we also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its
persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of social living.
This is a matter of no small account today, in a social and cultural context
which relativizes truth, often paying little heed to it and showing increasing
reluctance to acknowledge its existence. (2)
The Pope explains that without truth, “charity degenerates into sentimentality”
and “love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an arbitrary way.” This is a
fatal risk facing love today, by which it is distorted through mere emotion and
opinion. In contrast, it is only through truth that we are enabled to overcome
opinions, impressions and cultural limitations to “come together in the
assessment of the value and substance of things.” Thus the authentic social
doctrine of the Church hinges on the principle of “charity in truth”. (3)
The Pope goes on to identify the two key social concepts which drive the
Church’s social teaching, namely justice and the common good. He reminds us that
justice is intrinsic to charity—that is, justice is not divorced from charity
but presupposed by it, for we would never perform an act of charity for someone
we love while at the same time doing him an injustice. So too with the social
context: In addition to loving and willing the good of another, we must also
will the good of all of us, “made up of individuals, families and intermediate
groups who together constitute society.” In other words, “to desire the common
good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity.” (6-7)
Closing his introduction, Benedict notes that in an increasingly globalized
society, the common good includes the whole human family, the community of
peoples and nations, “in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and
peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a prefiguration of the
undivided city of God.” In this quest, the Church does not offer technical
solutions but a witness of the truth about man:
Open to the truth, from whichever branch of knowledge it comes, the Church’s
social doctrine receives it, assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is
often found, and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of the
society of peoples and nations. (9)
Chapter One: The Message of Populorum Progressio
Since the encyclical is both a tribute to and an updating of Populorum
Progressio, Benedict begins (# 11) by summarizing several key principles set
forth in that encyclical, quoted briefly below:
1. ”The whole Church, in all her being and acting—when she proclaims, when she
celebrates, when she performs works of charity—is engaged in promoting integral
human development.”
2. ”Authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single
dimension.”
3. ”Integral human development is primarily a vocation, and therefore it
involves a free assumption of responsibility in solidarity on the part of
everyone” (i.e., it is a work not confined only to institutions).
4. ”Such development requires a transcendent vision of the person, it needs
God.”
In the light of this Pope’s repeated emphasis on the “hermeneutic of continuity”
in interpreting Magisterial documents, it is noteworthy that he takes pains to
make the same point with regard to the Church’s social teaching:
Clarity is not served by certain abstract subdivisions of the Church’s social
doctrine, which apply categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to
it. It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine, one pre-conciliar and
one post-conciliar, differing from one another: on the contrary, there is a
single teaching, consistent and at the same time ever new. (12)
To place his predecessor’s teaching in full perspective, Benedict briefly
examines not just Populorum Progressio but Paul VI’s overall body of social
teaching. He touches on the Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens in which Paul
VI warned against utopian ideological visions, and in so doing Benedict touches
on the twin errors of “idealizing technical progress, or contemplating the
utopia of a return to humanity’s original natural state”, both of which detach
the idea of progress from consistent moral evaluation. He also touches on
Humanae Vitae, in which Paul VI emphasized the strong link between life ethics
and social ethics, a connection which led directly to John Paul II’s insistence
that society crumbles when it asserts values such as dignity, justice and peace
on the one hand, while acting radically to the contrary by tolerating or even
encouraging the devaluation of human life, especially in the weak and
marginalized.
Finally, touching on Pope Paul’s apostolic exhortation Evangelii Nuntiandi,
Benedict notes the strong links between evangelization and human advancement. He
argues again that integral human development is a vocation from God that demands
responsible freedom, respect for truth, and charity that will blossom into
authentic fraternity in the social order. “The importance of this goal,”
Benedict writes, “is such as to demand our openness to understand it in depth
and to mobilize ourselves at the level of the ‘heart’, so as to ensure that
current economic and social processes evolve towards fully human outcomes.” (20)
Chapter Two: Human Development in Our Time
Having reviewed and organized for his own purposes the principles explained and
developed by Paul VI, Benedict proceeds in the second chapter to assess the
trends and problems which characterize our current social situation, as they
have developed over the past forty years. He discusses the collapse of the
economic and political systems of the Communist block and the immense difficulty
of replacing them with structures conducive to authentic development; the
paradoxical limitations of State sovereignty in the face of the new context of
international trade and finance; the reduction of social systems of protection
and welfare in order to gain a competitive edge; the growing difficulties of
trade unions; the problematic mobility of labor; the emphasis on financial
capital at the expense of human capital; the damage wrought by cultural
relativism and cultural eclecticism; and the growing separation of human culture
from human nature. He briefly discusses each of these developments.
