ENCYCLICAL
LETTER
CARITAS IN VERITATE
OF THE SUPREME
PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS
PRIESTS AND DEACONS
MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
THE LAY FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH
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