(Notes
of 2012)
Social Doctrine of the
Church: Introduction
The
common documents read in the Social Doctrine of the Church
Leo
XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891
Letter
to Mgr Liénart, 1929
Pius
XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931
Pius
XI, Mit brennender Sorge, 1937
Pius
XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937
Pius
XII, Radio-message, 1941
John
XXIII, Mater et magistra, 1961
John
XXIII, Pacem in terris, 1963
Council Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 1965
Council Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 1965
Paul
VI, Populorum progressio, 1967
Paul
VI, Octogesima adveniens, 1971
Synod
of Bishops, Justitia in mundo, 1971
John-Paul
II, Redemptor hominis, 1979
John-Paul
II, Dives in misericordia, 1980
John-Paul
II, Laborem exercens, 1981
John-Paul
II, Message to International Work Conference, 1982
John-Paul
II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987
John-Paul
II, Centesimus annus, 1991
Benedict
XVI, Deus caritas est, 2005
Benedict
XVI, Caritas in veritate, 2009
1. Social Doctrine of the
Church (SDC)? It is not exactly a matter of a set of “texts”…although there are
indeed texts and documents—many. But let us not reduce the doctrine to a
“doctrine of texts”. The SDC is not a “norm” giving sort of activity of the
Church.
2. When we say “Social
Doctrine of the Church”, the emphasis is less on the documents and more on the acting agent. In other words, it is
about the Church acting in the social
world. The Good News that the Church is called to proclaim in the world also
must have a social force. So we need
to reflect on how the Church places her actions in society.
3. Compendium # 79 says: “The
social doctrine belongs to the Church because the Church is the subject that
formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it. It is …the expression of the way
that the Church understands society and of her position regarding social
structures and changes. The whole of the Church community — priests, religious
and laity — participates in the formulation of this social doctrine, each
according to the different tasks, charisms and ministries found within her”.
4. So the SDC is the work and
reflection of the whole Church—including us. We all contribute to the action of
the Church. Then comes the documents. The Compendium (#79) continues: “These
many and varied contributions…are taken up, interpreted and formed into a
unified whole by the Magisterium, which promulgates the social teaching as
Church doctrine”.
5. We have an idea here of a
Church that is trying her best to live in society and take into consideration
the web of many elements that contribute to social understanding and action.
6. How did this all start?
Well, the Churc has always been trying her best to be “social”. But the SDC is
said to have been “officialised” by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, the Rerum novarum. It is a sort of
“foundational” document. It was a fruit of reflections and struggles of many
Catholics at that time when Europe was in the hands of a growing
industrialization—and workers were so marginalized. Catholics gathered to see
what social action can be done to
help the workers. Reflections on love and justice were done by many who wanted
to propose models of understanding and action. The objective was to give a
social form to the Kingdom.
7. The assembly of Catholics
was full of tensions. There were different sides taken—and some were really
extreme radicals. They went to the Pope and asked him to say something.
8. Later the Pope authorized Cardinal
Langénieux, archbishop of Reims, to declare how the Rerum Novarum was fruit of
workers (many from France) coming to Rome and demanding clarification from the
Church.
9. We can appreciate what the
workers did—and we can appreciate what the SDC is. Through their interventions
with the Pope, they started a “framework” of thinking that would later become an encyclical. Once the
encyclical was published, many new reflections emerged in the Church—and from
many other sectors.
10. So the SDC is a mixture of
reflections, call for action, and documents, of course. They are all designed
for really making sense of the social struggles of the times. Pope John Paul II
wrote: “This teaching is seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people
involved in cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to
give it a concrete form and application in history (Centesimus annus # 59). He would also say that “it is a doctrine
aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a ‘commitment
to justice’, according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances (Sollicitudo rei socialis # 41).
11. The SDC is part of moral theology. It is not an
“ideological” set of teachings. As we know, moral theology is a reflection on
Christian life that is committed to the well-being of everyone. It is a
research on true action in the world.
12. So, the SDC may be a bunch
of documents, ok. But in the heart of it is a search for life—social life that
cooperates with the message of Christ and the Kingdom. It is a search for “what
should we do in society”. But it is a
should that wants to root itself in
Christ. The way we live and the way we bear witness to Christ in society is the
way that the SDC wants to promote. Again, Pope John Paul II has this to say: “The
Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately
from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and
consistency” (Centesimus annus # 57).
Social Doctrine of the Church: Introduction
The
common documents read in the Social Doctrine of the Church
Leo
XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891
Letter
to Mgr Liénart, 1929
Pius
XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931
Pius
XI, Mit brennender Sorge, 1937
Pius
XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937
Pius
XII, Radio-message, 1941
John
XXIII, Mater et magistra, 1961
John
XXIII, Pacem in terris, 1963
Council Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 1965
Council Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 1965
Paul
VI, Populorum progressio, 1967
Paul
VI, Octogesima adveniens, 1971
Synod
of Bishops, Justitia in mundo,
1971
John-Paul
II, Redemptor hominis, 1979
John-Paul
II, Dives in misericordia, 1980
John-Paul
II, Laborem exercens, 1981
John-Paul
II, Message to International Work
Conference, 1982
John-Paul
II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987
John-Paul
II, Centesimus annus, 1991
Benedict
XVI, Deus caritas est, 2005
Benedict
XVI, Caritas in veritate, 2009
13. Social Doctrine of the
Church (SDC)? It is not exactly a matter of a set of “texts”…although there are
indeed texts and documents—many. But let us not reduce the doctrine to a
“doctrine of texts”. The SDC is not a “norm” giving sort of activity of the
Church.
14. When we say “Social
Doctrine of the Church”, the emphasis is less on the documents and more on the acting agent. In other words, it is
about the Church acting in the social
world. The Good News that the Church is called to proclaim in the world also
must have a social force. So we need
to reflect on how the Church places her actions in society.
15. Compendium # 79 says: “The
social doctrine belongs to the Church because the Church is the subject that
formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it. It is …the expression of the way
that the Church understands society and of her position regarding social
structures and changes. The whole of the Church community — priests, religious
and laity — participates in the formulation of this social doctrine, each
according to the different tasks, charisms and ministries found within her”.
16. So the SDC is the work and
reflection of the whole Church—including us. We all contribute to the action of
the Church. Then comes the documents. The Compendium (#79) continues: “These
many and varied contributions…are taken up, interpreted and formed into a
unified whole by the Magisterium, which promulgates the social teaching as
Church doctrine”.
17. We have an idea here of a
Church that is trying her best to live in society and take into consideration
the web of many elements that contribute to social understanding and action.
18. How did this all start?
Well, the Churc has always been trying her best to be “social”. But the SDC is
said to have been “officialised” by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, the Rerum novarum. It is a sort of
“foundational” document. It was a fruit of reflections and struggles of many
Catholics at that time when Europe was in the hands of a growing
industrialization—and workers were so marginalized. Catholics gathered to see
what social action can be done to
help the workers. Reflections on love and justice were done by many who wanted
to propose models of understanding and action. The objective was to give a
social form to the Kingdom.
19. The assembly of Catholics
was full of tensions. There were different sides taken—and some were really
extreme radicals. They went to the Pope and asked him to say something.
20. Later the Pope authorized Cardinal
Langénieux, archbishop of Reims, to declare how the Rerum Novarum was fruit of
workers (many from France) coming to Rome and demanding clarification from the
Church.
21. We can appreciate what the
workers did—and we can appreciate what the SDC is. Through their interventions
with the Pope, they started a “framework” of thinking that would later become an encyclical. Once the
encyclical was published, many new reflections emerged in the Church—and from
many other sectors.
22. So the SDC is a mixture of
reflections, call for action, and documents, of course. They are all designed
for really making sense of the social struggles of the times. Pope John Paul II
wrote: “This teaching is seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people
involved in cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to
give it a concrete form and application in history (Centesimus annus # 59). He would also say that “it is a doctrine
aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a ‘commitment
to justice’, according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances (Sollicitudo rei socialis # 41).
23. The SDC is part of moral theology. It is not an
“ideological” set of teachings. As we know, moral theology is a reflection on
Christian life that is committed to the well-being of everyone. It is a
research on true action in the world.
24. So, the SDC may be a bunch
of documents, ok. But in the heart of it is a search for life—social life that
cooperates with the message of Christ and the Kingdom. It is a search for “what
should we do in society”. But it is a
should that wants to root itself in
Christ. The way we live and the way we bear witness to Christ in society is the
way that the SDC wants to promote. Again, Pope John Paul II has this to say: “The
Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately
from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and
consistency” (Centesimus annus # 57).
Social Doctrine of the Church: Introduction
The
common documents read in the Social Doctrine of the Church
Leo
XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891
Letter
to Mgr Liénart, 1929
Pius
XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931
Pius
XI, Mit brennender Sorge, 1937
Pius
XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937
Pius
XII, Radio-message, 1941
John
XXIII, Mater et magistra, 1961
John
XXIII, Pacem in terris, 1963
Council Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 1965
Council Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 1965
Paul
VI, Populorum progressio, 1967
Paul
VI, Octogesima adveniens, 1971
Synod
of Bishops, Justitia in mundo, 1971
John-Paul
II, Redemptor hominis, 1979
John-Paul
II, Dives in misericordia, 1980
John-Paul
II, Laborem exercens, 1981
John-Paul
II, Message to International Work Conference, 1982
John-Paul
II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987
John-Paul
II, Centesimus annus, 1991
Benedict
XVI, Deus caritas est, 2005
Benedict
XVI, Caritas in veritate, 2009
25. Social Doctrine of the
Church (SDC)? It is not exactly a matter of a set of “texts”…although there are
indeed texts and documents—many. But let us not reduce the doctrine to a
“doctrine of texts”. The SDC is not a “norm” giving sort of activity of the
Church.
26. When we say “Social
Doctrine of the Church”, the emphasis is less on the documents and more on the acting agent. In other words, it is
about the Church acting in the social
world. The Good News that the Church is called to proclaim in the world also
must have a social force. So we need
to reflect on how the Church places her actions in society.
27. Compendium # 79 says: “The
social doctrine belongs to the Church because the Church is the subject that
formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it. It is …the expression of the way
that the Church understands society and of her position regarding social
structures and changes. The whole of the Church community — priests, religious
and laity — participates in the formulation of this social doctrine, each
according to the different tasks, charisms and ministries found within her”.
28. So the SDC is the work and
reflection of the whole Church—including us. We all contribute to the action of
the Church. Then comes the documents. The Compendium (#79) continues: “These
many and varied contributions…are taken up, interpreted and formed into a
unified whole by the Magisterium, which promulgates the social teaching as
Church doctrine”.
29. We have an idea here of a
Church that is trying her best to live in society and take into consideration
the web of many elements that contribute to social understanding and action.
30. How did this all start?
Well, the Churc has always been trying her best to be “social”. But the SDC is
said to have been “officialised” by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, the Rerum novarum. It is a sort of
“foundational” document. It was a fruit of reflections and struggles of many
Catholics at that time when Europe was in the hands of a growing
industrialization—and workers were so marginalized. Catholics gathered to see
what social action can be done to
help the workers. Reflections on love and justice were done by many who wanted
to propose models of understanding and action. The objective was to give a
social form to the Kingdom.
31. The assembly of Catholics
was full of tensions. There were different sides taken—and some were really
extreme radicals. They went to the Pope and asked him to say something.
32. Later the Pope authorized Cardinal
Langénieux, archbishop of Reims, to declare how the Rerum Novarum was fruit of
workers (many from France) coming to Rome and demanding clarification from the
Church.
33. We can appreciate what the
workers did—and we can appreciate what the SDC is. Through their interventions
with the Pope, they started a “framework” of thinking that would later become an encyclical. Once the
encyclical was published, many new reflections emerged in the Church—and from
many other sectors.
34. So the SDC is a mixture of
reflections, call for action, and documents, of course. They are all designed
for really making sense of the social struggles of the times. Pope John Paul II
wrote: “This teaching is seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people
involved in cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to
give it a concrete form and application in history (Centesimus annus # 59). He would also say that “it is a doctrine
aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a ‘commitment
to justice’, according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances (Sollicitudo rei socialis # 41).
35. The SDC is part of moral theology. It is not an
“ideological” set of teachings. As we know, moral theology is a reflection on
Christian life that is committed to the well-being of everyone. It is a
research on true action in the world.
36. So, the SDC may be a bunch
of documents, ok. But in the heart of it is a search for life—social life that
cooperates with the message of Christ and the Kingdom. It is a search for “what
should we do in society”. But it is a
should that wants to root itself in
Christ. The way we live and the way we bear witness to Christ in society is the
way that the SDC wants to promote. Again, Pope John Paul II has this to say: “The
Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately
from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and
consistency” (Centesimus annus # 57).
Social Doctrine of the Church: Introduction
The
common documents read in the Social Doctrine of the Church
Leo
XIII, Rerum novarum, 1891
Letter
to Mgr Liénart, 1929
Pius
XI, Quadragesimo anno, 1931
Pius
XI, Mit brennender Sorge, 1937
Pius
XI, Divini Redemptoris, 1937
Pius
XII, Radio-message, 1941
John
XXIII, Mater et magistra, 1961
John
XXIII, Pacem in terris, 1963
Council Vatican II, Gaudium et spes, 1965
Council Vatican II, Dignitatis humanae, 1965
Paul
VI, Populorum progressio, 1967
Paul
VI, Octogesima adveniens, 1971
Synod
of Bishops, Justitia in mundo, 1971
John-Paul
II, Redemptor hominis, 1979
John-Paul
II, Dives in misericordia, 1980
John-Paul
II, Laborem exercens, 1981
John-Paul
II, Message to International Work Conference, 1982
John-Paul
II, Sollicitudo rei socialis, 1987
John-Paul
II, Centesimus annus, 1991
Benedict
XVI, Deus caritas est, 2005
Benedict
XVI, Caritas in veritate, 2009
37. Social Doctrine of the
Church (SDC)? It is not exactly a matter of a set of “texts”…although there are
indeed texts and documents—many. But let us not reduce the doctrine to a
“doctrine of texts”. The SDC is not a “norm” giving sort of activity of the
Church.
38. When we say “Social
Doctrine of the Church”, the emphasis is less on the documents and more on the acting agent. In other words, it is
about the Church acting in the social
world. The Good News that the Church is called to proclaim in the world also
must have a social force. So we need
to reflect on how the Church places her actions in society.
39. Compendium # 79 says: “The
social doctrine belongs to the Church because the Church is the subject that
formulates it, disseminates it and teaches it. It is …the expression of the way
that the Church understands society and of her position regarding social
structures and changes. The whole of the Church community — priests, religious
and laity — participates in the formulation of this social doctrine, each
according to the different tasks, charisms and ministries found within her”.
40. So the SDC is the work and
reflection of the whole Church—including us. We all contribute to the action of
the Church. Then comes the documents. The Compendium (#79) continues: “These
many and varied contributions…are taken up, interpreted and formed into a
unified whole by the Magisterium, which promulgates the social teaching as
Church doctrine”.
41. We have an idea here of a
Church that is trying her best to live in society and take into consideration
the web of many elements that contribute to social understanding and action.
42. How did this all start?
Well, the Churc has always been trying her best to be “social”. But the SDC is
said to have been “officialised” by the encyclical of Pope Leo XIII, the Rerum novarum. It is a sort of
“foundational” document. It was a fruit of reflections and struggles of many
Catholics at that time when Europe was in the hands of a growing
industrialization—and workers were so marginalized. Catholics gathered to see
what social action can be done to
help the workers. Reflections on love and justice were done by many who wanted
to propose models of understanding and action. The objective was to give a
social form to the Kingdom.
43. The assembly of Catholics
was full of tensions. There were different sides taken—and some were really
extreme radicals. They went to the Pope and asked him to say something.
44. Later the Pope authorized Cardinal
Langénieux, archbishop of Reims, to declare how the Rerum Novarum was fruit of
workers (many from France) coming to Rome and demanding clarification from the
Church.
45. We can appreciate what the
workers did—and we can appreciate what the SDC is. Through their interventions
with the Pope, they started a “framework” of thinking that would later become an encyclical. Once the
encyclical was published, many new reflections emerged in the Church—and from
many other sectors.
46. So the SDC is a mixture of
reflections, call for action, and documents, of course. They are all designed
for really making sense of the social struggles of the times. Pope John Paul II
wrote: “This teaching is seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people
involved in cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to
give it a concrete form and application in history (Centesimus annus # 59). He would also say that “it is a doctrine
aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a ‘commitment
to justice’, according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances (Sollicitudo rei socialis # 41).
47. The SDC is part of moral theology. It is not an
“ideological” set of teachings. As we know, moral theology is a reflection on
Christian life that is committed to the well-being of everyone. It is a
research on true action in the world.
48. So, the SDC may be a bunch
of documents, ok. But in the heart of it is a search for life—social life that
cooperates with the message of Christ and the Kingdom. It is a search for “what
should we do in society”. But it is a
should that wants to root itself in
Christ. The way we live and the way we bear witness to Christ in society is the
way that the SDC wants to promote. Again, Pope John Paul II has this to say: “The
Church is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately
from the witness of actions than as a result of its internal logic and
consistency” (Centesimus annus # 57).
Social Doctrine: on Politics
Vatican II
1. A question we might think
of asking when it comes to the competence
of the Church. Does the Church step out of her “job” when she discusses
things like politics in society? Vatican II in its document Gaudium et spes, has this to say: “It is
only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should
have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to
exercise her role freely among men, and also to pass moral judgment in those
matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or
the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the
means—but only those—which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the
general good according to the diversity of times and circumstances” (Gaudium et spes# 76).
2. So the “fundamental rights
of the person” are concerns of the Church too—just as the “salvation of souls”
is also her concern. The concern of the Church however is not political but moral. The Church can talk of political matters but in the line of morality and not
politics.
3. What about politics itself?
What can the Church do here? Vatican II proposes Church teachings. In Gaudium
et spes there is a section on Political Life and GS 74, in that section,
clarifies the stand of the Church in politics.
4. For Vatican II a “political
community” is necessary. People living together may be powerless—they cannot
help themselves lead a common life with common good. People need politics.