The Pope then proceeds to identify four critical areas which must now be
addressed in any effective plan for integral human development:
* Hunger: Food and water shortages are still critical in too many regions, and
this is caused primarily not by a lack of material things but a lack of social
resources—“the network of economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular
access to sufficient food and water for nutritional needs”. Access to food and
water must be considered a fundamental human right. (27)
* Respect for Life: The Pope points to various practices of demographic control,
the promotion of contraception, the imposition of abortion, the practice of
sterilization (often linked to dubious and deceitful health care policies), and
the effort to “export this mentality to other States as if it were a form of
cultural progress.” This is unacceptable, for “openness to life is at the center
of true development.” Without this openness, the whole society withers away.
(28)
* Religious Freedom: The Pope’s discussion of the right to religious freedom is
extremely interesting; it continues themes he has developed previously
concerning the relationship between faith and reason. He decries both religious
fanaticism and the promotion of religious indifference, explaining that “God is
the guarantor of man’s true development, inasmuch as, having created him in his
image, he also establishes the transcendent dignity of men and women and feeds
their innate yearning to ‘be more’.” (29)
* Disciplinary Collaboration: Benedict argues that for true development to take
place, there must be a fruitful collaboration among faith, theology, metaphysics
and science. This is because the cause of underdevelopment is not just lack of
technical expertise, but a serious lack of “wisdom and reflection, a lack of
thinking capable of formulating a guiding synthesis, for which a clear vision of
all economic, social, cultural and spiritual aspects is required.” (30-31)
This section of the encyclical closes by emphasizing that the greatest change
since Paul VI’s time is the explosion of worldwide interdependence, that is,
globalization:
Without the guidance of charity in truth, this global force could cause
unprecedented damage and create new divisions within the human family. Hence
charity and truth confront us with an altogether new and creative challenge, one
that is certainly vast and complex. It is about broadening the scope of reason
and making it capable of knowing and directing these powerful new forces,
animating them within the perspective of that “civilization of love” whose seed
God has planted in every people, in every culture. (33)
Chapter Three: Fraternity, Economic Development and Civil Society
In his third chapter, Benedict develops a key concept of Catholic social
teaching, one which he makes more explicit in Caritas in Veritate, probably in
part because of John Paul II’s more recent emphasis on the “law of the gift”.
Each new social encyclical enshrines a certain fresh genius which more deeply
penetrates the internal logic of the Church’s teaching. I believe that this
unique contribution is most characteristic of chapter three. Benedict explains:
Charity in truth places man before the astonishing experience of gift.
Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms, which often go
unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and utilitarian view of life. The
human being is made for gift, which expresses and makes present his transcendent
dimension. Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole author
of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption that follows from being
selfishly closed in upon himself, and it is a consequence—to express it in faith
terms—of original sin. (34)
The Pope argues that a false conviction of self-sufficiency causes people to
confuse happiness and salvation with material prosperity, and leads them to
choose economic strategies which, by removing God and gift from the equation,
end up impoverishing the weak and diminishing personal and social freedom and
responsibility. At the center of this discussion is Benedict’s assertion that
the market itself must incorporate this same gratuitous spirit which God
displays in his dealings with man. The market must not limit itself to the
commutative justice represented by the contract, but must also incorporate in
its very foundations certain elements of distributive and social justice which
bring all parties together in an ever-stronger fraternal community.
Indeed, the market is not some infallible machinery that always produces the
right result, such that it is necessary to keep God and values out of it. Nor is
the market evil, and it is equally foolish to condemn it as a source of evil.
