OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF
BENEDICT XVI
TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS AND DEACONS, MEN AND WOMEN RELIGIOUS
AND ALL THE LAY FAITHFUL
AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL
ON INTEGRAL HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN CHARITY AND TRUTH
INTRODUCTION
1.
Charity in truth, to which Jesus Christ bore witness by his
earthly life and especially by his death and resurrection, is
the principal driving force behind the authentic development of
every person and of all humanity. Love — caritas — is an
extraordinary force which leads people to opt for courageous and
generous engagement in the field of justice and peace. It is a
force that has its origin in God, Eternal Love and Absolute
Truth. Each person finds his good by adherence to God's plan for
him, in order to realize it fully: in this plan, he finds his
truth, and through adherence to this truth he becomes free (cf.
Jn 8:22). To defend the truth, to articulate it with humility
and conviction, and to bear witness to it in life are therefore
exacting and indispensable forms of charity. Charity, in fact,
“rejoices in the truth” (1 Cor 13:6). All people feel the
interior impulse to love authentically: love and truth never
abandon them completely, because these are the vocation planted
by God in the heart and mind of every human person. The search
for love and truth is purified and liberated by Jesus Christ
from the impoverishment that our humanity brings to it, and he
reveals to us in all its fullness the initiative of love and the
plan for true life that God has prepared for us. In Christ,
charity in truth becomes the Face of his Person, a vocation
for us to love our brothers and sisters in the truth of his
plan. Indeed, he himself is the Truth (cf. Jn 14:6).
2. Charity is at the heart of the
Church's social doctrine. Every responsibility and every
commitment spelt out by that doctrine is derived from charity
which, according to the teaching of Jesus, is the synthesis of
the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36- 40). It gives real substance to
the personal relationship with God and with neighbour; it is the
principle not only of micro-relationships (with friends, with
family members or within small groups) but also of
macro-relationships (social, economic and political ones). For
the Church, instructed by the Gospel, charity is everything
because, as Saint John teaches (cf. 1 Jn 4:8, 16) and as I
recalled in my first
Encyclical Letter, “God is love” (Deus
Caritas Est):
everything has its origin in God's love, everything is shaped by
it, everything is directed towards it. Love is God's
greatest gift to humanity, it is his promise and our hope.
I am
aware of the ways in which charity has been and continues to be
misconstrued and emptied of meaning, with the consequent risk of
being misinterpreted, detached from ethical living and, in any
event, undervalued. In the social, juridical, cultural,
political and economic fields — the contexts, in other words,
that are most exposed to this danger — it is easily dismissed as
irrelevant for interpreting and giving direction to moral
responsibility. Hence the need to link charity with truth not
only in the sequence, pointed out by Saint Paul, of veritas
in caritate (Eph 4:15), but also in the inverse and
complementary sequence of caritas in veritate. Truth
needs to be sought, found and expressed within the “economy” of
charity, but charity in its turn needs to be understood,
confirmed and practised in the light of truth. In this way, not
only do we do a service to charity enlightened by truth, but we
also help give credibility to truth, demonstrating its
persuasive and authenticating power in the practical setting of
social living. This is a matter of no small account today, in a
social and cultural context which relativizes truth, often
paying little heed to it and showing increasing reluctance to
acknowledge its existence.
3.
Through this close link with truth, charity can be recognized as
an authentic expression of humanity and as an element of
fundamental importance in human relations, including those of a
public nature. Only in truth does charity shine forth,
only in truth can charity be authentically lived. Truth is the
light that gives meaning and value to charity. That light is
both the light of reason and the light of faith, through which
the intellect attains to the natural and supernatural truth of
charity: it grasps its meaning as gift, acceptance, and
communion. Without truth, charity degenerates into
sentimentality. Love becomes an empty shell, to be filled in an
arbitrary way. In a culture without truth, this is the fatal
risk facing love. It falls prey to contingent subjective
emotions and opinions, the word “love” is abused and distorted,
to the point where it comes to mean the opposite. Truth frees
charity from the constraints of an emotionalism that deprives it
of relational and social content, and of a fideism that deprives
it of human and universal breathing-space. In the truth, charity
reflects the personal yet public dimension of faith in the God
of the Bible, who is both Agápe and Lógos: Charity
and Truth, Love and Word.