People living together can have many views and opinions. This can be difficult
to manage. So a “public authority” is needed. Citizens obey this authority on
the condition that the authority is moral and does not oppress. So we see a
“political theology” of the Church here.
5. The stand of the Church may
be clear and understandable. But Gaudium
et spes goes a bit further. It talks of democracy and pluralism.
6. Democracy is an accepted political
regime. Pope Pius XII (in his radio-message of 1944) already mentioned the
importance of democracy is presented as the regime that conforms with the
Christian vision about the human and the social. The statements of the Council
are clear about this: “It is in full conformity with human nature that there
should be juridico-political structures providing all citizens in an ever
better fashion and without any discrimination the practical possibility of
freely and actively taking part in the establishment of the juridical
foundations of the political community and in the direction of public affairs,
in fixing the terms of reference of the various public bodies and in the
election of political leaders” GS#75). The Church rejects certain political
forms: “…those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to
be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers
through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from
the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of
the rulers themselves (GS#73).
7. Certain democratic
characteristics are accepted by the Church. Some examples are as follows:
8. There is, for example, the
free vote: “All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also
the duty to use their free vote to further the common good (GS#75).
9. There is the
political-juridical order: “The present keener sense of human dignity has given
rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical
order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public
life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right
to express one's own opinion and to profess one's religion both publicly and
privately. The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary
condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active
part in the life and government of the state (GS#73)
10. There is the protection of
minorities: “In the conscience of many arises an increasing concern that the
rights of minorities be recognized, without any neglect for their duties toward
the political community (GS#73)
11. There is role of political
parties with a duty: “Political parties, for their part, must promote those
things which in their judgment are required for the common good” (GS#75).
12. Pluralism
is another
element introduced by Vatican II. This is quite new. In Gaudium et spes, this pluralism is accepted. For example, it is
possible for citizens to hold different—plural—views: “…it happens rather
frequently, and legitimately so, that with equal sincerity some of the faithful
will disagree with others on a given matter” (GS#43).
13. Note the expression “with
equal sincerity”. It is an indication of openness to pluralism. Yet, at the
same time: “…it is necessary for people to remember that no one is allowed…to
appropriate the Church's authority for his opinion. They should always try to
enlighten one another through honest discussion, preserving mutual charity and
caring above all for the common good (GS#43). In other words, we are to be
careful that we do not dominate the Church and say that our opinion is the
total opinion of the Church.
14. But let us state something.
The position of Gaudium et spes looks
quite “mild”, however. Let us not forget that political authority does not just
discuss and survey; its job is also to impose.
The question of the use of power, including the duty to coerce, is
important too. So we might need to think also of the place of power.
15. Gaudium
et spes
tends to miss on certain political realities. It will be the task of later
Church reflections to complete further Gaudium et spes.
Pope Paul VI
16. Let us explore Octogesima adveniens of Pope Paul VI.
Paul VI, here, tries to address political questions that the Vatican II left
open. The Pope agrees that there is the need to be concerned with the “common
good” of people. But this may still be too abstract. The Pope proposes a “social project” that can guide social
action. But before even trying out a social project, there is need to be
careful of certain political stands—stands that were strong during that time.
These stands were Marxism and liberalism. The Pope had to criticize them first (see
OA#26).
17. Paul VI reminds us that
politics is necessary to have a certain control over economics (see OA# 46). Economic
activity can contribute to the common good of people if it is regulated and
controlled. The control is the work of politics.
18. The problem with big
companies, says the pope, is that they have strategies that make them
independent of politics and therefore outside the control of politics. But
politics is an important engagement or involvement of the Christian (see OA#48-49).
Pope John Paul II
19. What about Pope John Paul
II? He wrote an encyclical called Centesimus
annus. The pope insists on
non-violence. He insists on human rights and peace.
20. He analyses modern world.
He insists that economics must be under morality so that common good becomes
real. The State is designed for making sure that common good is realized.
21. In a way, the pope also
appreciates democracy. “The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it
ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees
to the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable those
who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means when appropriate”
(CA#47).
22. Lay people, according to
the pope, have a political duty. “The lay faithful are never to relinquish
their participation in ‘public life’, that is, in the many different economic,
social, legislative, administrative and cultural areas, which are intended to
promote organically and institutionally the common good. The Synod Fathers have
repeatedly affirmed that every person has a right and duty to participate in
public life, albeit in a diversity and complementarity of forms, levels, tasks
and responsibilities. Charges of careerism, idolatry of power, egoism and
corruption that are oftentimes directed at persons in government, parliaments,
the ruling classes, or political parties, as well as the common opinion that
participating in politics is an absolute moral danger, does not in the least
justify either skepticism or an absence on the part of Christians in public
life” (Christifideles laici#42). Notice how radical the pope
can get.
Pope Benedict XVI
23. Let us check out Pope
Benedict XVI. His idea of politics is much linked with justice.
24. We see this in his
encyclical Deus caritas est (#26-29).
The pope here brings in new approaches regarding the place of the Church in
politics. Sure, love and charity do not oppose each other. Yet it is necessary
to be clear as roles. But the Pope adds that justice is the work of politics while love is the work of the Church.
25. Is the pope trying to say
that the Church should not get into politics? No. He sees love also as “social
charity”. The Church should not take a distance from the struggle for justice.
This struggle will require politics. All persons of good will struggle for
justice. What about charity and love? Charity is the message of the gospel. It
inspires Christians to serve. Part of this service is to mobilize. In other
words it is to do justice. The Church is also interested in a just society…but this is realized by politics.
26. There are four important
aspects to this participation of the Church:
a.
The
Church proposes her social doctrine. Social doctrine helps society define its
goals and its objectives.
b.
The
Church calls Christians to faith that will purify
reason. Reason can, at times, be
confused. It can be used for the interests of those in power. So faith is
necessary to meet with reason. Faith presupposes a contact with God and with
revelation. This can free reason from its confusion. Faith helps to keep the
mind clear.
c.
The
Church serves to protect society from “ideologies”. Ideology, we saw in a
previous semester, is a tool used by elites to maintain their status. Ideology,
in a way, replaces the thinking of God. It says that it has “all the
solutions”. The danger is somehow faced by the Church.
d.
The
Church forms the conscience of the people. The Church is not competent to say
what society should do but she is competent is forming the conscience. The
Church can open minds and hearts; she can open spiritual forces that can face
the different political struggles. People need to act and decide in terms of
true justice even if this is against their own personal interests. Here is
where the Church can help—open minds to this.
27. Recently, in 2009, the pope
issued his encyclical Caritas in veritate.
He again introduced something new which is the institutional way of charity. The Christian can love others in the
simple daily life way, but also in participating in political life. The charity
of the Christian can also be social and institutional. So the pope says: “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 polis”
(CV#7). [“Polis” means, in the old Greek times, “city-state”. Let us say here
that “polis” could mean the political life.]
Conclusion
28. Politics has the aim of the
good of everyone. So social energies must be oriented to this. This means
respect for each other—respect for dignity. It means controlling economics so
it will not go crazy. It means making sure just leaders are in place. It means
protection of human rights. Etc. Politics serves society.
29. In a way, even if our essay
is so short, we have an idea of what the Church stand is. She has a “doctrine”
to propose for us in front of political choices. Let us then see how we can be
guided especially in delicate areas like imposition and coercion (a job of politics
too).How can we be guided in decisions and conflicts? Hopefully the Social
Doctrine of the Church can help.
Social Doctrine of the Church: Theme on “The ‘State ruled by the Law’”
1.
The expression “state ruled by the law” is striking and it can be quite new.
Let us look at from the view
of the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (issued in 2005). The
first time we read
it in the text is in chapter 8: “In a State ruled by law the power to inflict
punishment is correctly entrusted
to the Courts” (Com.#402). Notice the importance given to the “courts”—or the
judiciary branch
of the government. The “state ruled by the law” has something to do with the
constitutions and
other laws of the country. It implies the independence of the judiciary.
2.
The document mentions the idea of democracy. The Compendium cites the
encyclical of Pope John
Paul II—the Centesimus annus: “The Encyclical Centesimus Annus contains an
explicit and articulate
judgment with regard to democracy: ‘The Church values the democratic system
inasmuch as
it ensures the participation of citizens in making political choices,
guarantees to the governed the
possibility both of electing and holding accountable those who govern them, and
of replacing them
through peaceful means when appropriate. Thus she cannot encourage the
formation of narrow
ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual interests or
for ideological ends.
Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on the basis
of a correct conception
of the human person…..’” (Com.#406).
3.
Notice in this citation that the “state ruled by the law” is linked with a
“correct conception of the human
person”. Democracy is true and authentic in these two cases. Democracy does not
work where
there are “narrow ruling groups” functioning for their own interests and ideas.
The “correct conception
of the human person” is opposite to the private interests of narrow groups. The
“state ruled
by law” is opposed to control of power by narrow groups. So “state ruled by
law” means taking
care of the interests of everyone.
4.
Again we see the term “state ruled by law” in another citation. It also
mentions Centesimus annus:
“The Magisterium recognizes the validity of the principle concerning the
division of powers in
a State: “it is preferable that each power be balanced by other powers and by
other spheres of
responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the principle of the
‘rule of law', in which
the law is sovereign, and not the arbitrary will of individuals” (Com.#408).
Here we notice that
powers are given their limits. What the encyclical emphasizes is the separation
of powers (executive,
legislative and judiciary). One power must be balanced by the other. It is
interesting to note
that the document mentions also the “other spheres of responsibility”. In other
words, there is
not just the presence of the three branches, there is also the presence of many
other areas—like opinions
of jurists, teachings of moral authorities, etc. In a government and in a
society, it is wrong to
have arbitrary wills and decisions. Everyone must still “toe the line” of the
law. The law, says the
document,
is sovereign.
5.
We can still see the expression “state ruled by law” in another section of the
document: “Because of its
historical and cultural ties to a nation, a religious community might be given
special recognition on
the part of the State. Such recognition must in no way create discrimination
within the civil or social
order for other religious groups. The vision of the relations between States
and religious organizations
promoted by the Second Vatican Council corresponds to the requirements of a State
ruled by law and to the norms of international law” (Com#423). Here we see the
recognition given
to a religious community or group. This does not mean that discrimination will
be created— like
favoring a group over another. It is in international law already that
religious liberty should be
respected. The “state rule of law” prohibits cutting this freedom. Notice then
the defense for everyone
in any religion provided by “the state ruled by law”.
6.
Let us take one more part of the document mentioning “state ruled by law”. The
document
mentions
the right to defend against terrorism. “However, this right cannot be exercised
in the absence
of moral and legal norms, because the struggle against terrorists must be
carried out with respect
for human rights and for the principles of a State ruled by law (Com#514). What
we see here is
that the “state ruled by law” is always connected with human rights. Those in
power should not just
do what they want, they have to consider moral rules.
7.
With what we see what can we say about “state ruled by law”? A central idea is
that there is a limit to
power. Power does not just act arbitrarily. For example, in punishing criminals
or in combatting terrorists,
consideration must be given to legal principles and human rights. In
recognizing religion, there
should be no favoritism. Power does not exercise all powers. A limit must be
assigned to power.
Power does not have in itself all the reasons of its actions. There is limit
that must impose: the
good of everyone and the right of each member. None in society must be
submitted to the tyranny
of the arbitrary.
8.
This, in a way, is not just a Church assumption. We know that power has to be
limited—and we do not
need the Church to remind us of this. Our countries have constitutions, the
different branches of government,
legal rules on crime and penalties, the independence of courts, the sovereignty
of the law,
international agreements, human rights, moral principles, etc.
9.
Look at our constitutions. They tell us how powers are to be used. The three
powers are defined— executive,
legislative and judiciary. The executive decides while respecting the
regulations issued by the
legislative. The courts are given the independence to make decisions on
litigations. None of the three
is the absolute source of the law. All of them have to “toe the line” of the
law.
10.
In fact, as we look at the constitutions of our countries, we see them
emphasizing certain rights of
citizens that public servants must respect. These rights are protected by the
constitutions. What
does this tell us? It tells us that power must be guided and limited. Power is
not absolute. This
is how we can understand “state ruled by law”. The whole government with its
branches of governance
must “toe the line” of the law. The state is ruled by the law.
11.
So the Social doctrine of the Church is really in line with the whole idea of
“state ruled by law”. Yet, there
is something “ecclesial” in the stand of the Church. It is not enough to say
that people have rights
and that they should be protected from the tyranny of the arbitrary. The Church
also looks at
“the Word”. This is clear. The Church has a particular stand on the
relationship between power and
rights of people. Let us see what this is.
12.
Ok, so we say that the essence of governance is to place power under limits.
There are rules and norms
that tell power how far it should go. But the norms and rules are themselves
derived from a
certain power. Let us say that a group of persons write the constitutions and
in the constitutions there
are limits given to power. But what about the people who write the
constitutions? What norms
do they obey?
13.
In a society there are powers that limit powers. There are powers that say how
far rules will go. But these
“higher” powers—from where do they get their own powers? If our constitutions
tell us the limits
of powers, from where do the constitutions get their power to say this?
14.
If we look closely, we are in difficulties here. Will we rely on “international
laws”? But this begs the question
too: from where will international laws get their power.
15.
What is the basis of all powers?
16.
There is a deeper problem here. When we look at a law, it obeys a higher law.
Laws of the country, for
example, must refer themselves to the constitutions. If the city council says
“put Mr. X to jail”, the
constitutions will still have to say whether the decision is correct or not—and
whether the rights
of the accused are respected. The constitutions are higher than the other laws
of the land. A
rule justifies itself through a higher law. (If this looks abstract, just think
of the computer. The software
has “commands” inside. But the commands come from the authors of the software.
So the
commands of who made the programs for the software are “higher” than the
commands in the software.)
17.
In our countries, normally the courts are given the work of checking if the
laws we make
are
“constitutional”. If the lawmakers, for example, prohibit certain cyber
posting, the courts have the
work of checking if the prohibition is constitutional or not. The constitutions
are “higher”.
18.
If a country makes rules regarding trade and commerce in export-import,
international laws have to be
considered too. A country does not just make its own regulations on trade
without verifying if the regulations
conform to international agreements.
19.
So what is the “highest” power to say that the laws we make are just or unjust?
What is the highest power
that can define the limits of all powers? Surely constitutions have to obey
something higher. Surely
international laws have to obey something higher.
20.
Now, let us look at the word “vows”. People in consecrated life do “vows”. The
religious brother or sister
makes an “oath” witnessed by God. Well, even in secular life, we see people
making “vows”. In court
a witness is asked to make an oath.
21.
In fact, we do see our leaders—in all branches of the government—make oaths. It
is through the
“vows” and “oaths” that persons agree to respect the laws—especially the higher
laws. When a person
makes a vow or an oath, the person is obliged to be true to his/her word. The
respect given to
the vow or oath is crucial—respect for the constitutions, for example, depend
on the respect in the
oaths. This is important: being true to one’s word. Within each and every
member of society is the
“requirement” to respect the word. And this is not something that is derived
from another law. There
is not law telling us to be honest and faithful with our word.
22.
In us—humans—is a norm or a rule or a law that serves as foundation for social
order. This may not even
be written and formulated officially. But it is here, present. The heart of the
“state ruled by law”
is actually here—it is in the conscience of everyone.
23.
Well, we can say this easily. But can we agree? In philosophy there are
those—let us call them
“positivists”. “Positivists” say that power is simply “formal”. So a “state
ruled by law” is just a formal
statement. Positivists would simply accept that a law or rule makes sense only
in reference to a
higher law. Positivists prefer to say that laws simply have a hierarchy. A
government must simply respect
the hierarchy. It is useless to say “state ruled by law” because a state is
defined by norms, laws
and rules. Do not say that a state should be ruled by law because a state is,
by nature, already ruled
by law. Do not waste words. For the positivist, there should be no “morality”
or “ethics”tha t
say what is ultimate power. In a state, laws just have to adjust in
hierarchy—one law links to another
law. This is enough. There is no need to look for the “highest”. So stop
worrying about “the highest”.
24.
So, if we follow this line, it is enough that a country has constitutions. Ok,
but what if there are conflicts
with other countries—one set of constitutions do not agree with another set. So
the positivist
will say: look at international law. In the summit is a kind of international
agreement among
all countries.
25.
Yet, can we really be satisfied with this? Do we just seek for what is
effectively global.
26.
There are philosophers—let us call them the “naturalists”—who say that the
human has a rational nature
which is ultimate. Power takes its ultimate right to exercise itself from the
human capacity to reason.
This avoids regression proposed by the positivists.
27.
In modern philosophy there is this idea of the “subject”. The human is a
“subject”, source of thinking and
deciding and values. So each and every human is not “better” than others. Each
one is “subject” and
can think and decide for oneself. So a “state ruled by law” is a state that
makes sure that everyone
is respected as “subject” and that nobody is discriminated. This looks ok. The
Church is more
inclined to follow this. But the Church still has something more to say.
28.
When power recognizes the equal liberty of each member of society, the Church
agrees. Power is not
meant to stay as power. Power is for the sake of people. Power should recognize
that it has its limits—that
it will have to stop somewhere. Power applied must always give in to power in
law. In other
words, if power is to be applied to people, it must always consider people as
“subjects” (and not
“objects”). The law demands respect of dignity. So applying power must stop if
it is against the respect
of people as “subjects”.
29.
The Church is happy about this. But do not forget the “vow” or “oath”. There is
always the risk of the
tyranny of the arbitrary. At any given moment, leaders can go arbitrary and
snap into doing what
they want in any way they want. They will justify themselves and their regimes.
There is always the
need for “vows” or “oaths”.
30.
The law is not just “talk”. A “state ruled by law” is not just following
discourses. The state must go as
far as accept what is inherent in the human person. The Church is not satisfied
with simply saying that
the human is “subject” and can think and decide for oneself. There is still the
fact that the human
is Image of God. A state can make its decisions and apply its laws—but never in
contradiction with
the human as image of God. If the leaders of a country reject this fact, the
Church will have to
denounce the injustice. In other words, the state has no right. It is not a
“state ruled by laws” as envisioned
by the Church.