Thus does the Pope dispatch ideologies of right and left. Rather, the market is
a neutral instrument which is directed this way and that by the moral decisions
of human persons. Every economic decision has a moral consequence. Though it may
have been understandable at one time, the Pope says, it is not adequate to
entrust the creation of wealth to the economy on the one hand while entrusting
the task of distributing wealth to politics on the other. Instead, commercial
practice itself, like all human activity, must be directed toward the common
good. “Hence the canons of justice must be respected from the outset, as the
economic process unfolds, and not just afterwards or incidentally.” (37)
Benedict teaches that solidarity is the alternative to our current “exclusively
binary model of market-plus-State”. For example, it is utterly insufficient for
businesses to operate as if they are exclusively answerable to their investors,
often with no stable director who feels responsible for the long-term impact on
all of the stakeholders—“namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers, the
natural environment and broader society.” (40) All of these stakeholders have a
claim on business, a claim that is far easier to understand and provide for if
the principle of gratuitousness is kept in mind, for it is this principle of the
gift that enables us to transcend ourselves and truly operate in solidarity with
others. Applying this to the global scene:
What should be avoided is a speculative use of financial resources that yields
to the temptation of seeking only short-term profit, without regard for the
long-term sustainability of the enterprise, its benefit to the real economy and
attention to the advancement, in suitable and appropriate ways, of further
economic initiatives in countries in need of development. It is true that the
export of investments and skills can benefit the populations of the receiving
country. Labor and technical knowledge are a universal good. Yet it is not right
to export these things merely for the sake of obtaining advantageous conditions,
or worse, for purposes of exploitation, without making a real contribution to
local society by helping to bring about a robust productive and social system,
an essential factor for stable development. (40)
In order to effect a more sustainable model, the Pope also calls for a greater
“articulation” of political authority, by which he mains a collaborative effort,
based on subsidiarity, of various institutions, organizations and levels of
government combining to guide the process of economic globalization. Between the
inadequacy of the United Nations (the Pope calls for its reform later in the
encyclical) and the realities of contemporary political power, Benedict comments
wryly that “both wisdom and prudence suggest not being too precipitous in
declaring the demise of the State. In terms of the resolution of the current
crisis, the State’s role seems destined to grow.” Hence “the articulation of
political authority at the local, national and international levels is one of
the best ways of giving direction to the process of economic globalization. It
is also the way to ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of
democracy.” (41) The encyclical discusses the necessary principle of
subsidiarity at some length, emphasizing again the principle of gratuitousness
which must animate these varied relationships.
Finally, Benedict cautions that it is completely false and counter-productive to
view globalization as a pre-determined process over which man has no control.
Because it is a human reality, it is product of cultural tendencies which must
be subjected to a process of discernment. A sustained commitment is needed to
“promote a person-based and community-oriented cultural process of world-wide
integration that is open to transcendence”. In this way, it will be possible to
“steer the globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of communion
and the sharing of goods.” (42)
We will see this reference to “relational terms” developed more fully in chapter
five, and once again we will see at its heart the idea of “gift”. For Benedict,
the incorporation of the spirit of gratuitousness—the law of the gift—into all
of our plans and programs is the key to success. In this spirit alone can the
market itself, along with all the institutions and persons which guide it,
contribute to integral human development.
Chapter Four: The Development of People, Rights and Duties, the Environment
In the fourth chapter, Benedict addresses several specific problems in the
contemporary world which make it difficult to guide human development in an
integral manner. First, he calls attention to the contemporary tendency to
create arbitrary new rights with no basis in the natural law, while at the same
time ignoring the most basic of human rights. The solution is to view rights in
their proper framework of duties, a perspective “which grants them their full
meaning”. Benedict explains that duties set a limit on rights “because they
point to the anthropological and ethical framework of which rights are a part.”
Thus duties reinforce rights and place their promotion in the context of the
service of the common good. “The sharing of reciprocal duties,” Benedict states,
“is a more powerful incentive to action than the mere assertion of rights.” (43)
Next, the Pope takes up the matter of population growth and openness to life. He
insists that the “primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality”
must be upheld against the State and that “morally responsible openness to life
represents a rich social and economic resource.” In contrast, he notes that the
attitudes in many nations today “are symptomatic of scant confidence in the
future and moral weariness.” Hence it has become socially and economically
necessary once more “to hold up to future generations the beauty of marriage and
the family.” States are called to enact policies promoting “the centrality and
the integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man and a woman, the
primary vital cell of society.” (44)
Benedict also explains that “the economy needs ethics in order to function
correctly”, but not just any ethics: The proper ethics must be person-centered,
for when business departs from personal moral norms it serves only to exploit
the inequities of existing financial systems rather than to correct their
dysfunctional features. Periodically throughout the encyclical the Pope takes
pains to demonstrate why Catholic social teaching has so much to contribute to
properly-directed development. In this context of ethics, for example, he notes
the following:
Much in fact depends on the underlying system of morality. On this subject the
Church’s social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is based on
man’s creation “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27), a datum which gives rise to the
inviolable dignity of the human person and the transcendent value of natural
moral norms. (45)
The Pope also deals here with the inadequacy of the distinction between
for-profit and non-profit corporations, indicating again that a more complete
understanding of the common good needs to lie at the heart of all business
activity. In the same light, he calls for the reform of international
organizations: “At times it happens that those who receive aid become
subordinate to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive
bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of funds intended for
development.” He calls for complete transparency as to the percentage of income
allocated to various programs, the actual content of those programs, and the
detailed expenditures of each institution.
