I
|
IOANNES PAULUS PP. II
SOLLICITUDO REI
SOCIALIS
To the Bishops, Priests Religious Families, sons and daughters of the Church and all people of good will for the twentieth anniversary of Populorum Progressio |
|
I. INTRODUCTION
1. The social concern
of the Church, directed towards an authentic development of man and society
which would respect and promote all the dimensions of the human person,
has always expressed itself in the most varied ways. In recent years, one of the
special means of intervention has been the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs
which, beginning with the Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo
XIII as a point of reference,1 has frequently dealt with the question and has sometimes
made the dates of publication of the various social documents coincide with
the anniversaries of that first document.2
The Popes have not
failed to throw fresh light by means of those messages upon new aspects of
the social doctrine of the Church. As a result, this doctrine, beginning with
the outstanding contribution of Leo XIII and enriched by the successive
contributions of the Magisterium, has now become an updated doctrinal
"corpus2….
Part of this large body of social teaching
is the distinguished Encyclical Populorum Progressio,4 which my esteemed predecessor Paul VI published on March
26, 1967.
|
|
II. ORIGINALITY OF THE
ENCYCLICAL POPULORUM PROGRESSIO
(…) But first I wish
to say a few words about the date of publication; the year 1967 [Humanae Vitae is 1968 also on the heels
of Vatican II]. The very fact that Pope Paul VI chose to publish a social
Encyclical in that year invites us to consider the document in relationship
to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which had ended on December 8,
1965.
6. We should see
something more in this than simple chronological proximity. The Encyclical Populorum
Progressio presents itself, in a certain way, as a document which applies the teachings of
the Council. It not only makes continual reference to the texts of the
Council,8 but it also flows from the same concern of the
Church which inspired the whole effort of the Council-and in a particular way
the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes - to coordinate
and develop a number of themes of her social teaching….
7. (…) The same
idea of development proposed by
the Encyclical flows directly from the approach which the Pastoral
Constitution [GS] takes to this problem.17
8. The Encyclical… can
be stated in three points.
The first is
constituted by the very fact of a document, issued by the highest authority
of the Catholic Church and addressed both to the Church herself and "to
all people of good will," [not just believers] on a matter which at
first sight is solely economic and social: the development of peoples. The
term "development" is taken from the vocabulary of the
social and economic sciences. From this point of view, the Encyclical Populorum
Progressio follows directly in the line of the Encyclical Rerum
Novarum, which deals with the "condition of the workers."19 Considered superficially, both themes
could seem extraneous to the legitimate concern of the Church seen as a
religious institution - and "development" even more so than the
"condition of the workers."
In continuity with the
Encyclical of Leo XIII, it must be recognized that the document of Paul VI
possesses the merit of having emphasized the ethical and cultural character
of the problems connected with development[1],
and likewise the legitimacy and necessity of the Church's intervention in
this field. [Keep in mind that development means: “development of person” –
which involves – self-gift]…
In consequence, when
the Church concerns herself with the "development of peoples," she
cannot be accused of going outside her own specific field of competence and,
still less, outside the mandate received from the Lord.
9. The second point of originality of
Populorum Progressio is shown by the breadth of outlook open to what is
commonly called the "social question."
In the first place a
possible misunderstanding has to be eliminated. Recognition that the "social question" has assumed a
worldwide dimension does not at all mean that it has lost its incisiveness or
its national and local importance. On the contrary, it means that the
problems in industrial enterprises or in the workers' and union movements of
a particular country or region are not to be considered as isolated cases
with no connection. On the contrary they depend more and more on the
influence of factors beyond regional boundaries and national frontiers.
Unfortunately, from
the economic point of view, the developing countries are much more numerous
than the developed ones; the multitudes of human beings who lack the goods
and services offered by development are much more numerous than those who
possess them.
We are therefore faced
with a serious problem of unequal distribution of the means of subsistence
originally meant for everybody, and thus also an unequal distribution of the
benefits deriving from them. And this happens not through the fault of the
needy people, and even less through a sort of inevitability dependent on
natural conditions or circumstances as a whole….
10. As a third point, the Encyclical provides a very original contribution
to the social doctrine of the Church in its totality and to the very concept
of development. This originality is recognizable in a phrase of the
document's concluding paragraph, which can be considered as its summary, as
well as its historic label: "Development is the new name for
peace."