31.
Of course, this can be “corny” for some leaders. But the Church has to be prophetic
too.
Social Doctrine on the theme of Liberalism
1. The Church does not—and cannot—deny
the reality of what is “liberal”. Well, there is something
positive in being “liberal”—like in
the case of “liberal democracy” where human rights are
respected. Be liberal with human
rights; do not suppress them. But there is a form of being
liberal that can go extreme—this is
liberalism (note the “ism”).
2. Liberal-ism is historical—it arose at a certain moment of history. It is
also ideological—that is, it is
an instrument to mold minds.
Liberalism stands on the idea that the individual must be free and
autonomous. What comes as a possible
problem here is in the link between our idea of human
being as liberal and free and our idea
of social justice.
3. Pope Paul VI, in his Octegisima adveniens (1971) says that
the Christian cannot accept the
ideology of violence and control of
people. But, he says, the Christian also “…cannot adhere
to…liberal ideology which believes it
exalts individual freedom…” (# 26). Why, what is wrong with
liberalism—or “liberal ideology” as
the Pope terms it? Liberalism does not want to limit individual
autonomy. Liberalism allows for the
unlimited seeking of interest and power. If people want to be
together as communities and as groups,
it is ok…but if not, it is ok too. There is no obligation to be
socially concerned. To live as a
social group with community values is not part of the aim of liberalism.
At the heart of liberalism is “an
erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his
activity, his motivation and the
exercise of his liberty” (# 35).
4. Has the Church been anti-liberal?
No, not really. Pope Leo XIII in his Rerum
Novarum of 1885 has tried to go anti-liberal by saying that liberty still
has to be under the authority of truth coming from God through the Church. Of
course we still recognize the role of government and the democratic
institutions. Power can be “tempered” and regulated. But there is still the
need to recognize limits on the human and the place of God. The Pope was still
raw in his thinking, but he surely started a new way of thinking in the Church.
(Surely we remember what we have studied in Genesis 2/16-17: “you may…but”. We
remember too what we studied in Pentateuch when we discussed Genesis 1 and the idea
of “mastering mastery”). So the Pope was against the possible abuse of being
liberal.
5. Pope Pius XI, in his Quadragesimo anno of 1931, was “liberalist” in his way. But he had a serious
concern for religious liberty. He
wrote about the liberal separation between politics and religion.
This was going to influence the
Vatican II council that would reclaim religious liberty. Neither Pope
Pius XI nor Vatican II was in
“liberalism”. They just had their sense of what is “liberal”.
6. In liberalism (always note the “ism”) there is an idea of “freedom of
conscience”. Anyone, says
liberalism, is free to follow his/her
conscience. Fine. But the Church would emphasize that freedom
of conscience is still bound to the truth incarnated by Christ and
communicated by the Church. This was very clear with Pope John Paul II in
his encyclical on moral theology, the Veritatis
splendor
of 1993. The Pope was clearly opposed
to liberalism and was cautious about the link between conscience and authority:
“Certain currents of modern thought have gone so far as to exalt freedom
to such an extent that it becomes an
absolute….The individual conscience is accorded the status
of a supreme tribunal of moral
judgment which hands down categorical and infallible decisions
about good and evil. To the
affirmation that one has a duty to follow one's conscience is unduly
added the affirmation that one's moral
judgment is true merely by the fact that it has its origin
in the conscience. But in this way the
inescapable claims of truth disappear, yielding their place
to a criterion of sincerity,
authenticity and ‘being at peace with oneself’, so much so that some
have come to adopt a radically
subjectivistic conception of moral judgment” (#32). So the problem
with “freedom of conscience” in
liberalism is precisely in relying exclusively on what we think and
feel…not on truth.
7. Liberalism tends to consider the
individual as prior to social relationships. The individual has primacy
over the social and communal. So
liberalism would say that human rights have existed before social
reality—the individual already had
rights and society cannot remove that.
8. The Church could not completely agree. The human being,
for the Church, is relational. Always,
the human being is in relationship
with others and with God. This is a basic truth about the human
being. Pope John Paul II, still in Veritatis splendor, would insist on this: “This truth is indicated by
the ‘divine law’, the universal and
objective norm of morality. The judgment of conscience does
not establish the law; rather it bears
witness to the authority of the natural law and of the practical
reason with reference to the supreme
good, whose attractiveness the human person perceives and
whose commandments he accepts” (#60).
9. Let us cite one more passage from
Pope John Paul II: “In any event, it is always from the truth
that the dignity of conscience
derives. In the case of the correct conscience, it is a question of the
objective truth received by man; in
the case of the erroneous conscience, it is a question of what
man, mistakenly, subjectively
considers to be true. It is never acceptable to confuse a ‘subjective’
error about moral good with the
‘objective’ truth rationally proposed to man in virtue of his end, or
to make the moral value of an act
performed with a true and correct conscience equivalent to the
moral value of an act performed by
following the judgment of an erroneous conscience. It is possible
that the evil done as the result of
invincible ignorance or a non-culpable error of judgment may not
be imputable to the agent; but even in
this case it does not cease to be an evil, a disorder in relation
to the truth about the good (# 63).
What does all this have to do with the
“Social”?
10. Let us take a closer look at the
way liberalism functions in business—in the market and in capitalism
in general.
11. Pope Leo XIII, as far back as
1891, was very wary of the individualism ingrained in liberalism. The Pope was
worried about the loss of “work organizations”. More and more workers were
forced to fall in situation of being simple individual workers. In the growing
industrialization and discoveries of science, changes have been happening
affecting the support systems of workers. Governments must “safeguard the community
and all its members” (# 35) precisely because people have been reduced to
individuals
and separated from each other. People
have been separated by class—and the classes have become
antagonistic of each other. So the
Pope calls for association of workers—and he thinks is ok
to group workers together (see # 40).
But do not forget, says the Pope, that associations keep a
religious feature: “From this follows
the obligation of the cessation from work and labor on Sundays
and certain holy days. The rest from
labor is not to be understood as mere giving way to idleness;
much less must it be an occasion for
spending money and for vicious indulgence, as many would
have it to be; but it should be rest
from labor, hallowed by religion” (#41).
12. This was quite original already at
that time (in which many Catholics were still anti-modern). It was a
move to reform society.
13. The Church, however, would not go
to the extreme of condemning all of capitalism—and in
particular private ownership and wage
earning (or living for money). We will discuss this later in other themes.
14. But the Church is keeping a
critical eye on the social effects of capital liberalism. The Church still
requires discernment from us. One issue is competition.
This is certainly part of liberalism in economics. Production is so marked by
competition. The other issue is the market system that is ruled by individual
preferences. In other words, we have a
market that really does not care so much about how people
are affected—just buy and sell
whatever and make money. What I want to do in the market is my
business—and if it affects others,
harms them, “so what”…this is the way business is.
15. Already Pope Leo XIII in his Rerum Novarum was already critical. Pope
John Paul II recently made
his point. It seems, says the Pope,
that “the free market is the most efficient instrument for
utilizing resources and effectively
responding to needs. But this is true only for those needs which
are "solvent", insofar as
they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which
are "marketable", insofar as
they are capable of obtaining a satisfactory price. But there are many
human needs which find no place on the
market” (Centesimus annus # 34).
Well, today Pope
Benedict XVI in his encyclical Caritas in veritate (2009) is critical.
He says that “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” (# 35). Money, making profit and
making money are not absolute values.
As Pope John Paul says, we have needs that go beyond the
market.
16. Just think about what the Popes
are trying to say. Today everything is caught in the market—
everything practically has a price.
Everything is for selling and buying. The effects can be so harmful.
So consider the case of famine in the
world—it is a result of market speculation. Prices and food
supply are made to move in the
market—they move to make money. Self-interest in making money
and profit has been harming so many
people. Pope Benedict XVI would say that this liberalism
practice negates the human person. The
Pope calls for profit making but in view of a more humane
market and society. The principle of
the centrality of the human person must be preserved, he says,
because this centrality is “the
subject primarily responsible for development” (Caritas in veritate
#47).
17. Liberalism does not like to have
so much government intervention in the market. The less
government intervention, the better,
says liberalism. This is dangerous. Precisely when the market is
so deregulated, it can go wild and it
can destroy lives. This is why Pope Benedict XVI would not want
to separate economics from politics
(or government intervention): “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” (# 36).
Continuing Liberalism
Tyranny of Money
“…certain concepts have somehow arisen out of
these new conditions and insinuated themselves into the fabric of human
society. These concepts present profit
as the chief spur to economic progress, free competition as the guiding norm of
economics, and private ownership of the means of production as an absolute
right, having no limits nor concomitant social obligations. This unbridled
liberalism paves the way for a particular type of tyranny… it results in the ‘international
imperialism of money’. (But) economics is supposed to be in the service of
man. “…hardships, unjust practices, and fratricidal conflicts that persist to
this day… derive from the pernicious economic concepts that grew up along with
it”. Populorum Progresio Paul VI #26.
The suppression of
the right of economic initiative
“However, the picture just given would be
incomplete if one failed to add to the "economic and social indices"
of underdevelopment other indices which are equally negative and indeed even
more disturbing, beginning with the cultural level. These are illiteracy, the
difficulty or impossibility of obtaining higher education, the inability to
share in the building of one's own nation, the various forms of exploitation
and of economic, social, political and even religious oppression of the
individual and his or her rights, discrimination of every type, especially the
exceptionally odious form based on difference of race. …It should be noted that
in today's world, among other rights, the right
of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is
important not only for the individual but also for the common good. Experience
shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in the name of an
alleged "equality" of everyone in society, diminishes, or in practice
absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say the creative
subjectivity of the citizen. …. We should add here that in today's world there
are many other forms of poverty. In brief, modern underdevelopment is not only
economic but also cultural, political and simply human, as was indicated twenty
years ago by the Encyclical Populorum Progressio. Hence at this point we
have to ask ourselves if the sad reality of today might not be, at least in
part, the result of a too narrow idea of development, that is, a mainly
economic one. (Sollicitudo rei socialis
JPII #15)
Add to liberalism is
consumerism: Not only is there imbalance, people are made to consume
To call for an existence which is
qualitatively more satisfying is of itself legitimate, but one cannot fail to
draw attention to the new responsibilities and dangers connected with this
phase of history. The manner in which new needs arise and are defined is always
marked by a more or less appropriate concept of man and of his true good. A
given culture reveals its overall understanding of life through the choices it
makes in production and consumption. It is here that the phenomenon of consumerism
arises. In singling out new needs and new means to meet them, one must be
guided by a comprehensive picture of man which respects all the dimensions of
his being and which subordinates his material and instinctive dimensions to his
interior and spiritual ones. If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to
his instincts — while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as
intelligent and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can
be created which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical
and spiritual health. Of itself, an
economic system does not possess criteria for correctly distinguishing new and
higher forms of satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder
the formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational
and cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers
in the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a strong
sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the mass media in particular, as well as
the necessary intervention by public authorities. (Centesimus Annus JPII #
36)
When does the State enter into economic activities?
Let us see from Pope
Paul VI:
Individual initiative alone and the mere free
play of competition could never assure successful development. One must avoid
the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the dominion of
the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and adding to the servitude
of the oppressed. Hence programs are necessary in order to encourage,
stimulate, coordinate, supplement and integrate (MM, n. 44) the activity of
individuals and of intermediary bodies. It pertains to the public authorities to choose, even to lay down the
objectives to be pursued, the ends to be achieved, and the means for attaining
these, and it is for them to stimulate
all the forces engaged in this common activity. (Populorum Progressio , n. 33)
…it is within the power of public authorities
to reduce imbalances, whether these be between various sectors of economic
life, or between different regions of the same nation, or even between
different peoples of the world as a whole. (Mater et Magistra, n. 54)
It is necessary that public authorities take
active interest, the better to increase
output of goods and to further
social progress for the benefit of all citizens. (Mater et Magistra, nn. 51
53)
Here is from Pope
JPII:
The State has a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which
will ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they are
lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis. The State has the further
right to intervene when particular monopolies create delays or
obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of harmonizing and
guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the State can also exercise a
substitute function, when social
sectors or business systems are too weak or are just getting underway, and are
not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions … must be as
brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and
business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to avoid
enlarging excessively the sphere of state intervention to the detriment of both
economic and civil freedom.
(Centesimus Annus, n. 48)
(Centesimus Annus, n. 48)
It is right to speak of a struggle against an
economic system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the
absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of production and
of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature of human work (cf.
Laborem Exercens, n. 7). In the struggle against such a system, what is being
proposed as an alternative is … a society of free work, of enterprise and of
participation. Such a society is not directed against the market, but demands
that the market be appropriately
controlled by the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that
the basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied. (Centesimus Annus,
n. 35)
It is the task of the State to provide for the defense and preservation of
common goods such as the natural and human environments, which cannot be
safeguarded simply by market forces. The State and all of society have the
duty of defending those collective
goods which, among others, constitute the essential frame work for the
legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of each individual. (Centesimus
Annus, n. 40)
These general observations also apply to the
role of the State in the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the
activity of a market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional,
juridical or political vacuum. …Hence the principal task of the State is to guarantee this security, so that those
who work and produce can enjoy the fruits of their labors and thus feel
encouraged to work efficiently and honestly. (Centesimus Annus, n. 48)
ETHICS
IN INTERNET
PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR SOCIAL COMMUNICATIONS
5.
…the new information technology and the Internet: This technology can be a
means for solving human problems, promoting the integral development of
persons, creating a world governed by justice and peace and love. …media have
the ability to make every person everywhere “a partner in the business of the
human race”.
6.
The spread of the Internet also raises a number of other ethical questions
about matters like privacy, the security and confidentiality of data, copyright
and intellectual property law, pornography, hate sites,
the dissemination of rumor and character assassination under the guise
of news, and much else. … Fundamentally, though, we do not view the Internet
only as a source of problems; we see it as a source of benefits to the human
race. But the benefits can be fully realized only if the problems are solved.
7.
The Internet … egalitarian, in the sense that anyone with the necessary
equipment and modest technical skill can be an active presence in cyberspace,
declare his or her message to the world, and demand a hearing. It allows
individuals to indulge in anonymity, role-playing, and fantasizing and also to
enter into community with others and engage in sharing. … It can be used to
break down the isolation of individuals and groups or to deepen it.
8.
(But)… An exaggerated individualism regarding the Internet thus emerged. … the
only community whose rights and interests would be truly recognized in
cyberspace was the community of radical
libertarians.
(There
are) those who want the Internet to be a
place for very nearly every kind of expression, no matter how vile and
destructive, and those who want it to be a
vehicle of untrammeled commercial activity on a neo-liberal model that
“considers profit and the law of the
market as its only parameters, to the detriment of the dignity of and the
respect due to individuals and peoples”.
9.
… When based upon shared values rooted in the nature of the person, the
intercultural dialogue made possible by the Internet and other media of social
communication can be “a privileged means for building the civilization of
love”.
But
that is not the whole story. “Paradoxically, the very forces which can lead to
better communication can also lead to increasing self-centeredness and
alienation”. The Internet can unite
people, but it also can divide them, both as individuals and as mutually
suspicious groups separated by ideology, politics, possessions, race and
ethnicity, intergenerational differences, and even religion. Already it has
been used in aggressive ways, almost as a weapon of war, and people speak of
the danger of ‘cyber-terrorism.' ….
10.
One of the most important (concerns) involves what today is called the digital divide—a form of discrimination
dividing the rich from the poor, both within and among nations, on the basis of
access, or lack of access, to the new information technology. In this sense it
is an updated version of an older gap between the ‘information rich' and ‘information
poor'.
The
expression ‘digital divide' underlines the fact that individuals, groups, and
nations must have access to the new technology in order to share in the
promised benefits of globalization and development and not fall further behind.
It is imperative “that the gap between the beneficiaries of the new means of
information and expression and those who do not have access to them...not
become another intractable source of inequity and discrimination”. Ways need to
be found to make the Internet accessible to less advantaged groups, either
directly or at least by linking it with lower-cost traditional media.
Cyberspace ought to be a resource of comprehensive information and services
available without charge to all, and in a wide range of languages. Public
institutions have a particular responsibility to establish and maintain sites
of this kind.
As
the new global economy takes shape, the Church is concerned “that the winner in
this process will be humanity as a whole” and not just “a wealthy elite that
controls science, technology and the planet's resources”; this is to say that
the Church desires “a globalization which will be at the service of the whole
person and of all people”.…
11.
… the new information technology and the Internet transmit and help instill a set of cultural values—ways
of thinking about social relationships, family, religion, the human condition—whose novelty and glamour can challenge and
overwhelm traditional cultures.
…
Cultures have much to learn from one another, and merely imposing the world
view, values, and even language of one culture upon another is not dialogue but
cultural imperialism.
…the
Internet, along with the other media of social communication, is transmitting
the value-laden message of Western secular culture to people and societies in
many cases ill-prepared to evaluate and cope with it. Many serious problems
result—for example, in regard to marriage and family life, which are
experiencing “a radical and widespread crisis” in many parts of the world. ….
12.
The question of freedom of expression on the Internet is similarly complex and
gives rise to another set of concerns.
We
strongly support freedom of expression
and the free exchange of ideas. Freedom to seek and know the truth is a
fundamental human right, and freedom of expression is a cornerstone of
democracy. … (P)ublic opinion, “an essential expression of human nature
organized in society,” absolutely requires “freedom to express ideas and
attitudes”.
In
light of these requirements of the common good, we deplore attempts by public
authorities to block access to information—on the Internet or in other media of
social communication—because they find it threatening or embarrassing to them,
to manipulate the public by propaganda and disinformation, or to impede
legitimate freedom of expression and opinion. Authoritarian regimes are by far the worst offenders in this
regard; but the problem also exists in liberal
democracies, where access to media
for political expression often depends on wealth, and politicians and their
advisors violate truthfulness and fairness by misrepresenting opponents and
shrinking issues to sound-bite dimensions.
13.