The chapter concludes with several pages on nature, the environment, and what
the Pope calls “human ecology”. Noting two common and equally false attitudes,
Benedict writes:
[I]t is contrary to authentic development to view nature as something more
important than the human person. This position leads to attitudes of
neo-paganism or a new pantheism—human salvation cannot come from nature alone,
understood in a purely naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also
necessary to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical
dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more than raw material
to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a wondrous work of the Creator
containing a “grammar” which sets forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not
its reckless exploitation. (48)
Pursuant to this principle, the Pope condemns the hoarding of non-renewable
energy resources, which integral human development demands should be shared, and
he condemns massive short-term exploitation of resources as if we have no
solidarity with future generations. Along the same lines, Benedict warns against
the widespread hedonism and consumerism of the modern world, which does so much
harm to those who are poor and so much damage to the environment. He insists
that the Church has a grave responsibility to defend “earth, water and air” as
gifts that belong to all and, above all, to “protect mankind from
self-destruction.”
Benedict’s larger point is that economic incentives and deterrents to effect
change are insufficient: “The decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of
society.” (51) Thus he concludes the chapter by returning once more to the law
of the gift. He notes that the ultimate source of truth and love is God, and the
vocation to development is an intrinsic part of God’s plan, prior to man
himself: “That which is prior to us and constitutes us—subsistent Love and
Truth—shows us what goodness is, and in what our true happiness consists. It
shows us the road to true development.” (52)
Chapter Five: The Cooperation of the Human Family
The fifth chapter of Caritas in Veritate begins with a deep reflection on the
idea of “relation” in human solidarity (analogous to and modeled on the
infinitely self-giving and self-fulfilling relations of the three persons of the
Blessed Trinity). Benedict notes the extreme isolation characteristic of our
times: “One of the deepest forms of poverty a person can experience is
isolation.” This includes isolation from not being loved and from rejecting
God’s love because of “man’s basic and tragic tendency to close in on himself,
thinking himself to be self-sufficient or merely an insignificant and ephemeral
fact, a ‘stranger’ in a random universe.” Indeed:
Man is alienated when he is alone, when he is detached from reality, when he
stops thinking and believing in a foundation. All of humanity is alienated when
too much trust is placed in merely human projects, ideologies and false utopias.
Today humanity appears much more interactive than in the past: this shared sense
of being close to one another must be transformed into true communion. The
development of peoples depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race
is a single family working together, in true communion, not simply a group of
subjects who happen to live side by side. (53)
Benedict sees the solution in a proper understanding of “relation”. Rather than
being diminished personally by entering into a relation, each person finds that
his identity is enriched and matures through his reciprocity with the other.
Just as a family does not submerge but enhances the identities of its individual
members, and just as the Church rejoices in each “new creation”, enriching each
member and being enriched in return, “so too the unity of the human family does
not submerge the identities of individuals, peoples and culture, but makes them
more transparent to each other and links them more closely in their legitimate
diversity.” (53)
Importantly, Benedict pauses here to note even the problems posed by religious
cultures which divide men and women from each other, as well as the
proliferation of various forms of religious syncretism which fragment the human
family into small groups, each going its own way. In so doing, he makes an
important point about religious liberty (a point which will perhaps illuminate
all the Church’s previous teachings on this subject, and a point thoroughly
consistent with the Pope’s prior context of illuminating the nature and
limitations of rights by examining corresponding duties):
For this reason, while it is tree that development needs the religions and
cultures of different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment is
needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious indifferentism, nor does it
imply that all religions are equal. Discernment is needed regarding the
contribution of cultures and religions, especially on the part of those who
wield political power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of
respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on the criterion
of charity and truth. (55)
He goes on to affirm that the Christian religion and other religions can make
their vital contribution to authentic development “only if God has a place in
the public realm”. He notes that the denial of the “right to profess one’s
religion in public and the right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon
public life has negative consequences for true development”, and he rejects both
“the exclusion of religion from the public square” and “religious
fundamentalism” because both “exclude the possibility of fruitful dialogue and
effective cooperation between reason and religious faith.” Returning to a point
he has made repeatedly during his pontificate, Benedict states again:
Reason always stands in need of being purified by faith: this also holds true
for political reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part,
religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to show its
authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue comes only at an enormous
price to human development. (56)
Then chapter goes on briefly to explore a number of principles which must be
used effectively to address a wide range of modern problems, such as
subsidiarity, solidarity, and the natural law. Benedict sees the latter not only
as a basis for discussion between religions and cultures but also as a necessary
basis for true education, which must form the whole man in light of his proper
ends—a goal which is rendered problematic by all relativistic cultures, yet is
absolutely vital to authentic development.