In fact, if the social question has acquired a worldwide
dimension, this is because the demand for justice can only be satisfied on
that level. To ignore this demand could encourage the temptation among the victims
of injustice to respond with violence, as happens at the origin of many wars.
Peoples excluded from the fair distribution of the goods originally destined
for all could ask themselves: why not respond with violence to those who
first treat us with violence?
|
|
[The suggestion is that where development is not taking place
personalistically and economically, there is the danger of terrorism]
|
|
III. SURVEY OF THE
CONTEMPORARY WORLD
(…)
Let’s offer , for
starters, Wojtyla’s understanding of
culture: “Culture develops principally
within this dimension, the dimension of self-determining subjects. Culture is
basically oriented not so much toward the creation of human products as
toward the creation of the human self, which then radiates out into the world
of products [objects];” “The Constitution of Culture Through Human Praxis,”
Lang 1993) 265.
Since 1989, political and economic Marxism has collapsed.
Ratzinger comments:
“The essential problem of our times, for Europe and for the
world, is that although the fallacy of the communist economy has been
recognized – so much so that former communists have unhesitatingly become
economic liberals – the moral and religious question that it used to address
has been almost totally repressed. The unresolved issue of Marxism lives on:
the crumbling of man’s original uncertainties about God, himself, and the
universe. The decline of a moral conscience grounded in absolute values is
still our problem today. Left untreated, it could lead to the
self-destruction of the European conscience, which we must begin to consider
as a real danger – above and beyond the decline predicted by Spengler.”[2][3]
Me: Note that the crisis is the meaning of man.
Is he an individual for whom relations to the others is accidental? Or is person
for whom relation to the others is constitutive? And if that is the case, does
“development” consist in this relationality? The fact is that both Marxism and
Liberal Capitalism presume man to be individual, and, de facto, reducible to matter
(animal) and not constitutively. This holds with the “bottom line” of profit.
20.(…) I am referring
to the existence of two opposing blocs, commonly known as the East and the
West. The reason for this description is not purely political but is also, as
the expression goes, geopolitical. Each of the two blocs tends to assimilate
or gather around it other countries or groups of countries, to different
degrees of adherence or participation.
The opposition is
first of all political, inasmuch as each bloc identifies itself with a system
of organizing society and exercising power which presents itself as an
alternative to the other. The political opposition, in turn, takes its origin
from a deeper Opposition which is ideological in nature.
In the West there
exists a system which is historically inspired by the principles of the
liberal capitalism which developed with industrialization during the last
century. In the East there exists a system inspired by the Marxist collectivism
which sprang from an interpretation of the condition of the proletarian
classes made in the light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two
ideologies, on the basis of two very different visions of man and of his
freedom and social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic
level, antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures
of ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.
It was inevitable that
by developing antagonistic systems and centers of power, each with its own
forms of propaganda and indoctrination, the ideological opposition should
evolve into a growing military opposition and give rise to two blocs of armed
forces, each suspicious and fearful of the other's domination….
21. This happens with
particularly negative effects in the international relations which concern
the developing countries. For as we know the tension between East and West is not
in itself an opposition between two different levels of development but rather
between two concepts of the development of individuals and peoples both
concepts being imperfect and in need of radical correction. This
opposition is transferred to the developing countries themselves, and thus
helps to widen the gap already existing on the economic level between North
and South and which results from the distance between the two worlds: the
more developed one and the less developed one.
This is one of the
reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a critical attitude towards
both liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism. For from the point of view
of development the question naturally arises: in what way and to what extent
are these two systems capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or
promote a true and integral development of individuals and peoples in modern
society? In fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for
the cause of a development common to all.
Countries which have
recently achieved independence, and which are trying to establish a cultural
and political identity of their own, and need effective and impartial aid
from all the richer and more developed countries, find themselves involved
in, and sometimes overwhelmed by,
ideological conflicts, which inevitably create internal divisions, to the
extent in some cases of provoking full civil war. This is also because
investments and aid for development are often diverted from their proper
purpose and used to sustain conflicts, apart from and in opposition to the
interests of the countries which ought to benefit from them. Many of these
countries are becoming more and more aware of the danger of falling victim to
a form of neocolonialism and are trying to escape from it. It is this
awareness which in spite of difficulties, uncertainties and at times
contradictions gave rise to the International Movement of Non-Aligned
Nations, which, in its positive aspect, would like to affirm in an effective
way the right of every people to its own identity, independence and security,
as well as the right to share, on a basis of equality and solidarity, in the
goods intended for all.