….The Internet is a highly effective instrument for bringing news and information
rapidly to people. But the economic competitiveness and round-the-clock nature
of Internet journalism also contribute to sensationalism
and rumor-mongering, to a merging of
news, advertising, and entertainment, and to an apparent decline in serious reporting
and commentary. Honest journalism is essential to the common good of
nations and the international community. Problems now visible in the practice
of journalism on the Internet call for speedy correcting by journalists
themselves.
The
sheer overwhelming quantity of
information on the Internet, much of it unevaluated as to accuracy and
relevance, is a problem for many.
14.
Standing alongside issues that have to do with freedom of expression, the
integrity and accuracy of news, and the sharing of ideas and information, is
another set of concerns generated by libertarianism.
The ideology of radical libertarianism
is both mistaken and harmful—not least, to legitimate free expression in the
service of truth. The error lies in exalting
freedom “to such an extent that it becomes an absolute, which would then be the
source of values....In this way the inescapable claims of truth disappear,
yielding their place to a criterion of sincerity, authenticity and ‘being at
peace with oneself”'. There is no room for authentic community, the common
good, and solidarity in this way of thinking.
15.
… the ethical question: “Are the media being used for good or evil?”
…All
users of the Internet are obliged to use it in an informed, disciplined way, for morally good purposes; parents
should guide and supervise children's use. Schools and other educational
institutions and programs for children and adults should provide training in discerning use of the Internet as part of a
comprehensive media education including not just training in technical
skills—‘computer literacy' and the like—but a capacity for informed, discerning
evaluation of content.
16.
Prior censorship by government should be avoided; “censorship...should only be
used in the very last extremity”. But the
Internet is no more exempt than other media from reasonable laws against hate
speech, libel, fraud, child pornography and pornography in general, and other
offenses. Criminal behavior in other contexts is criminal behavior in
cyberspace, and the civil authorities have a duty and a right to enforce such
laws. New regulations also may be needed to deal with special ‘Internet' crimes
like the dissemination of computer viruses, the theft of personal data stored
on hard disks, and the like.
Regulation
of the Internet is desirable, and in
principle industry self-regulation is best: “more regulation according to
criteria of public service and in greater public accountability”.
18.
… the Catholic Church, along with other religious bodies, should have a visible, active presence on the Internet
and be a partner in the public dialogue
about its development. “The Church does not presume to dictate these
decisions and choices, but it does seek to be of help by indicating ethical and moral criteria which are relevant to the
process—criteria which are to be found in both human and Christian values”.
…Like
today's world itself, the world of media, including the Internet, has been brought by Christ, …within the
boundaries of the kingdom of God and placed in service to the word of
salvation. Yet “far from diminishing our concern to develop this earth, the
expectancy of a new earth should spur us on, for it is here that the body of a
new human family grows, foreshadowing in some way the age which is to come”.
Doing Business? Theme on Capitalist Enterprise
1. There was a point when
communism was very strong and it was an alternative to capitalism. To enter
into the question of “doing business”, maybe we can first view what the Church
would say about communism—even if communism is, today, not so followed.
2. In 1987, the encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis emphasized that
a system of economics or politics must be evaluated according to human dignity
and human development: “…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” (#21).
3. There is always the concern
for justice, charity, liberty… Does a system—be it communist/collectivist or
capitalist—really offer these? Maybe today the system of communism is
practically absent. None of our countries are “communist” … not anyone in this
class, at least. But the way the Church puts it is helpful: is the system,
whatever it is, really in favor of the human person?
4. Let us look at capitalism
which is dominant today. It is a system based on business—and we know that
business is a matter of making money…and lots of money. What does it mean to
have business? What is an “enterprise”?
5. Pope John XXIII wrote, in
his Mater et magistra (1961), that an
enterprise is a human community:
“Every effort must be made to ensure that the enterprise is indeed a true human
community, concerned about the needs, the activities and the standing of each
of its members” (#91). Pope John-Paul II, in his Centesimus annus defined the enterprise as a society of
persons: “A business cannot be
considered only as a ‘society of capital goods’; it is also a ‘society of
persons’ in which people participate in different ways and with specific
responsibilities, whether they supply the necessary capital for the company's
activities or take part in such activities through their labour” (#43).
6. Clearly a business is
focused on making money, on making profit, on “maximizing returns of investments”,
etc. Yet, a business is also about “persons”. Can we really expect a business
enterprise to work “democratically” among its members and allow even the
“smallest member” to be part of decision making? Pope Pius XI would say yes:
“Let, then, both workers and employers strive with united strength and counsel
to overcome the difficulties and obstacles…A feeling of close relationship and
a Christian concord of minds ought to prevail and function effectively among
employers and workers” (Quadragesimo anno
# 73). The Pope says that there must be a “close relationship” between the
employers and workers.
7. In capitalism—and in
business today—banks have an important role too. Banks lend money—and in the
process banks makes money out of their lending. So even the interest of banks
are part of the decision making of business.
8. Look at the Popes. They are
saying: business is a “community of persons”. Now, Pope Benedict XVI, in his Caritas in veritate, has this to say. He
says 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 (# 40).
9. Businesses have emerged in
history especially during the start of the domination of the “market” in which
enterprises have started to serve, with profit, of course, the “households”. It
was the rise of the price market system—something we discussed in our class in
socio-culture. Businesses live according to commerce.
10.
In
this case then, a business is oriented really to making money—doing commerce
and receiving profit out of it. The Church would always say: take concern for
human dignity too, especially the dignity of workers. The encyclical of Pope
Benedict XVI, Caritas in veritate,
would emphasize this. The interest of business should not just be focused on
profit making. The Pope would also insist on the importance of giving certain
products and services “for free” too, “without pay”. This is more
moral-ethical. All business and finance must be guided by a certain morality:
“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” (#36).
[Let us quote here in full both #36-37 of the
encyclical: 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 behavior, 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.
------
11. Economics—and business—must
be at the service of justice. Businesses are created for the welfare of the
conditions of people. Businesses must have a contribution to the common good of
society. The products and services of a business should benefit people. Pope
John-Paul II would encourage businesses to direct their production and services
to the development of human dignity and
rights of workers. Pope John Paul II has this to say, “The decision to
invest in one place rather than another, in one productive sector rather than
another, is always a moral and cultural
choice…determined by an attitude of human sympathy and trust in Providence,
which reveal the human quality of the person making such decisions” (Centsimus annus # 36).
12. Ok, fine. The Church would
not want to pretend that she can define business well in moral grounds. The
Church knows that a business has no “philanthropic vocation”. A business is not
a charitable institution. Pope John Paul II would agree: “The Church
acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication that a business is
functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this means that productive
factors have been properly employed and corresponding human needs have been
duly satisfied. But profitability is not the only indicator of a firm's
condition” (Centesimus annus #35).
13. Note what the Pope wrote:
making profits is not the only indicator. A business must be oriented to development. The accent is placed on the primacy of the human factor and the cost
to this human factor. Even if a business is meant to make money, it should
not neglect that it is dealing with human persons. Whatever it is that a
business gets into, its products and services affect people.
14. Think in particular those
who work for wages. Every business has its workers. Pope John Paul II would say
that these wage earners are “the firm's most valuable asset” (Centesimus annus #35). Those who work
for wages are contributors too to the development of society.
15. Pope John Paul II would
continue saying that “In a business, wealth is not only created by the means of
production, capital and profit, but comes first and foremost from the men and
women who, through their work, produce what then becomes consumer goods or
services. Hence all wage-earners, each at his own level, must have their share
of responsibility, working for the common good of the business and, ultimately,
for all society…. The utilization of people's skills is a driving force of the
economy. Looking at a business solely in economic or competitive terms entails
risks; it endangers human stability” (The Pope’s Address to the Fifth general assembly of the pontifical academy of
social sciences, 1999, #7).
16. That nobody is left aside
and marginalized in the business world…this is what we can hope for. Is it that
easy? In the same address the Pope would say: “Company directors and decision
makers should be aware that it is essential to base their actions on human capital and on moral values…on respect for individuals and their
inalienable need to have a job and to live on the fruits of their professional
activity. … I earnestly appeal for an ever greater mobilization of those
variously involved in social life and of all unions and management personnel to
commit themselves, each in their own way, to serving the individual and
humanity through decisions in which the human person, especially the weakest
and the neediest, has the central place and has his specific responsibility
truly recognized (# 8).
17. How is this possible? One
is to mobilize society in such a way that everyone has access to work. “It is
important to offer a job to all our contemporaries through a just and
responsible allocation of work” (same discourse #10). Not only must work be
available, the gap between salaries must be considered: “Too large a difference
between salaries is unjust, for it devalues a certain number of indispensable
jobs and creates social disparities that are damaging to everyone” (same
discourse #10). The gap in salaries can be so wide and unhealthy for society.
It is not enough to find refuge in the market—and let the market decide the
wages.
18. But why try to reduce the
gap between salaries? A business success is not just because of “managers”.
There are the workers too. Can we really say that the “managers” and other
“higher-ups” work more and better?
19. Also, just think. To become
“manager” or someone “up there”…one must have gone through some form of human
development—in the family, in education, in many things. It is all a matter,
also, of living together with others. This whole life section—family, friends,
school, leisure, hobbies, etc.—these do not fall within the scope of “wage
scale”. We owe a lot too to the many things and people around us. It is a
“living together with others”. Many workers contribute to this reality of
“living together”. Their sweat contribute to improving the quality of life—a
quality that forms the “higher up” people. (Not all work of “higher-up” can
contribute to this quality of life…maybe some even harm).
20. So when we consider giving
wages, think also of how the “small people” contribute to the quality of life
of the whole society. Are the “small people” given “care” in terms of salaries?
21. But then, the question
stays: what about making money and profit?
Pope John Paul II would understand the place of making profit in business. When
a business is making profit, it is “an indication that a business is
functioning well” (Centesimus annus #
35). Yet, a business is not just for profit making. Let us not forget, a
business is a “community of persons”. Pope John Paul II would say, in another
encyclical, that profit can limit too much human energies. When this happens
the thirst for power is not far away. We find both “the all-consuming desire
for profit, and on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of
imposing one's will upon others. In order to characterize better each of these
attitudes, one can add the expression: ‘at any price’. In other words, we are
faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible
consequences” (Sollicitudo rei socialis
# 37).
22. How do we address this
issue of profit making? Let us see if we can clarify the difference between
“profit making” and “profit maximization”. Could it be possible to put financial
and business activities under some form of ethical rules too? Might we not need
some other forms of reference for making
business…alternative to “maximizing profit”. Here is where we can take
inspiration from the different teachings of the Church and, in particular, the
Gospel view of wealth.
Social Doctrine on the theme of “Work”
1. The question of work and labor has
become a very big issue at the start of the industrial revolution.
The Rerum Novarum had concerned itself
a lot with the question of the conditions of workers. In
that text is a reflection of what is
work. The encyclical would be a major influence in the writing of
many other encyclicals dealing also
with work—such as the encyclical Laborem Exercens.
2. Yes, when we think of work we might
want to think of how the worker might enjoy working. But
there is also the fact of laborers not
enjoying at all what they do.
3. The Church, in her social doctrine,
is aware of this reality. Pope John Paul II wrote his encyclical
Laborem Exercens. The whole encyclical
is written for the question of work. Work, for the Pope, is
human activity par excellence. The
human person self-constructs through work. The human person
imitates God in work. In work the
human is really doing the best to be in the likeness of God.
4. Some elements structure the
encyclical: relationship with creation, the link between work and
capital, human dignity and solidarity.
Let’s check them out. (If you want to read another document
on work by the same Pope, see
http://www.catholic-forum.com/saints/pope0264dw.htm. This is
about his address to the World
Movement of Christian Workers, 2000).
On Creation
5. Pope John Paul II reflects on the
first chapter of Genesis. There he sees the work of the Creator,
God, as passed on to the human person
so that the life of the human person be fruitful. “Man is the
image of God partly through the
mandate received from his Creator to subdue, to dominate, the
earth. In carrying out this mandate,
man, every human being, reflects the very action of the Creator
of the universe” (#4).
6. God wants that the goods of the
earth be shared by all humanity and not just by a small group of
people. By working, the human person
faces a reality outside. It is an external reality. At times that
reality resists the human person (like
the tough grains of wood for the carpenter). The human being
must work, of course. The human being
is to fill the earth and master—“dominate”—over nature.
Work is “directed towards an external
object, presupposes a specific dominion by man over "the
earth", and in its turn it
confirms and develops this dominion” (#4). [Let us admit that this is an
issue for environmentalists—which was
not exactly discussed in the times when the encyclical was
issued].
7. For Pope John Paul II, human work
has a moral value. The human participates in the work
accomplished by God and glorifies God
in work (see Gen. 1/4.10.12.18.21.25.31). Just like in
Genesis with God taking his Sabbath
rest, the human being must also rest weekly. It is a Sabbath rest
which is a rest for grace—and not just
for restoring energy.
8. Human domination is not a solitary
activity. It involves many others—it is a matter of being one with
other workers.
Work and Human dignity
9. Yes, we know that work is hard and
draws sweat on the human face. Many texts in the Social
Doctrine of the Church speak of sin
and alienation. But this is no reason for dishonor. In fact the
hardship of work is linked with human
dignity. It is an expression of human dignity. Work—with all
its difficulties—shows how the human
is able to construct, build, be creative. Jesus Christ, himself,
was a worker—a hard worker—and he too
knew sweat. He too knew creativity and construction.
The human being derives dignity from
work (see the address of the Pope to the World Movement of
Christian Workers, 2000).
10. So in a way work serves the human
person. It is in service of humanity.
11. Still, we might ask the question:
is work good for us? The question rests on the issue of the
conditions of work, especially in our
modern world. The conditions are marked by stress and they
are very precarious. Already starting
with Pope Leo XIII, this has been discussed. Work, instead of
being helpful and instead of serving
people, has become a burden. Conditions have not become
“dignifying”. Conditions have even
become insults to human dignity.
12. Check out some of the issues:
exploitation (like low paying salaries), fragile tenure (like contractual
work), over-intensification,
insecurity (like no Social Security and Insurance), violence (physical and
mental), unemployment, poor health
conditions in the workplace, no support, not documented,
women and youth, immigrants, distance
from family and home, insecurity in informal work, sex
work, etc. So many conditions are
really inhuman.
Capital and work
13. For Pope Leo XIII, the two—the
workers and their employers—are called to mutuality: “Let the
working man and the employer make free
agreements” (Rerum novarum #45). A business needs its
workers. Capital needs labor, and
vice-versa. So both sides are asked to have a mutual moral order.
The link among us all need not be
defined by “class struggle”.
14. Later, Popes refine the reflection
of Pope Leo XIII, especially on this relationship between worker
and employer (or capitalist). Pope
John XXIII affirms that more and more “people are aiming
at proficiency in their trade or
profession rather than the acquisition of private property. They
think more highly of an income which
derives from capital and the rights of capital”. (Mater et
magistra #106). Pope John Paul II
would say that capital is from nature but also from knowledge
and technique, including finances. So
there is more reason today to give importance to work.
In fact, capital owes itself to human
labor: “Since the concept of capital includes not only the
natural resources placed at man's
disposal but also the whole collection of means by which man
appropriates natural resources and
transforms them in accordance with his needs (and thus in a
sense humanizes them), it must
immediately be noted that all these means are the result of the
historical heritage of human labour”
(Laborem exercens #12). Priority is therefore on work.
15. Look at Pope Benedict XVI. The
market, he says, is not the only system of economic organization.
“It is in the interests of the market
to promote emancipation…. It must draw its moral energies
from other subjects that are capable
of generating them” (Caritas in veritate # 35). “Justice must
be applied to every phase of economic
activity” (#37). He goes to says 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” (#36). The human person, and
the worker in particular, must be
protected: “the market is not, and must not become, the place
where the strong subdue the weak”
(#36).
16. Notice then the importance given
to labor—to the human person working. Capital—and its role in
the market—can be so devastating.
Solidarity
17. Solidarity is a manifestation of
the dignity of the worker. Pope Paul VI, already, in his Octogesima
adveniens (1971), has been worried of
the victims of economic changes. He has raised alarm
regarding the marginalization of
workers. The Pope calls for a discernment. “An ever finer
discernment is needed, in order to
strike at the roots of newly arising situations of injustice” (#15).
To fight against injustice, solidarity
is needed. Pope John Paul II calls this as “the right of association,
that is to form associations for the
purpose of defending the vital interests of those employed in
the various professions. These
associations are called labour or trade unions…. They are indeed a
mouthpiece for the struggle for social
justice, for the just rights of working people in accordance
with their individual professions.”
(Laborem exercens #20).
18. Justice recognizes the dignity of
workers. This means also the role of those in power—like the
government: “the more that individuals
are defenceless within a given society, the more they
require the care and concern of
others, and in particular the intervention of governmental
authority” (Centesimus annus # 10).
19. The Church must be vigilant about
the conditions of workers. Starting with a true idea of work
the Church defines the ways by which
solidarity—is associations and in government care—can be
pursued.
20. Well, of course, there is always
the question of whether this is so abstract, after all. Reality is
different and “Social talk” is
maybe…just talk. To defend the worker is however still a concern of the
Social Doctrine of the Church. Sure,
maybe the doctrine looks abstract but it is a wise investment to
listen to it rather than to give up
and refuse the emergence of God’s Kingdom.
21. We who form the Church have our
responsibilities in the struggle for justice. Maybe we can see
signs of Christians working for
justice too.
ON SOME
PRINCIPLES OF THE SOCIAL DOCTRINE OF THE CHURCH
GROUP
WORK: An hour and a half per group
Group 1: On Common
Good
Often in society social members do
not grow and develop fully. The problem is that the opportunities are limited
to a few. Sharing is not for all. The stand of the Church to face this problem
is called “common good”. Discuss:
1.
What is “common
good”? See below: CCC, nn. 1906 1909 and Gaudium
et Spes, n. 26.
2.
The Church still
gives importance to the role of the government. Does this mean that the
government can do as it wants in improving peoples lives? See below CCC, n.
1903 regarding the “moral”. See below Pacem in Terris, n. 60 and 63
3.
The Church would say
that there is something that the government needs in order to serve the common
good. What exactly does the government need? See below Pacem in Terris, n. 136.