This chapter also highlights various key problems (e.g., migration,
unemployment, and the development of poor nations) and suggests how they ought
to be approached. Further, it highlights the need for all stake-holders in
international finance, including labor unions and consumer groups, to be open to
a new sense of responsibility for all the other stake-holders, instead of being
preoccupied only with their own separate concerns. The Pope also expresses the
need for a significant reform of the United Nations Organization and other
international economic institutions so that “the concept of the family of
nations can acquire real teeth.”
To sum up:
The integral development of peoples and international cooperation require the
establishment of a greater degree of international ordering, marked by
subsidiarity, for the management of globalization. They also require the
construction of a social order that at last conforms to the moral order. (67)
Chapter Six: The Development of Peoples and Technology
In his final chapter, Benedict focuses on the need to overcome the prejudices of
technocracy with a truly human understanding of integral development. He returns
again to the concept of the gift: “The development question is not simply the
result of natural mechanisms, since as everybody knows, we are all capable of
making free and responsible choices. Nor is it merely at the mercy of our
caprice, since we all know that we are a gift, not something self-generated.”
The Pope continues:
A person’s development is compromised, if he claims to be solely responsible for
producing what he becomes. By analogy, the development of peoples goes awry if
humanity thinks it can re-create itself through the “wonders” of technology,
just as economic development is exposed as a destructive sham if it relies on
the “wonders” of finance in order to sustain unnatural and consumerist growth.
In the face of such Promethean presumption, we must fortify our love for a
freedom that is not merely arbitrary, but is rendered truly human by
acknowledgment of the good that underlies it. To this end, man needs to look
inside himself in order to recognize the fundamental norms of the natural moral
law which God has written on our hearts. (68)
In this context, the Pope emphasizes that technology is a profoundly human
reality, revealing man and his aspirations towards development, including the
“inner tension that impels him to overcome material limitations.” It is
therefore a response to God’s command in Genesis “to till and keep the land.”
For this reason, technological development must never become so preoccupied with
the “how” questions that it fails to ask and answer the “why” questions which
underlie human activity: “When the sole criterion of truth is efficiency and
utility, development is automatically denied” and “human freedom is authentic
only when it responds to the fascination of technology with decisions that are
the fruit of moral responsibility.” (70)
The Pope uses three critical but disparate examples (peace among nations, social
communications, and bioethics) to show how preoccupation with technological
solutions can distract us from the deeper human values and moral judgments which
are required for true development. Returning to one of his favorite themes, he
concludes: “Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without
faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own omnipotence. Faith without
reason risks being cut off from everyday life.” (74)
This final chapter ends with a renewed focus on the central argument that runs
through the entire encyclical: (1) We now see that “the social question has
become a radically anthropological question”; (2) The cultural refusal to attend
to these deep anthropological questions results in a materialistic and
mechanistic understanding of human life which has a universally negative effect
on integral human development; and (3) Therefore, integral human development can
never occur without the moral values which arise from an understanding of the
importance of the soul of man to his overall well-being.