22. (…)
The developing
countries, instead of becoming autonomous nations concerned with their own
progress towards a just sharing in the goods and services meant for all,
become parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic wheel. This is often true also
in the field of social communications, which, being run by centers mostly in
the northern hemisphere, do not always give due consideration to the
priorities and problems of such countries or respect their cultural make-up.
They frequently impose a distorted vision of life and of man and thus fail to
respond to the demands of true development….
24. If
arms production is a serious disorder in the present world with regard to
true human needs and the employment of the means capable of satisfying those
needs, the arms trade is equally to blame. Indeed, with reference to the
latter it must be added that the moral judgment is even more severe. As we
all know, this is a trade without frontiers capable of crossing even the
barriers of the blocs. It knows how to overcome the division between East and
West, and above all the one between North and South, to the point - and this
is more serious - of pushing its way into the different sections which make
up the southern hemisphere. We are thus confronted with a strange phenomenon:
while economic aid and development plans meet with the obstacle of
insuperable ideological barriers, and with tariff and trade barriers, arms of
whatever origin circulate with almost total freedom all over the world And as
the recent document of the Pontifical Commission Iustitia et Pax on the
international debt points out,42 everyone knows
that in certain cases the capital lent by the developed world has been used
in the underdeveloped world to buy weapons….
On the other hand, it
is very alarming to see governments in many countries launching systematic
campaigns against birth, contrary not only to the cultural and religious
identity of the countries themselves but also contrary to the nature of true
development. It often happens that these campaigns are the result of pressure
and financing coming from abroad, and in some cases they are made a condition
for the granting of financial and economic aid and assistance.
Positive Note:
26. This mainly
negative overview of the actual situation of development in the contemporary
world would be incomplete without a mention of the coexistence of positive
aspects.
The first positive
note is the full awareness among large numbers of men and women of their own
dignity and of that of every human being. This awareness is expressed, for
example, in the more lively concern that human rights should be respected,
and in the more vigorous rejection of their violation. One sign of this is
the number of recently established private associations, some worldwide in
membership, almost all of them devoted to monitoring with great care and
commendable objectivity what is happening internationally in this sensitive
field.
At this level one must
acknowledge the influence exercised by the Declaration of Human Rights,
promulgated some forty years ago by the United Nations Organization. Its very
existence and gradual acceptance by the international community are signs of
a growing awareness. The same is to be said, still in the field of human
rights, of other juridical instruments issued by the United Nations
Organization or other international organizations.47
The awareness under
discussion applies not only to individuals but also to nations and peoples,
which, as entities having a specific cultural identity, are particularly
sensitive to the preservation, free exercise and promotion of their precious
heritage.
At the same time, in a
world divided and beset by every type of conflict, the conviction is growing
of a radical interdependence and consequently of the need for a solidarity
which will take up interdependence and transfer it to the moral plane….
|
|
|
|
IV. AUTHENTIC HUMAN
DEVELOPMENT
[Me: Notice that the
notion of development means “development of the person.” Development means becoming a person, which, as
imaging the Trinitarian Persons, means
transcending self, or being constitutively rela tional.
27. The examination
which the Encyclical invites us to make of the contemporary world leads us to
note in the first place that development is not a straightforward process, as
it were automatic and in itself limitless, as though, given certain
conditions, the human race were able to progress rapidly towards an undefined
perfection of some kind.49
Such an idea - linked
to a notion of "progress" with philosophical connotations deriving
from the Enlightenment, rather than to the notion of "development"50 which is used in
a specifically economic and social sense - now seems to be seriously called
into doubt, particularly since the tragic experience of the two world wars,
the planned and partly achieved destruction of whole peoples, and the looming
atomic peril. A naive mechanistic optimism has been replaced by a well
founded anxiety for the fate of humanity.
28. At the same time,
however, the "economic" concept itself, linked to the word
development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a better understanding
today that the mere accumulation of goods and services, even for the benefit
of the majority, is not enough for the realization of human happiness. Nor,
in consequence, does the availability of the many real benefits provided in
recent times by science and technology, including the computer sciences,
bring freedom from every form of slavery. On the contrary, the experience of
recent years shows that unless all the considerable body of resources and
potential at man's disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an
orientation towards the true good of the human race, it easily turns against
man to oppress him.