4.
Because it is filled with truth, charity can be understood in
the abundance of its values, it can be shared and communicated.
Truth, in fact, is lógos which creates
diá-logos, and hence communication and communion. Truth, by
enabling men and women to let go of their subjective opinions
and impressions, allows them to move beyond cultural and
historical limitations and to come together in the assessment of
the value and substance of things. Truth opens and unites our
minds in the lógos of love: this is the Christian
proclamation and testimony of charity. In the present social and
cultural context, where there is a widespread tendency to
relativize truth, practising charity in truth helps people to
understand that adhering to the values of Christianity is not
merely useful but essential for building a good society and for
true integral human development. A Christianity of charity
without truth would be more or less interchangeable with a pool
of good sentiments, helpful for social cohesion, but of little
relevance. In other words, there would no longer be any real
place for God in the world. Without truth, charity is confined
to a narrow field devoid of relations. It is excluded from the
plans and processes of promoting human development of universal
range, in dialogue between knowledge and praxis.
5.
Charity is love received and given. It is “grace” (cháris).
Its source is the wellspring of the Father's love for the Son,
in the Holy Spirit. Love comes down to us from the Son. It is
creative love, through which we have our being; it is redemptive
love, through which we are recreated. Love is revealed and made
present by Christ (cf. Jn 13:1) and “poured into our hearts
through the Holy Spirit” (Rom 5:5). As the objects of God's
love, men and women become subjects of charity, they are called
to make themselves instruments of grace, so as to pour forth
God's charity and to weave networks of charity.
This
dynamic of charity received and given is what gives rise to the
Church's social teaching, which is caritas in veritate in re
sociali: the proclamation of the truth of Christ's love in
society. This doctrine is a service to charity, but its locus is
truth. Truth preserves and expresses charity's power to liberate
in the ever-changing events of history. It is at the same time
the truth of faith and of reason, both in the distinction and
also in the convergence of those two cognitive fields.
Development, social well-being, the search for a satisfactory
solution to the grave socio-economic problems besetting
humanity, all need this truth. What they need even more is that
this truth should be loved and demonstrated. Without truth,
without trust and love for what is true, there is no social
conscience and responsibility, and social action ends up serving
private interests and the logic of power, resulting in social
fragmentation, especially in a globalized society at difficult
times like the present.
6. “Caritas
in veritate” is the principle around which the Church's
social doctrine turns, a principle that takes on practical form
in the criteria that govern moral action. I would like to
consider two of these in particular, of special relevance to the
commitment to development in an increasingly globalized society:
justice and the common good.
First of all, justice. Ubi
societas, ibi ius: every society draws up its own system of
justice. Charity goes beyond justice, because to love is
to give, to offer what is “mine” to the other; but it never
lacks justice, which prompts us to give the other what is “his”,
what is due to him by reason of his being or his acting. I
cannot “give” what is mine to the other, without first giving
him what pertains to him in justice. If we love others with
charity, then first of all we are just towards them. Not only is
justice not extraneous to charity, not only is it not an
alternative or parallel path to charity: justice is inseparable
from charity[1],
and intrinsic to it. Justice is the primary way of charity or,
in Paul VI's words, “the minimum measure” of it[2],
an integral part of the love “in deed and in truth” (1 Jn 3:18),
to which Saint John exhorts us. On the one hand, charity demands
justice: recognition and respect for the legitimate rights of
individuals and peoples. It strives to build the earthly city
according to law and justice. On the other hand, charity
transcends justice and completes it in the logic of giving and
forgiving[3].
The earthly city is promoted not merely by relationships
of rights and duties, but to an even greater and more
fundamental extent by relationships of gratuitousness, mercy and
communion. Charity always manifests God's love in human
relationships as well, it gives theological and salvific value
to all commitment for justice in the world.
7. Another important
consideration is the common good. To love someone is to desire
that person's good and to take effective steps to secure it.
Besides the good of the individual, there is a good that is
linked to living in society: the common good. It is the good of
“all of us”, made up of individuals, families and intermediate
groups who together constitute society[4].