The Pope laments that the “social and psychological alienation and the many
neuroses that afflict affluent societies are attributable in part to spiritual
factors” (76) and that “the supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from
recognizing anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter alone.” (77) In
contrast, true development
requires new eyes and a new heart, capable of rising above a materialistic
vision of human events, capable of glimpsing in development the “beyond” that
technology cannot give. By following this path, it is possible to pursue the
integral human development that takes its direction from the driving force of
charity in truth. (77)
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Holy Father emphasizes that “without God man neither knows
which way to go, nor even understands who he is.” Therefore, we can develop the
vision and energy for integral human development only by recognizing our calling
to be part of the family of God. “A humanism which excludes God is an inhuman
humanism,” Benedict writes. “Only a humanism open to the Absolute can guide us
in the promotion and building of forms of social and civic life—structures,
institutions, culture and ethos—without exposing us to the risk of becoming
ensnared by the fashions of the moment.” This is the only way we can move beyond
“the limited and the ephemeral”. Ultimately, it is God who “gives us the
strength to fight and to suffer for love of the common good.” (78) And so
Benedict ends with the law of the gift which he has so effectively unveiled at
the heart of Catholic social thought:
Development needs Christians with their arms raised towards God in prayer,
Christians moved by the knowledge that truth-filled love, caritas in veritate,
from which authentic development proceeds, is not produced by us, but given to
us. For this reason, even in the most difficult and complex times, besides
recognizing what is happening, we must above all else turn to God’s love. (78)
--------------------------------------------------------------
Evangelical Response: Doing the Truth in Love (August 21, 2009)
On August 21, 2009, 68 Evangelical academics,
journalists, church leaders, activists and researchers from four continents
released a statement responding to Caritas in Veritate, and encouraging
evangelical engagement with the encyclical.
The statement was endorsed and supported by three institutions: the Center for
Public Justice (Washington, D.C.: www.cpjustice.org), Cardus (Hamilton, Ontario:
www.cardus.ca) and the Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics (Cambridge,
U.K.: www.klice.co.uk).
Doing the Truth in Love: An evangelical
call for response to Caritas in Veritate
Recent global events awaken us to the importance of sustained Christian
reflection on the nature and goal of economic life, both within our own
societies and in other parts of the world. Accordingly, as evangelical
Protestants we applaud the release of Caritas in Veritate (Charity in Truth) by
Pope Benedict XVI. We call on Christians everywhere, but especially our fellow
evangelicals in the global North, to read, wrestle with, and respond to Caritas
in Veritate and its identification of the twin call of love and truth upon our
lives as citizens, entrepreneurs, workers and, most fundamentally, as followers
of Christ.
In Christ's death and resurrection, God removes all that stands in the way of
right relationships between God and the world, among humans, and between
humanity and the rest of creation. Human development is included in this
restoration of all things to right relationship.
We commend the way in which this encyclical considers economic development in
terms of the true trajectory for human flourishing. Caritas in Veritate,
following in the tradition of Pope Paul VI's encyclical Populorum Progressio,
argues that development is about the transformation of both persons and
institutions and of relations among and between them. We echo its call for a new
vision of development that recognizes the dignity of human life in its fullness,
and that includes a concern for life from conception to natural death, for
religious liberty, for the alleviation of poverty, and for the care of creation.
Caritas in Veritate proposes an integral model of human development in the
context of globalization, “the expansion of worldwide interdependence.” We
affirm with this encyclical that globalization must become a “person-centred and
community-oriented process of integration.” The encyclical correctly notes that
globalization has indeed lifted millions out of poverty, primarily by the
integration of the economies of developing nations into international markets.
Yet the unevenness of this integration leaves us deeply concerned about the
inequality, poverty, food insecurity, unemployment, social exclusion—including
the persistent social exclusion of women in many parts of the world—and
materialism that continue to ravage human communities, with destructive
consequences for our shared planetary habitat.
In Caritas in Veritate we find an analysis of global affairs that rejects the
oversimplifying polarization of free market and active government solutions. As
the encyclical teaches, “authentically human social relationships of friendship,
solidarity and reciprocity can also be conducted within economic activity, and
not only outside it or ‘after’ it.” Economic life is not amoral or autonomous.
Economic institutions, including markets themselves, must be marked by internal
relations of solidarity and trust.
Profit, while a necessary means in economic life, cannot be an overriding end
for truly human economic flourishing. We therefore affirm the emphasis in
Caritas in Veritate on social enterprise, that is, business efforts guided by a
mutualist principle that transcends the dichotomy of for-profit and
not-for-profit and that instead pursues social ends while covering costs and
providing for investment. More broadly, we urge evangelicals to consider the
invitation by Pope Benedict to rethink who must be included among corporate
stakeholders and what the moral significance of investment is. We would have
wished for an even stronger criticism in the encyclical of the elevation of
money to an idolatrous status and the resultant contemporary dominance of
financial markets over other elements of the global economy.