4.
In the concrete, how
is “common good” pursued in the national level and for the whole of humanity?
See below Mater et Magistra, nn. 79-80
5.
What is the opinion
of you group regarding “common good”?
By the common
good is to be understood the sum total of social conditions which allow
people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily (GS, n. 26).
The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each, and
even more from those who exercise the office of authority. It consists of three
essential elements: First, the common good presupposes respect for the person as such. In the name of the common good,
public authorities are bound to respect the fundamental and inalienable rights
of the human person. Society should permit each of its members to fulfill his
vocation. In particular, the common good resides in the conditions for the exercise of the natural freedoms
indispensable for the development of the human vocation, such as the right
to act according to a sound norm of conscience and to safeguard ... privacy,
and rightful freedom also in matters of religion (GS, n. 26). Second, the
common good requires the social well
being and development of the group itself. Development is the epitome of
all social duties. Certainly, it is the proper function of authority to arbitrate,
in the name of the common good, between various particular interests; but it
should make accessible to each what is
needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education
and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on.
Finally, the common good requires peace,
that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that
authority should en sure by morally acceptable means the security of society
and its mem bers. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and
collective defense.(CCC, nn. 1906 1909)
Every day, human interdependence grows more
tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result, the
common good, that is, the sum of those
conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual
members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfillment,
today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves
rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must
take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even
of the general welfare of the entire human family.... This social order
requires constant improvement. It must be founded on truth, built on justice
and animated by love; in freedom it should grow every day toward a more humane
balance. An improvement in attitudes and abundant changes in society will have
to take place if these objectives are to be gained. God's Spirit, Who with a
marvelous providence directs the unfolding of time and renews the face of the
earth, is not absent from this development. The ferment of the Gospel, too, has
aroused and continues to arouse in man's heart the irresistible requirements of
his dignity.
(Gaudium et Spes, n. 26)
(Gaudium et Spes, n. 26)
Authority is exercised
legitimately only when it seeks the common good of the group concerned and if
it employs morally licit means to attain it. If rulers were to enact unjust
laws or take measures contrary to the moral order, such arrangements would not
be binding in conscience. In such a case, authority breaks down completely and
results in shameful abuse (PT, n. 51).
(CCC, n. 1903)
(CCC, n. 1903)
For to safeguard
the inviolable rights of the human person, and to facilitate the fulfillment of his duties, should be the chief
duty of every public authority. XXX It is also demanded by the common good that
civil authorities should make earnest efforts
to bring about a situation in which individual citizens can easily exercise
their rights and fulfill their duties as well. For experience has taught us
that, unless these authorities take suitable action with regard to economic,
political, and cultural matters, inequalities between the citizens tend to
become more and more widespread, especially in the modern world, and as a
result human rights are rendered totally ineffective and the fulfillment of
duties is compromised.
(Pacem in Terris, n. 60 and 63)
(Pacem in Terris, n. 60 and 63)
Moreover, if we carefully consider the essential
nature of the common good on the one hand, and the nature and function of
public authority on the other, everyone sees that there is an intrinsic
connection between the two. And, indeed, just as the moral order needs public
authority to promote the common good in civil society, it likewise demands that
public authority actually be able to attain it. From this it follows that the governmental institutions, on which
public authority depends and through which it functions and pursues its end, should be provided with such structure and
efficacy that they can lead to the common good by ways and methods which are
suit ably adapted to various contingencies.
(Pacem in Terris, n. 136)
(Pacem in Terris, n. 136)
Considering the common good on the national
level, the following points are relevant and should not be overlooked: to provide employment for as many workers
as possible; to take care lest privileged groups arise even
among the workers themselves; to maintain a balance between wages and prices; to make accessible the goods and services for a better life to as many
persons as possible; either to eliminate
or to keep within bounds the inequalities that exist between different
sectors of the economy that is, between agriculture, industry and services; to
balance properly any increases in output with advances in services provided to citizens, especially by public authority;
to adjust…the means of production to the progress of science and technology;
finally, to ensure that the advantages of a more humane way of existence not
merely subserve the present generation but have
regard for future generations as well. As regards the common good of human
society as a whole, the following conditions should be fulfilled: that the
competitive striving of peoples to increase output be free of bad faith; that harmony
in economic affairs and a friendly and beneficial cooperation be fostered;
and, finally, that effective aid be
given in developing the economically underdeveloped nations.
(Mater et Magistra, nn. 79 80)
(Mater et Magistra, nn. 79 80)
Group 2:
Universal destination of All Goods
God
created the human being and placed this human being on earth. What is happening
is that the goods of the earth are limited to a few. The Church then stands
with the notion of sharing—and the Church calls this as “Universal Destination
of All Goods”. Discuss:
1.
What does “Universal Destination of All Goods” mean? See below Populorum Progressio, n. 22.
2.
Notice that this notion influences the idea
of private ownership. Yes, it is ok to own things personally and
privately…but….(complete the sentence). See below Centesimus Annus, n. 30.
3.
One problem is that a person may work very hard to own things. So
why should this person share especially when this person needs much his/her
properties? The Church gives conditions at what point sharing must be done.
What conditions are given (there are two that Pope Leo XIII suggests—one is
moral and the other is spiritual)? See below Rerum Novarum, n. 22
4.
It may be a practice that not all wealth is shared. But there is
also some that cannot be acceptable when we do not share. When is it
unacceptable? See below Quadresimo Anno 60.
5.
What is the opinion of your group regarding “Universal Destination
of Goods”?
Fill the
earth and subdue it (Gn 1:28). The Bible, from the first page on, teaches us
that the whole of creation is for man, that it is his responsibility to develop
it by intelligent effort, and by means of his labor to perfect it, so to speak,
for his use. If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of
livelihood and the instruments for his growth and progress, each man has, therefore, the right to find
in the world what is necessary for himself. The recent Council reminded us
of this: God intended the earth and all that it contains for the use of every human being and people. Thus, as all men
follow justice and unite in charity, created goods should abound for them on a
reasonable basis (GS,n. 69). All other rights whatsoever, including those of
property and of free commerce, are to be subordinated to this principle. They
should not hinder, but on the contrary, favor its application. It is a grave
and urgent social duty to redirect them to their primary finality.
(Populorum Progressio, n. 22)
(Populorum Progressio, n. 22)
The
Successors of Leo XIII have repeated this two fold affirmation: the necessity
and therefore the legitimacy of private ownership, as well as the limits which
are imposed on it. The Second Vatican Council likewise clearly restated the
traditional doctrine in words which bear repeating: In making use of the exterior things we lawfully possess, we
ought to regard them not just as our own but also as common, in the sense
that they can profit not only the owners but others too (GS, n. 69); and a
little later we read: Private property or
some ownership of external goods affords each person the scope needed for
personal and family autonomy, and should
be regarded as an extension of human freedom.... Of its nature, private
property also has a social function which is based on the law of the common
purpose of goods (GS, n.71).
(Centesimus Annus, n. 30)
(Centesimus Annus, n. 30)
To own
goods privately, as we saw above, is a right natural to man, and to exercise
this right, especially in life in society, is not only lawful, but clearly
necessary. It is lawful for man to own his own things. It is even necessary for
human life (Aquinas, STh, II II,66, 2, c). But if the question be asked: How
ought man to use his possessions? the Church replies without hesitation: As to
this point, man ought not regard
external goods as his own, but as common so that, in fact, a person should
readily share them when he sees others in need. Wherefore the Apostle
says:`Charge the rich of this world ... to give readily, to share with others'
(Aquinas, STh, II II, 66, 2, c). No one, certainly, is obliged to assist others
out of what is required for his own necessary use or for that of his family, or
even to give to others what he himself needs to maintain his station in life
becomingly and decently: No one is obliged to live unbecomingly (Aquinas, STh,
II II, 32, a. 6). But when the demands
of necessity and propriety have been met, it is a duty to give to the poor out
of that which remains. Give that which remains as alms (Lk 11:41). These
are duties not of justice, except in cases of extreme need, but of Christian
charity, which obviously cannot be enforced by legal action. But the laws and
judgments of men yield precedence to the law and judgment of Christ the Lord,
Who in many ways urges the practice of alms giving: It is more blessed to give
than to receive (Acts 20:35), and Who will judge a kindness done or denied to
the poor as done or denied to Himself: As long as you did it for one of these,
the least of My brethren, you did it for Me (Mt 25:40). The substance of all
this is the following: whoever has
received from the bounty of God a greater share of goods, whether corporeal and
external, or of the soul, has received them for this purpose, namely, that he
employ them for his own perfection and, likewise, as a servant of Divine
Providence, for the benefit of others. Therefore, he that hath talent, let
him constantly see to it that he be not silent; he that hath an abundance of
goods, let him be on the watch that he grow not slothful in the generosity of
mercy; he that hath a trade whereby he supports himself, let him be especially
eager to share with his neighbor the use and benefit there of (St. Gregory the
Great, Evangelium Homiliae, 9, 7).
(Rerum Novarum, n. 22)
(Rerum Novarum, n. 22)
…the
immense multitude of the non-owning workers on the one hand and the enormous
riches of certain very wealthy men on the other establish an unanswerable
argument that the riches which are so
abundantly produced…are not rightly distributed and equitably made available to
the various classes of the people. (Quadresimo
Anno 60)
Group 3:
Solidarity
Solidarity
is a concrete way of social love. It is love that has no place for unjust
inequality. The Church wants to be “one with” society—she wants to be “in
solidarity”.
Discuss
the following:
1.
What does “solidarity” mean? See below Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 38.
2.
Solidarity implies the work of the strong and the weak. What will
these do? See below Populorum Progressio,
n. 80
3.
The other person is a neighbor. This means we have to change our
view of other people. What changes must be made? See below Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 39.
4.
Solidarity has some obligations and some
concrete proposals. What are they? See below Populorum Progressio, n. 48 and World
Day of Peace Message of Pope JPII, 1986, n. 5
5.
Solidarity also has a sense of urgency—that all of us be united in
common action. What is this? See below Populorum
Progressio, n. 80.
6.
Solidarity also involves giving money. What will money do? See
below Caritas in veritate 27
7.
What is the opinion of your group on solidarity?
[Solidarity],
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. (It is)
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).
(Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 38)
(Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 38)
The same
duty of solidarity that rests on individuals exists also for nations: Advanced nations
have a very heavy obligation to help the
developing peoples (GS, n. 86). It is necessary to put this teaching of the
Council into effect. Although it is normal that a nation should be the first to
benefit from the gifts that Providence has bestowed on it as the fruit of the
labors of its people, still no country can claim on that account to keep its
wealth for itself alone. Every nation must
produce more and better quality goods to give to all its inhabitants a
truly human standard of living, and also to contribute to the common development of the human race.
(Populorum Progressio, n. 48)
(Populorum Progressio, n. 48)
The
exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its members recognize one another as persons.
Those who are more influential, because they have a greater share of goods and
common services, should feel responsible
for the weaker and be ready to share
with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the
same spirit of solidarity, should not
adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is destructive of the social
fabric, but, while claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the good of all.
(Populorum Progressio, n. 80)
(Populorum Progressio, n. 80)
133.
Solidarity helps us to see the `other'
whether a person, people or nation not just as some kind of instrument, with a
work capacity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then
discarded when no longer useful, but as
our `neighbor,' a `helper' (cf. Gn 2:18 20) to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to
which all are equally invited by God.
(Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 39)
(Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 39)
In the
spirit of solidarity and with the instruments of dialogue we will learn: respect for every human person; respect
for the true values and cultures of others; respect for the legitmate autonomy and self determination of
others; to look beyond ourselves in
order to understand and support the good of others; to contribute to our own
resources in social solidarity for the
development and growth that come from equity and justice; to build structures that will ensure
that social solidarity and dialogue are permanent features of the world we live
in.
(World Day of Peace Message, 1986, n. 5)
(World Day of Peace Message, 1986, n. 5)
We are
all united in this progress toward God. We have desired to remind all men how
crucial is the present moment, how urgent the work to be done. The hour for
action has now sounded. At stake are the survival
of so many innocent children and,
for so many families overcome by misery,
the access to conditions fit for human beings; at stake are the peace of the world and the future of civilization. It is time for
all men and all peoples to face up to their responsibilities.
(Populorum Progressio, n. 80)
(Populorum Progressio, n. 80)
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. (Caritas in veritate 27)
Group 4:
Subsidiarity
It is not
nice to do this for people all the time. So the Church believes in
“subsidiarity”.
Discuss:
1.
What does “subsidiarity” mean? Note that is follows the same
action of God. See below CCC, nn. 1883 1885.
2.
Note that sunsidiarity involves the capability of each state. What
does this mean? See below Pacem in Terris,
nn. 140 141.
3.
Subsidiarity respects the sphere of the private. Explain. See
below Mater et Magistra, n. 51 and
Mater et Magistra, n. 55.
4.
Notice that subsidiarity complements solidarity. what does this
mean? See below Centesimus Annus, n. 15.
5.
What is the opinion of the group regarding subsidiarity?
The
teaching of the Church has elaborated the principle of subsidiarity, according to which a community of a higher order should not interfere in the internal life
of a community of a lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but
rather should support it in case of need
and help to co ordinate its activity with the activities of the rest of
society, always with a view to the common good (CA, n. 48; cf. QA, nn. 184
186). God has not willed to reserve to himself all exercise of power. He entrusts to every creature the functions it
is capable of performing, according to the capacities of its own nature.
This mode of governance ought to be followed in social life. The way God acts
in governing the world, which bears witness to such great regard for human
freedom, should inspire the wisdom of those who govern human communities. They
should behave as ministers of divine providence. The principle of
subsidiarity…aims at harmonizing the
relationships between individuals and societies. It tends toward the
establishment of true international order.
(CCC, nn. 1883 1885) [Note: higher order is, for example, the national government. The lower order is, for example, the small town.]
(CCC, nn. 1883 1885) [Note: higher order is, for example, the national government. The lower order is, for example, the small town.]
Moreover,
just as it is necessary in each state that relations which the public authority
has with its citizens, families and intermediate associations be controlled and
regulated by the principle of subsidiarity, it is equally necessary that the
relationships which exist between the worldwide public authority and the public
authorities of individual nations be governed by the same principle. This means
that the worldwide public authority must
tackle and solve problems of an economic, social, political or cultural
character which are posed by the universal common good. For, because of the
vastness, complexity and urgency of those problems, the public authorities of
the individual states are not in a position to tackle them with any hope of a
positive solution. The worldwide public authority is not intended to limit the
sphere of action of the public authority of the individual state, much less to
take its place. On the contrary, its purpose is to create, on a world basis, an environment in which the public
authorities of each state, its citizens and intermediate associations, can
carry out their tasks, fulfill their duties and exercise their rights with
greater security.
(Pacem in Terris, nn. 140 141)
(Pacem in Terris, nn. 140 141)
At the
outset it should be affirmed that in economic affairs first place is to be
given to the private initiative of individual men who,
either working by themselves, or with others in one fashion or another, pursue
their common interests.
(Mater et Magistra, n. 51)
(Mater et Magistra, n. 51)
Nevertheless,
it remains true that precautionary activities of public authorities in the
economic field, although widespread and penetrating, should be such that they
not only avoid restricting the freedom of private citizens, but also increase it, so long as the basic
rights of each individual person are preserved inviolate. Included among these is the right and duty of each individual normally
to provide the necessities of life for himself and his dependents. This implies
that whatever be the economic system, it allow and facilitate for every
individual the opportunity to engage in productive activity.
(Mater et Magistra, n. 55)
(Mater et Magistra, n. 55)
In this
regard, Rerum Novarum points the way to just reforms which can restore dignity
to work as the free activity of man. These reforms imply that society and the
State will both assume responsibility, especially for protecting the worker from
the nightmare of unemployment. Historically, this has happened in two
converging ways: either through economic policies aimed at ensuring balanced
growth and full employment, or through unemployment insurance and retraining
programs capable of ensuring a smooth transfer of workers from crisis sectors
to those in expansion.... The State must contribute to the achievement of these
goals both directly and indirectly. Indirectly
and according to the principle of subsidiarity, by creating favorable
conditions for the free exercise of economic activity, which will lead to
abundant opportunities for employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the principle of
solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain limits on the
autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions, and by ensuring in
every case the necessary minimum support for the unem ployed worker.
(Centesimus Annus, n. 15)
(Centesimus Annus, n. 15)
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].
The Energy Problem
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.
On the
Environment
The
Created World is Good
And God
saw that it was good (Gn 1:25). These words from the first chapter of the Book
of Genesis reveal the meaning of what God has done. To men and women, the crown
of the entire process of creation, the Creator entrusts the care of the earth
(cf. Gn2:15). This brings concrete obligations in the area of ecology for
every person. Fulfillment of these obligations supposes an openness to a
spiritual and ethical perspective capable of overcoming selfish attitudes and lifestyles which lead to the depletion of natural resources. (Ecclesia in America,
n. 25)
The
seventh commandment enjoins respect for
the integrity of creation. Animals, like plants and inanimate beings, are
by nature destined for the common good
of past, present, and future humanity. Use of the mineral, vegetable, and
animal resources of the universe cannot
be divorced from respect for moral imperatives. Man's dominion over inanimate and other living beings granted by the
Creator is not absolute; it is
limited by concern for the quality of
life of his neighbor, including generations
to come; it requires a religious
respect for the integrity of creation.
(CCC, n. 2415)
But….
[N]atural resources are limited; some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were
inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present generation
but, above all, for generations to come.... We all know that the direct or
indirect result of industrialization is, ever more frequently, the pollution of the environment, with
serious con sequences for the health of the population. Once again it is
evident that development, the planning which governs it, and the way in which
resources are used must include respect
for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits on the use
of the natural world. The dominion
granted to man by the Creator is not an
absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to `use and misuse,' or to
dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation
imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by
the prohibition not to eat of the fruit of the tree (cf. Gn 2:16 17) shows
clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological laws but also to moral ones,
which cannot be violated with impunity. (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, n. 34)
We seem to be increasingly aware of
the fact that the exploitation of the earth, the planet on which we are living,
demands rational and honest planning.