It is a good that is sought not for its own sake, but for the
people who belong to the social community and who can only
really and effectively pursue their good within it. To desire
the common good and strive towards it is a requirement
of justice and charity. To take a stand for the common good
is on the one hand to be solicitous for, and on the other hand
to avail oneself of, that complex of institutions that give
structure to the life of society, juridically, civilly,
politically and culturally, making it the pólis, or
“city”. The more we strive to secure a common good corresponding
to the real needs of our neighbours, the more effectively we
love them. Every Christian is called to practise this charity,
in a manner corresponding to his vocation and according to the
degree of influence he wields in the pólis. This is the
institutional path — we might also call it the political path —
of charity, no less excellent and effective than the kind of
charity which encounters the neighbour directly, outside the
institutional mediation of the pólis. When animated by
charity, commitment to the common good has greater worth than a
merely secular and political stand would have. Like all
commitment to justice, it has a place within the testimony of
divine charity that paves the way for eternity through temporal
action. Man's earthly activity, when inspired and sustained by
charity, contributes to the building of the universal city of
God, which is the goal of the history of the human family.
In an increasingly globalized society, the common good and the
effort to obtain it cannot fail to assume the dimensions of the
whole human family, that is to say, the community of peoples and
nations[5],
in such a way as to shape the earthly city in unity and
peace, rendering it to some degree an anticipation and a
prefiguration of the undivided city of God.
8. In 1967, when he issued the
Encyclical
Populorum Progressio, my venerable
predecessor Pope Paul VI illuminated the great theme of the
development of peoples with the splendour of truth and the
gentle light of Christ's charity. He taught that life in Christ
is the first and principal factor of development[6]
and he entrusted us with the task of travelling the path of
development with all our heart and all our intelligence[7],
that is to say with the ardour of charity and the wisdom of
truth. It is the primordial truth of God's love, grace bestowed
upon us, that opens our lives to gift and makes it possible to
hope for a “development of the whole man and of all men”[8],
to hope for progress “from less human conditions to those which
are more human”[9],
obtained by overcoming the difficulties that are inevitably
encountered along the way.
At a distance of over forty years
from the Encyclical's publication, I intend to pay tribute and
to honour the memory of the great Pope Paul VI, revisiting his
teachings on integral human development and taking my
place within the path that they marked out, so as to apply them
to the present moment. This continual application to
contemporary circumstances began with the Encyclical
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, with which the Servant of God Pope
John Paul II chose to mark the twentieth anniversary of the
publication of
Populorum Progressio. Until that
time, only Rerum Novarum had been commemorated in this
way. Now that a further twenty years have passed, I express my
conviction that
Populorum Progressio
deserves to be considered “the Rerum Novarum of the
present age”, shedding light upon humanity's journey towards
unity.
9.
Love in truth — caritas in veritate — is a great
challenge for the Church in a world that is becoming
progressively and pervasively globalized. The risk for our time
is that the de facto interdependence of people and
nations is not matched by ethical interaction of consciences and
minds that would give rise to truly human development. Only in
charity, illumined by the light of reason and faith, is it
possible to pursue development goals that possess a more humane
and humanizing value. The sharing of goods and resources, from
which authentic development proceeds, is not guaranteed by
merely technical progress and relationships of utility, but by
the potential of love that overcomes evil with good (cf. Rom
12:21), opening up the path towards reciprocity of consciences
and liberties.
The Church does not have
technical solutions to offer[10]
and does not claim “to interfere in any way in the politics of
States.”[11]
She does, however, have a mission of truth to accomplish, in
every time and circumstance, for a society that is attuned to
man, to his dignity, to his vocation. Without truth, it is easy
to fall into an empiricist and sceptical view of life, incapable
of rising to the level of praxis because of a lack of interest
in grasping the values — sometimes even the meanings — with
which to judge and direct it. Fidelity to man requires
fidelity to the truth, which alone is the guarantee of
freedom (cf. Jn 8:32) and of the possibility of integral
human development. For this reason the Church searches for
truth, proclaims it tirelessly and recognizes it wherever it is
manifested. This mission of truth is something that the Church
can never renounce. Her social doctrine is a particular
dimension of this proclamation: it is a service to the truth
which sets us free. Open to the truth, from whichever branch of
knowledge it comes, the Church's social doctrine receives it,
assembles into a unity the fragments in which it is often found,
and mediates it within the constantly changing life-patterns of
the society of peoples and nations[12].