We endorse the affirmation that an economy of charity demands space for myriad
human communities and institutions, not just for the state and the market, but
also families and the many relationships of civil society. It is primarily the
internal resources of communities, such as those of neighbourhood associations,
municipal councils, trade unions, small business and more, that facilitate the
cultivation of local talents and resources. Effective governance and aid which
provides support for development but recognizes their own limitations are needed
in charting a path towards more integral development. The challenge to
“humanize” or “civilize” globalization does not necessarily mean more
government. It does demand better government—the rule of law rather than of
persons, the development of strong institutions of governance, the restoration
of balance between competing interests, the eradication of corruption. Ethical
globalization demands fairer and freer trade, assisting the poor of the world to
successfully integrate into a flourishing global economy. And ethical
globalization demands of evangelical churches everywhere that we attend to the
call to do the truth in love, as we continue to respond to the great commission
to "disciple the nations."
The encyclical properly recognizes that states are not relinquishing and should
not relinquish their duty to pursue justice and the common good in the global
economic order. We share the document’s concern at the decline of social
security systems, the diminishing power of trade unions, and the pressure of
socially destructive labour mobility. Yet we also share its fear of the growth
of an overweening welfare state, which degrades social and civic pluralism. Thus
we agree that subsidiarity and solidarity must be held in tandem, as Caritas in
Veritate proposes.
We echo the call for better models of global governance, both financial and
political, but hesitate to uncritically endorse the current models in the U.N.,
I.M.F., World Bank and W.T.O. A global common good does indeed call forth
political action to secure it, but new models of global governance must secure
increased participation, transparency and accountability, and help strengthen
the nation state relative to the power of global finance.
With Caritas in Veritate, we commit ourselves not to be the “victims” of
globalization, but to be its “protagonists”—to work for global solidarity,
economic justice, and the common good, as norms that transcend and transform the
motives of economic profit and technical progress. We call for serious dialogue
among all Christians and with many others to make these goals practical
realities.
* Adel Abadeer, Associate Professor of Economics, Calvin College (Grand Rapids,
MI)
* Roy Berkenbosch, Director, Micah Center, King's University College (Edmonton,
AB)
* Elwil Beukes, Professor of Economics, The King's University College (Edmonton,
AB)
* Daniel K. Bourdanné, General Secretary, International Fellowship of
Evangelical Students (Oxford, UK)
* James Bradley, Professor of Mathematics & Statistics Emeritus, Calvin College
(Grand Rapids, MI)
* Paul Brink, Associate Professor of Political Studies, Gordon College (Wenham,
MA)
* Joe Carter, Web Editor, First Things (Manassas, VA)
* Jonathan Chaplin, Director, Kirby Laing Institute for Christian Ethics
(Cambridge, UK)
* J. Daryl Charles, Director and Senior Fellow, Bryan Institute for Critical
Thought & Practice (Dayton, TN)
* Richard Cizik, President, The New Evangelicals (Washington, DC)
* Bruce J. Clemenger, President, Evangelical Fellowship of Canada (Markham, ON)
* Javier Comboni, Jean & E. Floyd Kvamme Professor of Political Economy, Wheaton
College (Wheaton, IL)
* Justin D. Cooper, President, Redeemer University College (Ancaster, ON)
* Paul R. Corts, President, Council for Christian Colleges and Universities
(Washington, DC)
* Janel Curry, Byker Chair in Christian Perspectives on Political, Social, and
Economic Thought, Calvin College (Grand Rapids, MI)
* Calvin B. DeWitt, Professor of Environmental Studies, University of
Wisconsin-Madison (Madison, WI)
* Brian Dijkema, Labour Activist (Ottawa, ON)
* Joel Edwards, International Director, Micah Challenge (London, UK)
* Jacob P. Ellens, Vice President, Academic, Redeemer University College (Ancaster,
ON)
* Bruce Ellis Benson, Professor of Philosophy, Wheaton College (Wheaton, IL)