A disconcerting
conclusion about the most recent period should serve to enlighten us:
side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelopment, themselves unacceptable,
we find ourselves up against a form of superdevelopment, equally
inadmissible. because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to
true happiness. This super-development, which consists in an excessive
availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain
social groups, easily makes people slaves of "possession" and of
immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or
continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better.
This is the so-called civilization of "consumption" or "
consumerism ," which involves so much "throwing-away" and
"waste." An object already owned but now superseded by
something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting value
in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.
All of us experience
firsthand the sad effects of this blind submission to pure consumerism: in
the first place a crass materialism, and at the same time a radical
dissatisfaction, because one quickly learns - unless one is shielded from the
flood of publicity and the ceaseless and tempting offers of products - that
the more one possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations remain
unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled.
The Encyclical of Pope Paul VI pointed out the
difference, so often emphasized today, between "having" and
"being,"51 which had been expressed earlier in
precise words by the Second Vatican Council.52 To "have" objects and goods
does not in itself perfect the human subject, unless it contributes to the
maturing and enrichment of that subject's "being," that is to say
unless it contributes to the realization of the human vocation as such.
Of course, the difference between
"being" and "having," the danger inherent in a mere
multiplication or replacement of things possessed compared to the value of
"being," need not turn into a contradiction. One of the greatest
injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the
ones who possess much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing
are many. It is the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and
services originally intended for all.
The evil does not
consist in "having" as such, but in possessing without regard for
the quality and the ordered hierarchy of the goods one has. Quality and
hierarchy arise from the subordination of goods and their availability to
man's "being" and his true vocation….
The characteristics of
full development, one which is "more human" and able to sustain
itself at the level of the true vocation of men and women without denying economic requirements, were described by Paul VI.53(PP 21)
29…. On
the basis of this teaching, development cannot consist only in the use,
dominion over and indiscriminate possession of created things and the
products of human industry, but rather in subordinating the possession,
dominion and use to man's divine likeness and to his vocation to immortality.
This is the transcendent reality of the human being, a reality which is seen
to be shared from the beginning by a couple, a man and a woman (cf. Gen
1:27), and is therefore fundamentally social.
30. According to Sacred
Scripture therefore, the notion of development is not only "lay" or
"profane," but it is also seen to be, while having a socio-economic
dimension of its own, the modern expression of an essential dimension of
man's vocation.
The fact is that man
was not created, so to speak, immobile and static. The first portrayal of
him, as given in the Bible, certainly 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 [this
is the relationality]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)….
|
|
V. A THEOLOGICAL READING OF MODERN PROBLEMS
(…)
If the present
situation can be attributed to difficulties of various kinds, it is not out of place to speak of
"structures of sin," which, as I stated in my Apostolic
Exhortation Reconciliatio et
Paenitentia, are rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the
concrete acts of individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them
and make them difficult to remove.65 And thus they
grow stronger, spread, and become the source of other sins, and so influence
people's behavior.
"Sin" and
"structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to the
situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain a
profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give a name
to the root of the evils which afflict us.
One can certainly
speak of "selfishness" and of "shortsightedness," of
"mistaken political calculations" and "imprudent economic
decisions." And in each of these evaluations one hears an echo of an
ethical and moral nature. Man's condition is such that a more profound
analysis of individuals' actions and omissions cannot be achieved without
implying, in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical
nature.
This evaluation is in
itself positive, especially if it is completely consistent and if it is based
on faith in God and on his law, which commands what is good and forbids evil.
In this consists the
difference between sociopolitical analysis and formal reference to
"sin" and the "structures of sin." According to this
latter viewpoint, there enter in the will of the Triune God, his plan for
humanity, his justice and his mercy. The God who is rich in mercy, the
Redeemer of man, the Lord and giver of life, requires from people clear cut
attitudes which express themselves also in actions or omissions toward one's
neighbor. [4]…
For Christians, as for
all who recognize the precise theological meaning of the word
"sin," a change of behavior or mentality or mode of existence is
called "conversion," to use the language of the Rihle (cf. Mk 13:3,
5, Is 30:15). This conversion specifically entails a relationship to God, to
the sin committed, to its consequences and hence to one's neighbor, either an
individual or a community. It is God, in "whose hands are the hearts of
the powerful"67 and the hearts
of all, who according his own promise and by the power of his Spirit can
transform "hearts of stone" into "hearts of flesh" (cf.
Ezek 36:26).