At the same time, exploitation of the earth not only for industrial but also
for military purposes and the uncontrolled development of technology outside the framework of a long term
authentically humanistic plan often bring with them a threat to man's natural
environment, alienate him in his relations with nature and remove him from
nature. (Redemptor Hominis, n. 15)
Equally worrying is the ecological
question which accompanies the problem of consumerism
and which is closely connected to it. In his desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes the
resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and disordered way.
At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, which un
fortunately is widespread in our day. Man, who discovers his capacity to
transform and, in a certain sense, create the world through his own work, forgets that this is always based on God's
prior and original gift of the things that are. Man thinks that he can take
arbitrary use of the earth, subjecting it without restraint to his will, as
though the earth did not have its own requisites and a prior God given purpose,
which man can indeed develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out his
role as a cooperator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in place of God and thus ends up provoking a
rebellion on the part of nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by
him. In all this, one notes first the poverty or narrowness of man's outlook,
motivated as he is by a desire to possess things rather than to relate them to
the truth, and lacking that disinterested, unselfish and aesthetic attitude
that is born of wonder in the presence of being and of the beauty which enables
one to see in visible things the message of the invisible God who created them.
In this regard, humanity today must be conscious of its duties and obligations
towards future generations. (Centesimus Annus,n. 37)
While the horizon of man is thus being
modified according to the images that are chosen for him, another
transformation is making itself felt, one which is the dramatic and unexpected
consequence of human activity. Man is suddenly becoming aware that by an ill-considered
exploitation of nature he risks destroying it and becoming, in his turn, the
victim of this degradation. Not only
is the material environment becoming a permanent menace pollution and refuse, new illness and absolute destructive
capacity but the human framework is no longer under man's control, thus
creating an environment for tomorrow which may well be intolerable. This is a
wide ranging social problem which concerns the entire human family. The
Christian must turn to these new perceptions in order to take on
responsibility, together with the rest of men, for a destiny which from now on
is shared by all. (Octogesima Adveniens, n. 21)
In addition to the irrational
destruction of the natural environment, we must also mention the more serious
destruction of the human environment,
something which is by no means receiving the attention it deserves. Although
people are rightly worried though much less than they should be about
preserving the natural habitats of the various animal species threatened with
extinction, because they realize that each of these species makes its
particular contribution to the balance of nature in general, too little effort
is made to safeguard the moral
conditions for an authentic `human ecology.' Not only has God given the
earth to man, who must use it with respect for the original good purpose for
which it was given to him, but man, too,
is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the natural and moral structure with which he has been
endowed. In this context, mention should be made of the serious problems of modern urbanization, of the need for
urban planning which is concerned with how people are to live, and of the
attention which should be given to a `social ecology' of work. (Centesimus
Annus, n. 38)
So
this means we, humans, are stewards
Those responsible for business
enterprises are responsible to society for the economic and ecological effects
of their operations. They have an
obligation to consider the good of persons and not only the increase of profits.
(CCC, n. 2432)
The promotion of human dignity is linked to the right to a healthy environment, since
this right highlights the dynamics of the relationship between the individual
and the society. A body of inter national, regional, and national norms on the
environment is gradually giving juridic form to this right. But juridic
measures are by themselves not sufficient.... The world's present and future
depend on the safeguarding of creation, because of the endless
interdependence between human beings and their environment. Placing human well
being at the center of concern for the environment is actually the surest way
of safeguarding creation. (World Day of Peace Message, 1999, n. 10)
How
do we treat technology?
The present generation knows that it
is in a privileged position: progress provides it with countless possibilities
that only a few decades ago were undreamed of. Man's creative activity, his intelligence
and his work, have brought about profound changes both in the field of science
and technology and in that of social and cultural life. Man has extended power
over nature and has acquired deeper knowledge of the laws of social
behavior.... Today's young people, especially, know that the progress of
science and technology can produce not only new material goods but also a wider
sharing in knowledge.... The
achievements of biological, psychological and social science will help man to
understand better the riches of his own being.... But side by side with all
this, or rather, as part of it, there are also difficulties that appear
whenever there is growth. (Dives in Misericordia, n. 10)
Let
us reflect theologically on the ecological issue
1. In the old times—when our
countries were still outside the influence of Christianity and the “big”
religions—people believed in spirits and other divinities dwelling in rocks and
streams and trees. The divinities were part of the world. Our ancient descendants
had myths of origins that explained the reasons why there were trees, why there
were humans, why there were the things around them. Gods and divinities and
nature formed a whole picture of reality. Do not disturb nature—the spirits
will be disturbed too. So our very ancient peoples tried to live in parallel
with the divinities surrounding them.
2. But then things have
changed especially with the coming of Christianity to our lands. We know that
Christianity is marked by Judaism. For this Judea-Christian tradition, God is outside the world. God is beyond the
created world—God is the creator. God placed the “stewardship” of the created
world in the hands of the human being. The human can therefore “interfere” in
nature. No divinity is disturbed. There is no sacrilege. In fact, by
“intervening”—by “mastering over”—the world, the human is fulfilling the
mandate given by God. Be master over the created world. It is a responsible
mastery, yes.
3. Ok, we know the Genesis
creation stories. The human is made in the image and likeness of God. The human
is given the charge to be master over the world. Multiply and fill the earth.
At one point in Genesis, the human gives names to the beasts—a very “high”
status!
4. Because the human can
intervene in the world, something new is presented. It opens the doors to
science and technology. As we know science and technology see themselves as
having the right to explore the world and even transform it.
5. Since modernity rose,
science and technology have been successful in exploring and transforming the
world. For many centuries this never raised a major question as to the validity
of the existence of science and technology. But slowly, we begin to feel that
“something is wrong” too.
6. For one, humanity started
to see in science the “answer to all problems”. Any problem can be resolved by
“scientific approaches”. Yet, science and technology have been very
instrumental in massive wars. All we have to do is look back at the atomic bomb
in Japan…or the sophisticated wars in Iraq and Kuwait. In other words, science
and technology have opened the doors to our self-destruction.
7. Just look at how we treat
nature today. We pollute her. We destroy her. We spend non-renewable
resources…we throw them up in waste. Now we say that we need to change our view
of the world and our dependency on science and technology.
8. Let us admit it. In our
Christianity we have been so focused on social issues. The place of
“nature” and the issues of “ecology and
the environment” have not been so central in our discussions. In fact the
Social Doctrine of the Church seems to have looked at the ecology issue only
recently. Our reading of Genesis may have even led us to do some extreme
activities unfavorable to nature. Multiply, fill the earth, dominate (see Gn 1/28).
9. In fact we can be
criticized for having promoted the ruin of nature. The ecological issue might
appear to be more of an “anti-Christian” movement too.
10. Maybe we, Christians, have
been quite distant from the ecological issues. But we too are hit. We might
also want to ask if our Genesis reading are favorable to ecology. How well do
we understand the Genesis stories of creation?
11. Let us try some Biblical
understanding. Maybe we will be reviewing what we learned in our class in
Pentateuch.
12. After the exile of Babylon
the Jews had to fill the land of Palestine. They had to rebuilt their
properties. They had to reconstruct their nation. The Jews were surrounded—and
exploited—by different nations. Because the Jews believed in the Lord God as
beyond creation and as creator, the Jews had to show this faith to the other
nations. For them—the Jews—it was ok to intervene in nature without trouble
with any divinities. God gave the human the role of “mastering over”. Nature
would be “brute nature” without spirits and divinities. So the view of nature
was hostile—it was brute nature that had to be tamed.
13. So “dominate”. Let nature
“submit under”. But wait, remember that the Jewish people had faith in the Lord
God. So their understanding of “dominating” and putting nature “under” had to
put God in the picture too. God had a plan—and so the responsibility of the
human was to see to it that the plan was respected. So to dominate and to
submit nature did not stop with the human domination. It meant putting nature under the plan of God. Submit
it to God’s plan. And what was that plan? It was the plan of happiness—the plan
of letting all creation participate in the joy and life of the Lord God. Domination
was not brute domination—it had to include respect.
14. We saw this in Pentateuch.
We said that the human was given the charge to “be master”….but the human had
to “master mastery”. There is a limit—the limit of respect—in mastering over
nature. The human being would be like a “gardener” of the nature confided. Nature is not human property. It was simply
confided. Genesis 2-3 tell us what happens when the human being becomes
auto-god….a god unto oneself. You may eat of all the trees, but there is a
limit. The human being has the tendency to go beyond. The human tends to live
in the imagination of becoming absolute. But no! God is creator. God is
absolute. The human remains creature.
15. The ecological issue tells
us what Genesis 2-3 have already been telling us. We have created a culture
that dis-respects nature. We have been trying to be “auto-gods”. The ecological
issue really forces us to look at ourselves and how auto-gods we have been
trying to be. How can we refuse to listen to the problem when our very own
reading of Genesis alerts us to our capacity to destroy?
16. Ok, so Christianity is so
focused on “social issues”. Love one another. Live in justice. But we recognize
that ecological respect is also a way of loving one another. We love not just
ourselves at this time but also future generations. By ecological respect we
show love to the future people.
17. Let us go back to our class
in Socio-Culture. Remember what we said about human-cultural evolution. The
human started with “hunting-foraging” then moved to horticulture and
agriculture…etc. Well, we see how it has also been very human to master over
nature. The Bible confirms this. The Bible has confirmed that
mastery-domination is human. This mastery does not necessarily put in danger
the environment. Never, however, has the Bible said that nature and the
environment have become human property. Never has the Bible put us “on top” of
the world “looking down on creation”—as that song goes. In fact, just look
closely. The Bible affirms how much we are part of the created world—that in us
are the minerals and the cellular-animal-biological. We are still part of
nature.
18. We are, let us admit,
reflecting and learning. Before the idea of human rights was not so prevalent.
Slavery was an accepted practice for many Christians. But slowly we learned. So
today we can say we too are learning with the ecological issues.
19. The ecological issue
obliges us to re-read our “foundation” texts—namely the creation stories in
Genesis. We may need to be a lot more humble with our stand in the world of
nature. The ecological issue may even ask us to re-think what God really wants
in the created world.
20. It is a crisis—this
ecological situation. Really, nature is hurting. But as Christians we can look
at this with the perspective of Christ. Christ has taught us to live—to really
live. Christ has told us that from death life arises—there is the resurrection.
The uncertainties of what we face may open up doors of hope.
21. We can try our best to
“die” to harming nature—and be more ecological. We may have to recognize the
uncertainty of ecological respect—implying a change in our life styles, like with
consumerism, the use of plastic, the use of paper, the “farm mile”, etc. We
might need to conform to Christ, die to things that ruin nature—in order to
give life again for our contemporaries and our future generations.
22. To follow Jesus is not just
to follow certain doctrines and principles. It is to have a life too.
Discipleship is life.
23. One note that we might need
to take seriously. Do we really believe that the resurrection has overcome
darkness, death and sin? Do we really accept the fact that there is the
fulfillment of all time when God will gather all—not just humanity but the
environment? Ever since Christ has “won”, nothing else can win—no death, no
darkness, no sin, and no absolute destruction of nature. In Christ we know that
human history is not vain. Maybe we need to be clear with this. Maybe the
reason why we disrespect nature is because we are not so convinced that Christ
has won. We still feel the need to “appropriate” nature and make her our
property. We need to reflect on this.
24. As Christians we can
dialogue with those who are ecologically interested in nature. No, we are not
“dominators”. Our faith does not promote the wild domination and mastery over
nature. We too love nature and we see nature in the light of God’s plan and in
the light of the redemption offered by Christ.
Some
reflections on Christian Social Action
Think
of the poor and think of God. When we say “social doctrine” we might think of
documents and statements—mostly from Popes. This time, let us consider a deeper
aspect—that of encountering the poor and
God. Doctrine is also action—Christian social action. Some central points
can be made.
Social engagement, a result of faith
1. Social engagement is a
result of faith. God entered into covenant with humanity, manifesting his
concern for us. Because of this we respond.
In the heart of our faith we put into
concrete ways our attitudes, behaviour, values and actions. We put to
concrete expressions our faith. This is how we can appreciate what Pope
Benedict entitled his encyclical: “Love in Truth” (Caritas in veritate). The Pope saw how Jesus incarnated and was
witness to the love of God in his earthly life…and in his death and
resurrection. Love is a great force that makes us move with courage. Let us
read the Pope: “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” (Caritas in veritate 1).
2. Adhere in Christ, stick it
out with Christ. This has a social impact. It means searching for justice and
truth. It means searching for the common good. Again we read the Pope: “‘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”
(Caritas in veritate 6). Life is
oriented morally in love. Life is pushed to act in justice. Remember what Jesus
said: “Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of
heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father in heaven” (Mt.7/21).
It is not enough to shout Jesus, Lord, or whatever else. What matters is living
correctly.
3. One way to express this
“living correctly” is by showing the light of the Gospel in society. Is my
social life coherent? Is it in line with values of the Gospel? Is the social
world around me marked by Gospel values? Remember the Gospel is for life—it is
for the good and happiness of life. The Gospel has social implications. It inspires attitudes and norms of living. It
denounces injustice. The Gospel marks Christian life.
4. No, the Gospel is not just
a story…not just a nice story. It is not just something we hear about
separately from concrete life. The Gospel is about the link we have with
God—the love of God telling us how to live with true attitudes and values in
life.
Social Action as a way of bringing
life
5. Ok, so we live and act
according to the love of God. Life is a response to this love of God. There is
something more. As we engage socially, we
also bring life. God reveals himself as source of life in the heart of
human action. Life is set out of confusion and darkness.
6. God is before us, calling
us to action. We can take cue from St. Paul: “Or are you unaware that we who
were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? We were indeed
buried with him through baptism into death, so that, just as Christ was raised
from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life”
(Rm 6/3-4). There is a “new life”. We discover this new life as we move on and
encounter others—the poor. Our baptism is a call to engage in the world and there
bring out new life. As we engage socially we discover the truth about this.
Social action becomes the moment when faith takes on a new life and we sense,
in a clearer way, God who, himself gives life.
7. Discovering God who gives
life makes us give life too. We give life. In our social action we see how we
collaborate—or “participate” (in the Thomistic sense)—in God’s active life.
Jesus has taught this to us: “My Father is at work until now, so I am at work”
(Jn.5/17).
8. Social engagement gives the
sense of life, so we say. This means, in more concrete sense, the sense of the
future. There is a future in society. There is a future in a world where
injustice reigns. No, injustice is not the fate of people. Social engagement is
an emphasis on this sense of future.
9. This “sense of the future”
can be a model or reference for Christian social action. In social action we tell society that our God
is a God of the future. Our God pulls us out of contradictions and pulls us out
of the hold of darkness. Remember, be of good cheer, Jesus has overcome the
world. So there is no victory for darkness, never in the future. Social action
invites society to look at its suffering in the light of the resurrection.
Social Action is the action of a poor
God: Solidarity
10. Now, we speak of the
resurrection. Remember that Christ passed through the cross before the
resurrection. We have a different kind of God—not of power but of weakness and
fragility. In terms of representing God in social action we present a God who
is himself poor. Jesus himself said it: “For I was hungry and you gave me food,
I was thirsty and you gave me drink, a stranger and you welcomed me, naked and
you clothed me, ill and you cared for me, in prison and you visited me… whatever
you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me” (Mt.25/ 35 and
40). Jesus revealed himself as one poor
man also hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, ill, in prison. Our engagement
with the poor is our engagement with Christ.
11. To be engaged socially with
the poor is itself a way of encountering Christ. God loved the world he sent
his son—incarnated into human life and human conditions. This is the
incarnation of God’s love for all, especially the poor, the marginalized, the
little ones who suffer so much. This is the solidarity of God with humanity. It
is God’s participating concretely in our human lives.
12.
Christian
social action, therefore, is not exempted from tensions, difficulties and
contradictions. Jesus is among the little ones, not among the powerful ones. So
Christian action enters into that world of the poor—a world of tensions and
contradictions. It is never easy, we know. Engagement is not running away from
tension and contradiction. In fact, it is in engaging with the poor where the credibility of the faith is made more
manifest.
Social action as a way of saying God
is present in real time
13.
Christian
social engagement is a witnessing to the fact that God is actually engaged in
the concrete history of society. God is concrete. God is true and really is
involved. God is someone who accompanies the poor in the search for truth,
justice, peace, etc. God is “pverty”—God retains nothing for himself. His
nature is “giving totally”—the giving of the Father, the Son, the Holy Spirit.
14. In fact, in social
engagement, the strongest image of God is that of a mysterious presence each
time people take seriously their struggle for justice—when people assume their
responsibility to let their society live properly. Suddenly God is revealed!
15. Remember the prophets. They
denounced the hypocrisy of religious practices that went together with the
practice of injustice. Amos, for example, even went to say that religious
practices were used to justify injustice. Powerful people used religious
practices to exploit the poor. The prophets, already during their time, tried
to weave together justice and faith.
16. Now we come to Jesus. In
his words and actions, showed something different. Jesus showed the message of
the unity between social life and life
with God. God is made more present in the life of justice—or in the life of
the search for justice. We hinted on
this during our class in Christology. Miracles, we said, were signs of the
Kingdom. Christian life, we said, can be miracle whenever it is lived in view
of liberating—in view of showing the Kingdom. Christian life—and Christian
social action—is a clear expression of the faith in the God who is present in
real time. Christian social action is a way of manifesting God in society.
17. Christian social action is
a combat with others, notably he poor. It is a combat that wishes to make
the Kingdom emerge. The way is, again, not easy. But we say it is a combat with. It is a community work—a
solidarity with the poor. Together we perceive the truth of the Kingdom.
Together we manifest and announce the love of the Father. Together we do our
best to live in justice and peace. It is a true combat—not of violence, of course.
Social Action is ecclesiological
1.