* Janet Epp Buckingham, Director, Laurentian Leadership Centre (Ottawa, ON)
* James Featherby, Fellow, London Institute for Contemporary Christianity
(London, UK)
* Harry Fernhout, President, The King's University College (Edmonton, AB)
* Brian T. Fikkert, Associate Professor of Economics & Community Development,
Covenant College (Lookout Mountain, GA)
* Richard L. Gathro, Dean, Nyack College (Washington, DC)
* Ivy George, Professor of Sociology and Social Work, Gordon College (Wenham,
MA)
* Michael W. Goheen, Geneva Professor of Worldview and Religious Studies,
Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)
* Bob Goudzwaard, Emeritus Professor of Economics and Cultural Philosophy, Free
University of Amsterdam (Netherlands)
* Andy Hartropp, Research Tutor in Development Studies, Oxford Centre for
Mission Studies (Oxford, UK)
* Peter S. Heslam, Transforming Business, University of Cambridge (Cambridge,
UK)
* John Hiemstra, Dean, Faculty of Social Science, The King's University College
(Edmonton, AB)
* Roland Hoksbergen, Professor of Economics and International Development,
Calvin College (Grand Rapids, MI)
* Dennis Hoover, Vice President for Research and Publications, Institute for
Global Engagement (Washington, DC)
* Robert Joustra, Researcher, Cardus (Hamilton, ON)
* Timothy A. Kelly, Director, DePree Center Public Policy Institute (Pasadena,
CA)
* David T. Koyzis, Professor of Political Science, Redeemer University College (Ancaster,
ON)
* Tracy Kuperus, Associate Professor, International Development Studies, Calvin
College (Grand Rapids, MI)
* Jamie McIntosh, Executive Director, International Justice Mission Canada
(London, ON)
* Ruth Melkonian-Hoover, Assistant Professor of Political Studies, Gordon
College (Wenham, MA)
* George N. Monsma, Jr., Professor of Economics, Emeritus, Calvin College (Grand
Rapids, MI)
* Stephen V. Monsma, Research Fellow, The Henry Institute, Calvin College (Grand
Rapids, MI)
* Richard Mouw, President, Fuller Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA)
* Bryant L. Myers, Professor of International Development, Fuller Theological
Seminary (Pasadena, CA)
* David K. Naugle, Professor of Philosophy, Dallas Baptist University (Dallas,
TX)
* David Neff, Editor in Chief, Christianity Today (Carol Stream, IL)
* Ray Pennings, Director of Research, Cardus (Calgary, AB)
* Michael Pollitt, Reader in Business Economics, Judge Business School,
University of Cambridge (U.K.)
* Dan Postma, Managing Editor, Comment Magazine (Hamilton, ON)
* Vinoth Ramachandra, Author, Subverting Global Myths (Colombo, Sri Lanka)
* Jonathan S. Raymond, President, Trinity Western University (Langley, BC)
* Paul W. Robinson, Director, Human Needs and Global Resources Program, Wheaton
College (Wheaton, IL)
* Duncan Roper, Former Professor of Mathematics, University of Western Sydney
(now resident of Martinborough, NZ)
* Michael Schluter, Chairman, Relationships Foundation International (Cambridge,
UK)
* Chris Seiple, President, Institute for Global Engagement (Washington, DC)
* Timothy Sherratt, Professor of Political Studies, Gordon College (Wenham, MA)
* Ronald J. Sider, President, Evangelicals for Social Action (Philadelphia, PA)
* James W. Skillen, President, Center for Public Justice (Washington, DC)
* John G. Stackhouse, Jr., Sangwoo Youtong Chee Professor of Theology and
Culture, Regent College (Vancouver, BC)
* Glen Harold Stassen, Lewis B. Smedes Professor of Christian Ethics, Fuller
Theological Seminary (Pasadena, CA)
* Elaine Storkey, President, Tearfund (London, UK)
* Alan Storkey, Economist (Cambridge, UK)
* Gideon Strauss, President (designate), Center for Public Justice (Washington,
DC)
* Robert Sweetman, Academic Dean and Acting President, Institute for Christian
Studies (Toronto, ON)
* Steven Timmermans, President, Trinity Christian College (Palos Heights, IL)
* Michael Van Pelt, President, Cardus (Hamilton, ON)
* Jim Wallis, President, Sojourners (Washington, DC)
* Alissa Wilkinson, Associate Editor, Comment Magazine (Brooklyn, NY)
* Paul Williams, David Brown Family Chair of Marketplace Theology and
Leadership, Regent College (Vancouver, BC)
July 27, 2009
Signatories’ affiliations are listed for identification purposes only, and do
not necessarily reflect institutional endorsement.
-------------------------------------------------------------------