“Development” is a notion in function of persons, not
structures.
The notion of “development” involves in its depth the
development of the person. “According to Sacred Scripture… the notion of
development is not only ‘lay’ or ‘profane,’ but is also … the modern expression of an essential
dimension of man’s vocation.”[1]
Man was not created immobile and static. Rather, the Bible “presents him as a creature and image, defined in his deepest reality by the origin and affinity that
constitute him. But all this plants
within the human being – man and woman – the seed and the requirement
of a special task to be accomplished by each individually and by them as a
couple. The task is ‘to have dominion’ over the other created beings, ‘to
cultivate the garden.’ This is to be accomplished within the framework of obedience to the divine law and
therefore with respect for the image received, the image which is the clear
foundation of the power of dominion recognized as belonging to man as the means
to his perfection )cf. Gen. 1, 26-30; 2, 15-16; Wis. 9, 2-3)….
“It
is logical to conclude, at least on the part of those who believe in the word
of God, that today’s ‘development’ is to be seen as a moment in the story which
began at creation, a story which is constantly endangered by reason of
infidelity to the Creator’s will, and especially by the temptation to idolatry.
But this ‘development’ fundamentally corresponds to the first premises. Anyone
wishing to renounce the difficult yet
noble task of improving the lot of man in his totality, and of all people,
with the excuse that the struggle is difficult and that constant effort is
required, or simply because of the experience of defeat and the need to begin
again, that person would be betraying the will of God the Creator. In this
regard, in the Encyclical, Laborem
Exercens, I referred to man’s vocation to work, in order to emphasize the
idea that it is always man who is the protagonist of development.”[2]
John
Paul II explains that “development” and “the dream of ‘unlimited progress,’ is
grounded in that “God the Father has decided from the beginning to make man a
sharer of his glory in Jesus Christ risen from the dead, in whom ‘we have
redemption through his blood… the forgiveness of our trespasses’ (Eph. 1, 7).”[3] He goes on to say that “Some Fathers of the
Church were inspired by this idea to develop in original ways a concept of the meaning of history and human work, directed towards a goal
which surpasses this meaning and which is always defined by its relationship to
the work of Christ. In other words, one can find in the teaching of the Fathers
an optimistic vision of history and
work, that is to say of the perennial
value of authentic human achievements, inasmuch as they are redeemed by Christ
and destined for the promised Kingdom.”[4]
Therefore,
we do not expect development in and from structures, but in and from persons
who create structures. And, therefore, the social doctrine of the Church does
not work in structures but with the person. Hence “(t)he Church’s social
doctrine is not a ‘third way’ between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other
solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a
careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and
in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church’s tradition.
Its main aim is to interpret these
realities., determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of
the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once
earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to
guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.”
As
solution to the critique made by the pope, then, is a theology of work as
offered by John Paul II in Laborem
Exercens, a Christian anthropology of work as found in “Christian Freedom
and Liberation”[5]
and the spirituality of work as offered by Opus Dei.
Consider Pope Francis’ remarks in #202 – 204 in Evangelii Gaudium: The economy and the distribution
of income:
202. The need to resolve the
structural causes of poverty cannot be delayed, not only for the pragmatic
reason of its urgency for the good order of society, but because society needs
to be cured of a sickness which is weakening and frustrating it, and which can
only lead to new crises. Welfare projects, which meet certain urgent needs,
should be considered merely temporary responses. As long as the problems of the
poor are not radically resolved by rejecting the absolute autonomy of markets
and financial speculation and by attacking the structural causes of inequality,[173]no
solution will be found for the world’s problems or, for that matter, to any
problems. Inequality is the root of social ills.
203. The dignity of each human
person and the pursuit of the common good are concerns which ought to shape all
economic policies. At times, however, they seem to be a mere addendum imported
from without in order to fill out a political discourse lacking in perspectives
or plans for true and integral development. How many words prove irksome to
this system! It is irksome when the question of ethics is raised, when global
solidarity is invoked, when the distribution of goods is mentioned, when
reference in made to protecting labour and defending the dignity of the
powerless, when allusion is made to a God who demands a commitment to justice.
At other times these issues are exploited by a rhetoric which cheapens them.
Casual indifference in the face of such questions empties our lives and our
words of all meaning. Business is a vocation, and a noble vocation, provided
that those engaged in it see themselves challenged by a greater meaning in
life; this will enable them truly to serve the common good by striving to
increase the goods of this world and to make them more accessible to all.
204. We can no longer trust in
the unseen forces and the invisible hand of the market. Growth in justice
requires more than economic growth, while presupposing such growth: it requires
decisions, programmes, mechanisms and processes specifically geared to a better
distribution of income, the creation of sources of employment and an integral
promotion of the poor which goes beyond a simple welfare mentality. I am far
from proposing an irresponsible populism, but the economy can no longer turn to
remedies that are a new poison, such as attempting to increase profits by
reducing the work force and thereby adding to the ranks of the excluded.
205. I ask God to give us more
politicians capable of sincere and effective dialogue aimed at healing the
deepest roots – and not simply the appearances – of the evils in our world!
Consider on the socialist side, Vaclav Havel’s
confrontation of the Communist Structure: “The Power of the Powerless.”
No comments:
Post a Comment