Social
action—our Christian social action—is a work of the Church for society. Christian social action is part of Church fidelity to
Christ. Let us look at what Pope Benedict XVI would say: “For the Church,
charity is not a kind of welfare activity which could equally well be left to
others, but is a part of her nature, an
indispensable expression of her very being” (Deus Caritas Est 25). It is a Church in communion not just within but with all humanity. The Church suffers
with and struggles with all. In this way the image we have of the Church
deepens. We are not just a “churchy” Church, but an engaged Church—engaged for
the poor. The Church is an assembly—an ekklesia—on
the move where each is responsible for others. The Church is a manifestation of
our being brothers and sisters to all. We join in fraternity, in solidarity with others, knowing that the presence
of Christ is here.
2.
The
Church is God’s way of being present in the World. We adhere to Christ in the Church. We are in Christ in the Church. The revelation
about Christ is transmitted by the witnessing of the Church. So the Church is with Christ too…passionate for life. So
in a way, social action is Church action. It is the Church’s way of responding
in faith to the love of Christ and admitting the presence of Christ in the
world.
Three differences
We
are born in a family. It is the family that puts us in society. The family
helps us participate in society. Already in the family we see differences that we identify with—and
make us define also our places in society. The differences are essential to who
we are. We exist and live with these all the time. Let us check them out.
Age Differences:
Generations
1.
Come
the family this is clear. A member is also defined according to which generation she/he belongs. Anthropology would
note that there is a universal taboo: incest. All societies seem to hold this.
The taboo is a clear illustration of difference according to generation. In
some cultures incest would be a serious crime that will provoke the anger of
gods and spirits. Incest weakens the family. It sucks away the flow of the
generations. Well, in modern times, we never allow incest too. No matter how
modern we get, this is one area of taboos that we hold for all the time. But,
there is a new form of incest that is arising—and it is unnoticed and it is
even accepted. Let us call it “subtle-incest”. Parents, for example, become
like to behave like their children.
2.
There
is also the subtle incest of allowing children to be “subtle-adults”. Some
children are allowed to smoke, drink and watch porn, for example. Young
children are allowed to practice sexual advances. There is the subtle
aggression against “getting old”. Etc. In this subtle-incest there is the
tendency to deny generational differences. There is the tendency to remove age
differences and to make everyone uniform. It is a “subtle-incest”. What do you
think?
Sex differences:
1.
Of
course we know this. We are different in sex and gender. It is not just an
ideology—it is genetic. Open your pants or your blouses, you know what we are
talking about. So, a male is not a female, and vice-versa. A boy is not a girl,
and vice-versa. A man is not a woman, and vice-versa. In principle there is no
position in-between. Genetically. The difference identifies us. We did not
choose to be born male or female, boy or girl. It is “already there”—a given fact.
2.
In
the family this is clear. There are roles for boys and girls. The society can
be traditional or modern…the roles for sexes are always present. Boys know
where they belong. Girls know ehere they belong. Each have functions in the
family—and the functions are not inter-changeable. Ok, maybe in modernity we
see roles given to both. They are roles that have no basic sexual attributions.
Fine. But that does not make the sexual differences disappear.
3.
Again,
just like in incest, there are prohibitions that make sure sexual differences
are respected. Already when born, a prohibition starts: give a name that is proper to the sex of the baby. We do not call
the little girl “Henry” and we do not call the little boy “Helen”. Immediately,
on birth, the sexual identity is given to the baby. Later the child learns to
wear clothes proper to the boy or the girl. The clothes do not inter-change.
Then there are the games children play. There are games for boys and games for
girls. Of course some games allow mixing…but we know that there are still
differences. Take the example of “playing house”. Both the boy and the girl can
play it together. But they define the roles already. The boy is the “papa” and
the girl is the “mama”. Entering adulthood, both the man and the woman take
roles proper to them. Adulthood is full of examples.
4.
To
transgress sexual differences always provokes difficulties. There are people
who get disturbed. Laughter and mockery can arise.
5.
But
slowly, there is a tendency to take this difference less seriously. Sexual relations are fused. There is a “bracketing”
of sexual differences. In a sense there is a growing tendency to think “a-sexual”.
“Anyone can do”. In fact society has its models—Michael Jackson and Lady Gaga,
for example. Sexuality is made identical and interchangeable. We hold the
principle that because in politics men and women have same roles, so then too
in sexual relationships. To avoid discrimination—like to avoid hurting
feminists or gay-right advocates—we would rather not focus much on sexuality.
So slowly we see changes in this direction. What do you think?
Differences in
“belongingness”
1.
This
word is inspired by Jean Vanier. He wrote a book, “Becoming Human”, and there
he wrote about the basic fact of “belonging to….” A family is a circle of
belongingness. Members are united and they know who is father, mother, brother,
sister, cousin, uncle, auntie, etc. They know who is from an other family. There are ways of setting this belongingness:
by blood, by marriage, by adoption, sometimes by friendship. We know how
serious the links are, we just do not break them.
2.
There
are prohibitions against the break up of belongingness. Adultery, for example,
is prohibited. Parricide is prohibited. Do not abandon the baby. Do not abandon
the parent. Be hospitable to a family member. Be hospitable to a friend who
comes as guest. Do not profit from the visit of someone. Gen 19 show the seriousness
here. Each culture has a sense of hospitality.
3.
This
family way extends even to our wider social lives. We say that the ‘nation is a
family”. We say “we are united as a country”. A foreigner who decides to be
member of the nation is given rights.
4.
In
our Christian belief, we say that we are all brothers and sister. This is what
Jesus showed in his act of redemption.
5.
We
see however the possibility too of breaking this. Bias and prejudice are
examples. Ethnicity is an area of belongingness…but it can be a source of break
up. Social mobility in modernity allows a sense of “no-belongingness”. This too
is an issue to look at.
Conclude
1.
We
have all three. We are different in ages, in sexes and in belongingness. Notice
how we put all three together. We marry people of the opposite sex of the same
age level and we form a belongingness. We have religious congregations that do not mix sexes and that pur formands
together…formation as generational. There are vows that define belongingness.
2.
Now,
let us do theology—and moral theology in partricular. The Bible insists on
these. We have studied Genesis—both chapters one and two. The differences are
there clear. Sexual differences are defined. After Adam and Eve, there are
generations. In the Noah story, incest is condemned.
3.
The
history of Israel has been a history of belongingness—with covenants and
solidarities engaged. The Torah has been against rape and incest and adultery
and murder. Etc.
4.
Well,
with the changes going on in life—with the coming of modernity—we see that the
prohibitions and differences have been changing too. We “recompose” our
differences—to the extent of minimizing the basic three differences of age, sex
and belongingness. How is the quality of life? What do you think?
Contraceptives?
Part I: from history to humanae vitae
1.
Birth control has
become a sensitive issue not just for secular society but for the Church too.
It requires a study using many fields…many expertise. Of course there is the medical side. There is the psychological side. Sociology and anthropology may have something to say.
There is the judicial-legal and there
is the political. Then of course, there is economics and there is demography
(or the study of population growth). Let us not forget the moral side.
2.
It is hard to see all
aspects. Let us try exploring…. Of course we must stay within the region of
moral theology and the social doctrine of the Church.
3.
First, let us set the
limits in terms of vocabulary. One word we hear is “contraception”. It is the
will and intention to control birth using specific practices, artificial or
natural. There is the use of the condom, the pill, vasectomy, the ceasing of
the capacity to have babies, and the natural regulation of birth. Now for purposes
of facilitating our discussion, we shall refer exclusively to the artificial when we say “contraceptive”.
4.
The natural method
implies adapting to the “best moment” of the wife in the course of her
menstrual cycle. So there is prudence involved. This, we will not include in
the word contraceptive or contraception.
5.
Recall anthropology.
In traditional societies there is no sophisticated (i.e., modern) science of
birth and pregnancy. For example traditional societies did not yet have an idea
of the role of the sperm and the egg…how they are genetically working. But,
even traditional societies had ethical rules too…and they too had their ways of
birth control. There was the method of interrupting coitus. There was pressure
put on the woman’s womb. Herbs and other substances were used. In traditional
societies but already within the modern
world, the pill and other things have become part of people’s use. Let us
not forget abortion. It is also practiced in many occasions.
6.
What is the role of
the man and the role of the woman? Traditionally the man “transmitted” and the
woman was the receptacle. It was like “agricultural”. The woman was the earth
and the man put in the seed. Ethically some traditional societies would say
that throwing away the seed would be wrong. (In some societies—notably in
Europe—it was believed that the woman had some psychic element that had to be
part of her womb…it had to be secreted into the womb. For that to happen, she
needed pleasure. That explained the pleasure that had to accompany coitus.)
7.
In all cases, however,
there was always the sense of transmitting
life. There was the idea of procreation….and this was always understood to
be part of conjugal life.
8.
Traditionally marriage
was always associated with having babies. No, it did not have to involve
“having fun”. Simply to “have fun” without the aim of having babies was wrong!
So it was also wrong to get rid of babies. (It is not our purpose here to
explore history…but it may be interesting to note how St. Augustine had a big
role here. Sexual pleasure for him was a “punishment” coming from original sin!
So in marriage, that pleasure need not be central. St. Augustine was reacting
to Pelagius who said that sin comes from imitation. If there is nothing to
imitate, then there is not sin. St. Augustine did not like this because it
would remove the role of Christ. Christ had to save us from something we could
not remove ourselves—and so came the concept of “original sin”—the sin we
inherited. Confusing eh? Indeed. But that is history. St. Augustine was trying
his best to declare his faith. “Original sin” was more of a confession of faith
in Christ.)
9.
The consequence of St.
Augustine’s position for marriage is this: get married to have babies…not for
pleasure. So the sexual act was not for pleasure but for the responsibility of
transmitting life.
10.
Years later, this idea
would continue to be part of Christian married life. Here is a text from St.
Francis of Sales: “The marriage bed should be undefiled, as the Apostle tells
us,i.e. pure, as it was when it was first instituted in the earthly Paradise,
wherein no unruly desires or impure thought might enter. All that is merely
earthly must be treated as means to fulfil the end God sets before His
creatures. Thus we eat in order to preserve life, moderately, voluntarily, and
without seeking an undue, unworthy satisfaction therefrom. "The time is
short," says Saint Paul; "it remaineth that both they that have wives
be as though they had not, and they that use this world, as not abusing
it" (Introduction to the Devout Life, Part III/39).
11.
In more modern times,
we read encyclicals of Popes saying the same thing: marriage is for
procreation. Pope Pius XII would say: “The marriage contract…established them
in a state of life, the married state. Nature and Creator impose upon the
married couple who use that state by carrying
out its specific act, the duty of providing
for the conservation of the human race. Herein we have the characteristic
service which gives their state its peculiar value — the good of the offspring.
Both the individual and society, the people and the State, and the Church
herself, depend for their existence on the order which God has established on fruitful
marriage. Hence, to embrace the married
state… and deliberately to seek to
evade its primary duty without serious reasons, would be to sin against the very meaning of married
life” (VEGLIARE CON SOLLECITUDINE, The
primary duty). Note the bold letters.
12.
The growth of
population, however, has become a major issue in modernity. Infant mortality
has decreased…More and more babies started to be a reality. This pressure of
population became a point to consider for marriage. For a time when using
contraceptives was not yet common, the idea of getting married had to come later in age. So getting married older
than teen age years became common. This late marriage became an important
element in population control…for some time, in early 1900’s. It was not exactly
happening everywhere, but it had a significant role.
13.
In other words, it was possible to have mastery over
fertility. Do not marry at once. Avoid the contact for a while. Abstain
even for a while. It was possible to
manage having babies and be careful of how many babies to have. It was
possible to plan. This was possible even
before the wide introduction of the contraceptives that we know today. “When examining demographic trends,
the magisterium of the church reaffirms the sacred nature of human life, responsibility
for the transmission of life, the inherent rights of fatherhood and motherhood,
the values of marriage and family life, in the context of which children are
the gift of God the Creator” (ETHICAL AND PASTORAL DIMENSIONS OF POPULATION
TRENDS 1994). The Church has always affirmed that self-regulation was (and is)
possible.
14.
But then there was the
influence of Malthus who said that population growth could go well beyond the
capacity of resources to feed the population. So it might be necessary to
“control” population. The remedy could be “destructive” or “preventive”…So the door even to abortion is opened. The door to
contraception is opened too.
15.
Many conferences have
been organized to discuss this issue of population. The Church has been
consistent with her stand: the human
couple is capable of managing its relationship and managing resources. There
is an assumed confidence in the humanity
of married couples. Popes have addressed the issue. We can name some
encyclicals: Humanae vitae, of Pope Paul VI, 1968; Familiaris consortio and Evangelium vitae,both of Pope John-Paul
II.
16.
Vatican II had no
clear mention of the use of contraceptives. Well, Gaudium et spes had a bit on
it: “The sexual characteristics of man and the human faculty of reproduction
wonderfully exceed the dispositions of lower forms of life. Hence the acts
themselves which are proper to conjugal love and which are exercised in accord
with genuine human dignity must be honored with great reverence. Hence when
there is question of harmonizing conjugal love with the responsible
transmission of life, the moral aspects
of any procedure does not depend solely on sincere intentions or on an
evaluation of motives, but must be determined by objective standards.
These, based on the nature of the human
person and his acts, preserve the full sense of mutual self-giving and human
procreation in the context of true love. Such a goal cannot be achieved
unless the virtue of conjugal chastity is sincerely practiced. Relying on these
principles, sons of the Church may not
undertake methods of birth control which are found blameworthy by the
teaching authority of the Church in its unfolding of the divine law” (GS 51).
Note the word in bold. Notice how the Church takes seriously her confidence in
the human couple to really self-regulate—“in the context of true love”. This
context is primarily in terms of “mutual self-giving” and procreation. So if
there is talk of “birth control”…well, the remedy is to self-regulate.
17.
Of course there is
still the question of expressing love through the sexual act. Surely couples
will not simply think of self-regulation…not always. Is the Church prohibiting
this? Is the Church going against the “natural” passions of couples?
18.
Pope Paul VI tried to
address this. He came out with an encyclical: Humanae vitae.
19.
The encyclical stressed that it is not so ok to
use artificial means. There is the “natural law” to respect and this natural
law is inscribed in the biological constitution of man and woman. So do not
separate sexual union with procreation. If there is need to “control birth”, do
it with self-regulation. Let us focus on #11-14. We cite some parts.
Observing
the Natural Law
11. The sexual activity, in which husband
and wife are intimately and chastely united with one another, through which
human life is transmitted, is, as the recent Council recalled, "noble and worthy.'' …. God has wisely
ordered laws of nature and the incidence of fertility in such a way that successive births are already naturally
spaced through the inherent operation of these laws. The Church,
nevertheless, in urging men to the observance of the precepts of the natural
law, which it interprets by its constant doctrine, teaches that each and every marital act must of
necessity retain its intrinsic relationship to the procreation of human life.
(12)
Union
and Procreation
12.
This particular doctrine… is based on the inseparable connection, established
by God, which man on his own initiative may not break, between the unitive significance and the procreative
significance which are both inherent to the marriage act.
The
reason is that the fundamental nature of the marriage act, while uniting husband and wife in the closest
intimacy, also renders them capable of generating new life—and this as a
result of laws written into the actual nature
of man and of woman. And if each of these essential qualities, the unitive and the procreative, is
preserved, the use of marriage fully retains its sense of true mutual love and
its ordination to the supreme responsibility of parenthood to which man is
called. We believe that our contemporaries are particularly capable of seeing
that this teaching is in harmony with
human reason.
Faithfulness
to God's Design
13. Men
rightly observe that a conjugal act imposed on one's partner without regard to his or her condition or
personal and reasonable wishes in the matter, is no true act of love, and therefore offends the moral order in
its particular application to the intimate relationship of husband and wife. If
they further reflect, they must also recognize that an act of mutual love which impairs the capacity to transmit life which
God the Creator, through specific laws, has built into it, frustrates His design which constitutes the norm of marriage, and
contradicts the will of the Author of life. Hence to use this divine gift while depriving it, even if only
partially, of its meaning and purpose, is equally repugnant to the nature of
man and of woman, and is consequently in opposition to the plan of God and
His holy will. But to experience the
gift of married love while respecting the laws of conception is to
acknowledge that one is not the master of the sources of life but rather the minister of the design established by
the Creator.
Unlawful
Birth Control Methods
14. Therefore We base Our words on the first principles of a human and
Christian doctrine of marriage when We are obliged once more to declare that the direct interruption of the generative
process already begun and, above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic
reasons, are to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number
of children. Equally to be condemned,
as the magisterium of the Church has affirmed on many occasions, is direct sterilization, whether of the
man or of the woman, whether permanent
or temporary. Similarly excluded
is any action which either before, at the moment of, or after sexual
intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation—whether as an end
or as a means. …. Consequently, it
is a serious error to think that a whole married life of otherwise normal
relations can justify sexual intercourse which is deliberately contraceptive
and so intrinsically wrong.
20.
It will be helpful to read the whole
encyclical. If possible, at least the whole of #11-14. Here we put in bold
central aspects. Note them well. Marriage means the capacity to give oneself,
integral and total. In marriage there is responsibility—of course. There is the
role of the natural law. Natural law dictates that procreation is central in
marriage. This is even in the biological condition of the human being. Union
and procreation always stay together—this is in the plan of God. Artificial
means are not allowed. But natural
methods are ok. It is interesting to note the confidence given to the human
being—the human self-regulate. The human can have mastery over oneself. If all
these elements are not respected, there is a big chance of infidelity, loss of
respect for the wife who becomes object of pleasure, the responsibility to the
family breaks down.
21.
What do you think? How would you receive this
teaching? It takes guts to welcome it…given all the human fragility we have.
His requires long work, a long discernment. Maybe there is even a call for
conversion somewhere.
22.
Many found the encyclical too harsh…too
“old-fashion”. In modernity there is, more and more, “sexual liberation” and
many say that the Pope is far from recognizing this. Let us look deep into the
issue.
23.
The issue is that many people really love each
other. They express this love in many ways—including the sexual act. But the
encyclical takes a hard position. How do we reconcile the “practical” and the
ideal? Many couples want to be truly Christian. But must they live in constant
guilt each time the do the sexual act for
the sake of it and not for procreation?
24.
Later came Pope John Paul II. He thought of
what is called “the law of graduality”. He wrote an encyclical, Familiaris Consortio, dealing with this. Let us check it out a bit.