On the path toward the
desired conversion, toward the overcoming of the moral obstacles to
development, it is already possible to point to the positive and moral value
of the growing awareness of interdependence among individuals and nations. …
It is above all a
question of interdependence, sensed as a system determining relationships in the
contemporary world, in its economic, cultural, political and religious
elements, and accepted as a moral category. When interdependence becomes
recognized in this way, the correlative response as a moral and social
attitude, as a "virtue," is solidarity. This then is
not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of
so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and
persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is to
say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really
responsible for all. This determination is based on the solid
conviction that what is hindering full development is that desire for profit
and that thirst for power already mentioned. These attitudes and
"structures of sin" are only conquered - presupposing the help of
divine grace - by a diametrically opposed attitude: a commitment to the good
of one's neighbor with the readiness, in the gospel sense, to "lose
oneself" for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to
"serve him" instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf.
Mt 10:40-42; 20:25; Mk 10:42-45; Lk 22:25-27).
39. The exercise of
solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one
another as persons. …
Solidarity therefore
must play its part in the realization of this divine plan, both on the level
of individuals and on the level of national and international society. The
"evil mechanisms" and "structures of sin" of which we
have spoken can be overcome only through the exercise of the human and
Christian solidarity to which the Church calls us and which she tirelessly
promotes. Only in this way can such positive energies be fully released for
the benefit of development and peace. Many of the Church's canonized saints
offer a wonderful witness of such solidarity and can serve as examples in the
present difficult circumstances. Among them I wish to recall St. Peter Claver
and his service to the slaves at Cartagena de Indias, and St. Maximilian
Maria Kolbe who offered his life in place of a prisoner unknown to him in the
concentration camp at Auschwitz.
|
|
VI. SOME PARTICULAR
GUIDELINES
41. The
Church does not have technical revolutions to offer for the problem of
underdevelopment as such, as Pope Paul VI already affirmed in his Encyclical.69 For the Church
does not propose economic and political systems or programs, nor does she
show preference for one or the other, provided that human dignity is properly
respected and promoted, and provided she herself is allowed the room she
needs to exercise her ministry in the world.
But the Church is an
"expert in humanity,"70 (PP 13) and this
leads her necessarily to extend her religious mission to the various fields
in which men and women expend their efforts in search of the always relative
happiness which is possible in this world, in line with their dignity as
persons.
Following the example
of my predecessors, I must repeat that whatever affects the dignity of
individuals and peoples, such as authentic development, cannot be reduced to
a "technical" problem. If reduced in this way, development would be
emptied of its true content, and this would be an act of betrayal of the
individuals and peoples whom development is meant to serve.
This is why the Church
has something to say today, just as twenty years ago, and also in the future,
about the nature, conditions, requirements and aims of authentic development,
and also about the obstacles which stand in its way. In doing so the Church
fulfills her mission to evangelize, for she offers her first contribution to
the solution of the urgent problem of development when she proclaims the
truth about Christ, about herself and about man, applying this truth to a
concrete situation.71
As her instrument for
reaching this goal, the Church uses her social doctrine. In today's difficult
situation, a more exact awareness and a wider diffusion of the "set of
principles for reflection, criteria for judgment and directives for
action" proposed by the Church's teaching72 would be of
great help in promoting both the correct definition of the problems being
faced and the best solution to them….
N.B. The 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….
It is necessary to
state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine:
the goods of this world are originally meant for all.78 The right to
private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of
this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social
mortgage,"79 which means that
it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely
by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Likewise, in this
concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty
which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular
the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic
initiative.
43. The motivating
concern for the poor - who are, in the very meaningful term, "the Lord's
poor"80 - must be
translated at all levels into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a
series of necessary reforms. Each local situation will show what reforms are
most urgent and how they can be achieved. But those demanded by the situation
of international imbalance, as already described, must not be forgotten.
In this respect I wish
to mention specifically: the reform of the international trade system, which
is mortgaged to protectionism and increasing bilateralism; the reform of the
world monetary and financial system, today recognized as inadequate; the
question of technological exchanges and their proper use; the need for a
review of the structure of the existing international organizations, in the
framework of an international juridical order.
The international
trade system today frequently discriminates against the products of the young
industries of the developing countries and discourages the producers of raw
materials. There exists, too, a kind of international division of labor,
whereby the low-cost products of certain countries which lack effective labor
laws or which are too weak to apply them are sold in other parts of the world
at considerable profit for the companies engaged in this form of production,
which knows no frontiers.
The world monetary and
financial system is marked by an excessive fluctuation of exchange rates and
interest rates, to the detriment of the balance of payments and the debt
situation of the poorer countries.
Forms of technology
and their transfer constitute today one of the major problems of
international exchange and of the grave damage deriving therefrom. There are
quite frequent cases of developing countries being denied needed forms of
technology or sent useless ones….
|
|
VII. CONCLUSION
46…. Development
which is merely economic is incapable of setting man free, on the contrary,
it will end by enslaving him further. Development that does not include the
cultural, transcendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the
extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimensions and does
not endeavor to direct its goals and priorities toward the same, is even less
conducive to authentic liberation. Human beings are totally free only when
they are completely themselves, in the fullness of their rights and duties.
The same can be said about society as a whole.
The principal obstacle
to be overcome on the way to authentic liberation is sin and the structures
produced by sin as it multiplies and spreads.84
The freedom with which
Christ has set us free (cf. Gal 5:1) encourages us to become the servants of
all. Thus the process of development and liberation takes concrete shape in
the exercise of solidarity, that is to say in the love and service of
neighbor, especially of the poorest: “For where truth and love are missing,
the process of liberation results in the death of a freedom which will have
lost all support.”85
47… At stake is the dignity of the human person,
whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to
whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and
responsibly in debt. …
The Kingdom of God
becomes present above all in the celebration of the sacrament of the
Eucharist, which is the Lord’s Sacrifice. In that celebration the fruits of the earth and the work of
human hands – the bread and wine – are transformed mysteriously, but really
and substantially, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the words of the
minister, into the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God
and Son of Mary, through whom the Kingdom of the Father has been made present
in our midst [Me:The meaning of work and the
working persona becoming another Christ].
The goods of this
world and the work of our hands-the bread and wine-serve for the coming of
the definitive Kingdom, since the Lord, through his Spirit, takes them up
into himself in order to offer himself to the Father and to offer us with
himself in the renewal of his one Sacrifice, which anticipates God’s Kingdom
and proclaims its final coming.
Given in Rome, at St.
Peter’s, on December 30 of the year 1987, the tenth of my Pontificate.
|
Benedict XVI
CHAPTER ONE
THE MESSAGE
OF POPULORUM PROGRESSIO
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, inSollicitudo 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 second truth is thatauthentic
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…
THE COOPERATION
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
53. One of the deepest forms of poverty a person can experience
is isolation…. 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 familyworking together in true
communion, not simply a group of subjects who happen to live side by side[127].
Solidarity
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]….
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. …
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]….
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. ….
THE
DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES
AND TECHNOLOGY
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.
[1] “Development” means “culture” which is = cultivation of the person, which is GS
#24: “Man,the only earthly being God has
willed for itself, finds himself, by the sincere gift of self.” Culture: “Culture develops principally
within this dimension, the dimension of self-determing subjects. Culture is
basically oriented not so much toward the creation of human products as
toward the creation of the human self, which then radiates out into the world of products” Karol Wojtyla,
“The Constitution of Culture Through Human Praxis,” Lang (1993 ) 265.
[2] J.
Ratzginer, “Without Roots,” Basic Books (2006) 73-74.
[3] “There
are two opposing diagnoses on the possible future of Europe. ON the one hand,
thre is the thesis of Oswald Spengler, who believed that he had identified a
natural law for the great moments in cultural history: first came the birth of
a culture, then its gradual rise, flourishing, slow decline, aging, and death.
Spengler argued his thesis… that the West would come to an end, and that it was
rushing heedlessly toward its demise, despite every effort to stop it. Europe
could of course bequeath its gifts to a new emerging culture… but as a
historical subject its life cycle had effectively ended… Toynbee reserved harsh
words for it, in arguments too readily ignored today. Toynbee emphasized the
difference between technological material progress and true progress, which he
defined as spiritualization. He recognized that the Western world was indeed
undergoing a crisis, which he attributed to the abandonment of religion for the
cult of technology, nationalism, and militarism. For him this crisis had a
name: secularism… Rather than a biologistic
vision, he offers a voluntaristic one focused on the energy of creative
minorities and exceptional individuals.
[4] Sin
is to be understood in terms of the exaltation of self, and the turning back on
self. The evangelical “good” is God alone, and the divine Persons are “for” the
other by the very meaning of the oneness of God. So “good” means to be “for” or
in relation. Sin is to be for self and not for other.See Mk. Ch. 10.
No comments:
Post a Comment