“What
is needed is a continuous, permanent conversion
which, while requiring an interior detachment from every evil and an adherence
to good in its fullness, is brought
about concretely in steps which lead us ever forward. Thus a dynamic process develops, one which advances gradually with the progressive integration
of the gifts of God and the demands of His definitive and absolute love in the
entire personal and social life of man… patiently be led forward, arriving at a
richer understanding and a fuller integration of this mystery in their
lives” (Familiaris consortio 9).
“But
man, …is an historical being who day by day builds himself up through his many
free decisions; and so he knows, loves and accomplishes moral good by stages of growth. Married people too
are called upon to progress unceasingly…. They … must consider it (the law) as
a command of Christ the Lord to overcome difficulties with constancy. "And
so what is known as 'the law of
gradualness' or step-by-step advance cannot
be identified with 'gradualness of the law,' as if there were different degrees
or forms of precept in God's law for different individuals and situations. In
God's plan, all husbands and wives are called in marriage to holiness, and this lofty vocation is fulfilled to the
extent that the human person is able to
respond to God…. On the same lines, it is part of the Church's pedagogy
that husbands and wives should first of all recognize clearly the teaching of Humanae vitae as indicating the norm
for the exercise of their sexuality, and that they should endeavor to establish
the conditions necessary for observing that norm” (Familiaris consortio 34).
25.
Again, it is very helpful to read the whole
encyclical or at least these two sections (9 and 34). We removed some parts.
Notice what is said about the “law of graduality”. Moral life is not lived in
one click. We grow in moral life. Slowly we learn to respond to the plan of
God…”gradually”. It is not the law that is gradual, it is our growth in
adjusting to it and complying with it. Note that at the end the Pope will
exhort couples to obey the encyclical
Humanae Vitae…slowly move to complying with it, gradually.
26.
In moral theology we saw this. There are
non-negotiable moral norms. Maybe we are not able to follow them strictly, so
we move gradually. The norms stay—stable and solid.
27.
Remember also what we said about the
“perfection of the Father”, as taught by Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount. We
must be perfect like the father (see Matt.5/48). But this perfection is not impossible for us to do. We grow in
it gradually. We are called to be perfect like the Father. We are called to be
“holy”, in other words. This is clear in Jesus, he calls us to this. But our
response comes gradually. The teachings of the Church—like the Humanae
vitae—are not designed to harm us. What we can do is do what we can. Firmly we move gradually closer to what the
teachings affirm.
CONTRACEPTIVES?
Part II: From humanae vitae
1. The encyclical Humanae Vitae has been
widely questioned and criticized. The discussions continue. One Pope had taken
the defense of the encyclical. This was Pope John-Paul II. Here is from what he
said on the “Church's Position on Transmission of Life”:
“In the conjugal act it is not licit to
separate the unitive aspect from the procreative aspect, because both the one
and the other pertain to the intimate
truth of the conjugal act. The one is activated together with the other and
in a certain sense the one by means of the other. This is what the Encyclical
teaches (Humanae vitae 12).
Therefore, in such a case the conjugal act, deprived of its interior truth because it is artificially deprived
of its procreative capacity, ceases also
to be an act of love. It can be said that in the case of an artificial
separation of these two aspects, a real bodily union is carried out in the
conjugal act, but it does not correspond to the interior truth and to the
dignity of personal communion: communion
of persons. This communion demands that the language of the body be
expressed reciprocally in the integral truth of its meaning. If this truth be
lacking, one cannot speak either of the truth
of self-mastery, or of the truth of the
reciprocal gift and of the reciprocal
acceptance of self on the part of the person. Such a violation of the
interior order of conjugal union, which is rooted in the very order of the
person, constitutes the essential evil
of the contraceptive act (Church's Position on Transmission of Life 6-7).
2.
Note
what the Pope is emphasizing—and we put in bold letters. The conjugal act is
also procreative act. Deprive the conjugal act of procreation is to deny the
act of love. Pope John Paul II puts the husband and wife in a challenge: in the
union of two bodies how can that union be truly a union of persons, integral and true? Humans and persons are
capable of self-mastery and of reciprocity. The contraceptive act refuses to
recognize this human capacity.
3.
Priests
have their manual for confessions. They are “handbooks” which serve as
references when they need to think about what to say to those who go to
confession. (We are probably not so aware of this…but priests always have this.
So during the RH debate in the Philippines, when priests were reacting, they
had a reference point.) Look at what the handbook for married people will say
about marriage and procreation:
“The virtue of conjugal chastity ‘involves
the integrity of the person and the integrality of the gift’, and through it
sexuality ‘becomes personal and truly human when it is integrated into the
relationship of one person to another, in the complete and lifelong mutual gift
of a man and a woman’. This virtue, in so far as it refers to the intimate
relations of the spouses, requires that ‘the
total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of
true love’ be maintained. Therefore, among the fundamental moral principles
of conjugal life, it is necessary to keep in mind ‘the inseparable connection, willed by God and unable to be broken
by man on his own initiative, between the two meanings of the conjugal act: the unitive meaning and the procreative
meaning. The Church has always taught the intrinsic evil of contraception, that is, of every marital act
intentionally rendered unfruitful. This teaching is to be held as definitive and irreformable. Contraception
is gravely opposed to marital chastity; it is contrary to the good of the
transmission of life (the procreative aspect of matrimony), and to the
reciprocal self-giving of the spouses (the unitive aspect of matrimony); it
harms true love and denies the sovereign role of God in the transmission of
human life. (Vademecum for confessors
concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life Intro 2 and 2/4).
4.
So
it is in the tradition of the Church to refuse the sexual act the is oriented
to infertile results—contraception.
Contraception is intrinsically evil. Conjugal
love is always related with procreation. So even married people stay
chaste—this is conjugal chastity. Contraception
is opposed to this chastity. It is opposed to the transmission of life—and
transmission is in the will of God. It harms conjugal love. Note what the
handbook says: contraception is
irreformable. (So now we see why priests in the Philippines are so firm in
their stand…this is what their handbook says!)
5.
If
we think back to our Genesis reflection, this handbook seems to be saying that
the human being is a “steward” of creation. The human being is not the owner of
the world. Procreation is part of stewardship. God creates, the human
pro-creates.
6.
Take
a look at this practice: “…it is always necessary to assist the spouses, also
in the moment of the sacrament of Reconciliation, to examine themselves on the
specific duties of conjugal life. Whenever the confessor considers it necessary
to question the penitent, he should do
so with discretion and respect.” (Vademecum
for confessors concerning some aspects of the morality of conjugal life
2/7). The priest is not obliged to investigate the person confessing—he is not
to ask questions on topics that the person confessing does not talk about. The
priest must always favor the good of the penitent—not castigate the penitent.
Of course if there are strong indications that contraception is an issue, the
priest may have to provoke questions. But this is just to clarify and not to
look for details.
The Contraceptive Mentality
1.
We
say that when a man and a woman get married, they will share lives in full confidence
to each other…each will say: “I give myself to you”. It is a “mutual
self-giving”…for all life…”’til death
do us part”. Contraception is a path
of not sharing a part of oneself. What is this part? My fertility. I share all
that I am to you—all except my fertility. Our mutual self-giving has limits. We
will mutually self-give up to a certain
point which is our fertility. We are willing to have full confidence with
each other, except in terms of fertility. So a reservation is made.
This opens the door to many other reservations. If fertility can be reserved, the why not… We can imagine many things. We can reserve resources—“oh now I can keep some for myself and not share”. We can reserve certain information—“oh now I do not have to tell you what happened to me during the day”. We can reserve friends—“Oh I do not have to tell you I have friendship with that person…and I do not have to tell you what we do together”. Etc. Next thing we know, we ask for a separation and divorce.
This opens the door to many other reservations. If fertility can be reserved, the why not… We can imagine many things. We can reserve resources—“oh now I can keep some for myself and not share”. We can reserve certain information—“oh now I do not have to tell you what happened to me during the day”. We can reserve friends—“Oh I do not have to tell you I have friendship with that person…and I do not have to tell you what we do together”. Etc. Next thing we know, we ask for a separation and divorce.
2.
We
reserve more…we share less. The unconditional love professed during marriage
slowly falls apart. When contraception fails—and the wife becomes pregnant—the
door to abortion is next opened. See what contraceptive mentality is. It is a
cultural behavior that opens many doors.
3.
Of
course there is, maybe, an exaggeration here. Surely there are married people
who have successful married lives even
while practicing contraception. But we try to appreciate the stand of the
Church. Let us be aware of the risks involved in the contraceptive mentality.
4.
Some
reference questions may have to be raised when living in a culture of
contraceptive mentality. (Note that you are going to be teachers and formators
later on. You might need to discuss contraception with your students.)
Will there be respect for the body of the woman (…her integrity, her rhythm…he health….)?
Will the choice for using contraceptives be a fruit of dialogue and consultation not just with each other but with competent people—including people in the Church?
If a method is chosen to control birth, will it affect fertility?
What about our sexual relations—will it become simply a matter of “habit” and less of love? Will the method used lead to the destruction of a possible human life that will be conceived?
Will there be respect for the body of the woman (…her integrity, her rhythm…he health….)?
Will the choice for using contraceptives be a fruit of dialogue and consultation not just with each other but with competent people—including people in the Church?
If a method is chosen to control birth, will it affect fertility?
What about our sexual relations—will it become simply a matter of “habit” and less of love? Will the method used lead to the destruction of a possible human life that will be conceived?
5. What about the “natural method”? There is the Ogino-Kanuss method. The Doctor
Billings method. … There is the “pull out” method—the style of Onan in the
Bible. There is the “knowing the right time” method…that is, regulating
according to the menstrual period of the wife. These involve watching closely
the ways of the wife’s body…So the intimate secretions of the wife must be
closely observed by the couple. This implies a dialogue between the husband and the wife. His dialogue will tell
both of them “when to do it”, that is, the conjugal act.
6.
Can
this be done in an adult way? This is what the Church would like to say.
Self-regulation and matured treatment of the body and sexuality are part of the
“culture” of marriage. Today we seem to be so “free” with “sex”… How about a
serious, not hedonistic, approach to sex?
7.
What
about Onan? (See Gen 38/8-10). Well, it was about cheating…Onan was not true to
his word. The Church would not go for this style. It is not just a lack of
fidelity to what one says it is also about putting that to action. The “pulling
out” is cheating. He promised descendance…he was not true to his word…and he
pulled out. Many still doubt this is wrong…. So the debate continues.
Conclusion
1.
So
we come to the end of our discussion—a “very conservative” discussion, we
admit. In the world today where “sex” is “more liberal”, the stand of the
Church may, indeed, look so conservative. This is a course in theology—we look
at the Church’s stand. Let us try to appreciate what she says. She talks about
sex—and fertility. It is a “power” we have—something given to us in creation.
It is a power of the “male-female” that becomes “man-woman”. This power puts a child in the world. It is not a
power to be joked with.
2.
The
Church invites married couples to lead a
married life. As we saw above in our discussion, there are ways of leading
this life. “You may…but”, as Genesis would put it. Not all means of birth
control are good, as the Church would say. Abortion destroys life.
Contraception is a method that relies on lack of confidence and mutual
self-giving of the married couple. It is a way of refusing to “master your
mastery”, again as Genesis would say.
3.
Yes,
the Church would go for “natural regulation” of birth. This requires maturity
and adulthood in marriage.
4.
What
do you think?
A few words about the way the Church handles
the RH debate in the country of the Philippines
1.
We
have seen what the Church has done during the hot debate. We have seen Church
people…including Bishops and Religious people…go to congress and be visible in
their lobby against the RH Bill. After discussing the stand of the Church here
in our class, we understand why the Church people behaved that way.
2. But there is also a limit to lobbying and to
rally against…. “You may, but”…this rule applies even to Church people. Certain
manifestations of Church people need to be questioned. When a big storm hit
Mindanao and killed innocent people and destroyed so much properties, we cannot
say that it was due God’s refusal of the RH Bill. When individuals wear pro-RH and
go to mass, must they be castigated in front of the crowd…and must the
communion be preferential against them?
3. What has the Church done to educate the
parishioners regarding the debate? To simplify the issue and say that there are
only two types of people—the “pro” and the “anti”—is to over simply the issue and to treat people naively. If the Church is
the assembly of all members—not just of priests and religious—then the ordained
ministry is duty bound to educate the faithful. The maintenance of faith is
part of the ordained priest’s job anyway.
4. Finally, to make a political stand on the RH
issue and tell people who to vote and not vote….Well, does this not make the
Catholic Church a “political party”? Banners and tarpaulins are set up inside
parish church compounds. Written are persons not to vote for and persons to
vote for. This is a political campaign done by the parish! This is not the way
of the Church. Already the Philippine Church said this a long time ago:
"The Church's competence in passing moral judgments even in matters
political has been traditionally interpreted as pertaining to the clergy.
Negatively put, the clergy can teach moral doctrines covering politics but
cannot actively involve themselves in partisan politics. Religious men and women
are also included in this prohibition" (PCP-II, 340). But lay people have
competence in active and direct partisan politics. (PCP-II, 341). The laity may
do partisan politics…but cannot use the parishes for their advocacies.
A Short Note on St. Augustine
For St.A. God is all good. We are not.
We have “concupiscence”—a disorder due to our original sin. Let’s use the word
“lust”. It is not natural in us. It
is not exactly a sin either. It is a
result of original sin—a consequence. The trouble in sexuality is a
weakening of our sexual will…due again to original sin. We have become
unbalanced and lustful. Our desires go wild and our impulses have become
irrational. We have lost our original and natural freedom to manage well our
impulses and sexual energies.
For St.A., the sexual union is
good—fundamentally good because it is willed by God. God created the
world—including us and our bodies—and his creation is good. So when we use the
body sexually, the body is good. Having babies and generations is something God
wants.
The union of man—husband—and
woman—wife—is good and holy. It is what God wills. Be fruitful and multiply. It
is God who said that. To generate—multiply—is a blessing from God. Now, God
gave this blessing before the fall of
Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve were given that blessing to populate the earth.
Populating the earth continues even after the fault of Adam and Eve. So,
the blessing of having children is the
glory of marriage and not in relation
to the penalty of original sin. The blessing continues and it is connected
to the blessing given before the fall. Having
babies is not a consequence of sin. The sin of Adam and Eve did not annul the
blessing of fecundity. But it infected
the blessing with the disease of lust. Here is a passage from St.A.:
“Far
be it, then, from us to suppose that our first parents in Paradise felt that
lust which caused them afterwards to blush and hide their nakedness, or that by
its means they should have fulfilled the benediction of God, Increase and
multiply and replenish the earth; Genesis 1:28 for it was after sin that lust
began. It was after sin that our nature, having lost the power it had over the
whole body, but not having lost all shame, perceived, noticed, blushed at, and
covered it. But that blessing upon marriage, which encouraged them to increase
and multiply and replenish the earth, though it continued even after they had
sinned, was yet given before they sinned, in order that the procreation of
children might be recognized as part of the glory of marriage, and not of the
punishment of sin” (City of God 14/21).
The union of husband and wife, though
willed by God, has become deformed by sin. So when we look at the stand of the
Church, she is trying her best to re-instate us in our more “natural status”:
sex is for procreation and it is done without lust.
What about bad? What is bad—evil? For
St.A. evil is a lack of good. There
is evil when good is deprived. Evil denies the fullness of what we are. We are
deprived of fullness.
Thesis sheet for Church
Social Doctrine: for Oral Exam
1.
The rule of law means that there are certain principles higher
than the usual laws of the country. The oath of the president is one proof of
higher principles.
2.
The Church can engage in politics. But not everyone in the Church
can engage in political activities, like having roles in elections. Political
engagement is a task belong to some members
of the Church, the laity.
3.
In the economic world today, the Market is free. But the Church
also says that government should have an important role. The government can
enter into economic activities.
4.
Business is focused on making money, on making profit, on
“maximizing returns of investments”. Yet, for the Church, business is also
about “persons”. So it is ok to make profit, but profit has a limit.
5.
In the Social Doctrine of the Church, there are some basic
principles. We mention the following: a. Common good, b. Universal Destination
of goods, c. Solidarity and d. Subsidiarity.
6.
The ecological problem can be attributed to human failure to deal
with the environment. For the Church, the human “dominates” nature not
abusively but according to the plan of
God.
7.
The secular world says it is impossible to control sexual impulses.
This opens the door to contraception. The contraceptive mentality opens doors
to married life of not sharing. It can also promote abortion. The Church
believes in controlling the sexual impulse and therefore she promotes natural
family planning.
Thesis sheet for Theology
of the Church (Ecclesiology): for Oral Exam
1.
The Church is an assembly.
The life passion death and resurrection of Christ motivated the founding of the
Church. The disciples were called by Christ to discipleship. They were
impressed by Christ they were willing to continue his mission.
2.
The Church is Trinitarian.
She is assembled by the Father. She is instituted by the Son. She is made Holy
and dynamic by the Holy Spirit. Structurally the Church is “People of God”. She
is “Body of Christ”. She is “Temple of the Holy Spirit”.
3.
The Pneumatological aspect
of the Church complements the Christological aspect. Thanks to the
Pneumatological aspect, the Church is not stuck with structures and
institutions. She is dynamic and on the move.
4.
The Church is Holy even if
it is not an assembly of holy people. It is the work of members of the
Church—like the religious—to give credibility to this holiness.
5.
The Church is Sacrament.
She is sacrament of salvation. She is sacrament of the Kingdom.
6.
The diocese, or local
Church, is given a clearer role in the Church. This is because the Church is
“in communion”. The universal Church is composed on local Churches.
7.
We revolve around the
Church and the Church revolves around Christ. This is different from the usual
idea that we revolve around the ordained priest. The priest is a “sacramental
representative” of Christ. Each member of the Church has a role. Taking care of
the Church is not monopolized by the ordained priest.
8.
The Pope keeps his Primacy.
It is a collegial primacy.
9.
The religious life and
consecrated life are more “charismatic” than “institutional”. The priest has
the charism of institutional ministry.
No comments:
Post a Comment