CHAPTER ONE
THE MESSAGE
OF POPULORUM PROGRESSIO
10. A fresh reading of
Populorum Progressio, more than
forty years after its publication, invites us to remain faithful
to its message of charity and truth, viewed within the overall
context of Paul VI's specific magisterium and, more generally,
within the tradition of the Church's social doctrine. Moreover,
an evaluation is needed of the different terms in which the
problem of development is presented today, as compared with
forty years ago. The correct viewpoint, then, is that of the
Tradition of the apostolic faith[13],
a patrimony both ancient and new, outside of which
Populorum Progressio
would be a document
without roots — and issues concerning development would be
reduced to merely sociological data.
11. The publication of
Populorum Progressio occurred
immediately after the conclusion of the Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, and in its opening paragraphs it clearly
indicates its close connection with the Council[14].
Twenty years later, in Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, John
Paul II, in his turn, emphasized the earlier Encyclical's
fruitful relationship with the Council, and especially with the
Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes[15].
I too wish to recall here the importance of the Second Vatican
Council for Paul VI's Encyclical and for the whole of the
subsequent social Magisterium of the Popes. The Council probed
more deeply what had always belonged to the truth of the faith,
namely that the Church, being at God's service, is at the
service of the world in terms of love and truth. Paul VI set out
from this vision in order to convey two important truths. The
first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting —
when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works
of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development.
She has a public role over and above her charitable and
educational activities: all the energy she brings to the
advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is
manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom.
In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and
persecutions, or it is limited when the Church's public presence
is reduced to her charitable activities alone. The second truth
is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the
person in every single dimension[16].
Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this
world is denied breathing-space. Enclosed within history, it
runs the risk of being reduced to the mere accumulation of
wealth; humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of
higher goods, at the service of the great and disinterested
initiatives called forth by universal charity. Man does not
develop through his own powers, nor can development simply be
handed to him. In the course of history, it was often maintained
that the creation of institutions was sufficient to guarantee
the fulfilment of humanity's right to development.
Unfortunately, too much confidence was placed in those
institutions, as if they were able to deliver the desired
objective automatically. In reality, institutions by themselves
are not enough, because integral human development is primarily
a vocation, and therefore it involves a free assumption of
responsibility in solidarity on the part of everyone. Moreover,
such development requires a transcendent vision of the person,
it needs God: without him, development is either denied, or
entrusted exclusively to man, who falls into the trap of
thinking he can bring about his own salvation, and ends up
promoting a dehumanized form of development. Only through an
encounter with God are we able to see in the other something
more than just another creature[17],
to recognize the divine image in the other, thus truly coming to
discover him or her and to mature in a love that “becomes
concern and care for the other.”[18]
12. The link between
Populorum Progressio and the
Second Vatican Council does not mean that Paul VI's social
magisterium marked a break with that of previous Popes, because
the Council constitutes a deeper exploration of this magisterium
within the continuity of the Church's life[19].
In this sense, clarity is not served by certain abstract
subdivisions of the Church's social doctrine, which apply
categories to Papal social teaching that are extraneous to it.
It is not a case of two typologies of social doctrine, one
pre-conciliar and one post-conciliar, differing from one
another: on the contrary, there is a single teaching,
consistent and at the same time ever new[20].
It is one thing to draw attention to the particular
characteristics of one Encyclical or another, of the teaching of
one Pope or another, but quite another to lose sight of the
coherence of the overall doctrinal corpus[21].
Coherence does not mean a closed system: on the contrary, it
means dynamic faithfulness to a light received. The Church's
social doctrine illuminates with an unchanging light the new
problems that are constantly emerging[22].
This safeguards the permanent and historical character of the
doctrinal “patrimony”[23]
which, with its specific characteristics, is part and parcel of
the Church's ever-living Tradition[24].
Social doctrine is built on the foundation handed on by the
Apostles to the Fathers of the Church, and then received and
further explored by the great Christian doctors. This doctrine
points definitively to the New Man, to the “last Adam [who]
became a life-giving spirit” (1 Cor 15:45), the principle of the
charity that “never ends” (1 Cor 13:8). It is attested by the
saints and by those who gave their lives for Christ our Saviour
in the field of justice and peace. It is an expression of the
prophetic task of the Supreme Pontiffs to give apostolic
guidance to the Church of Christ and to discern the new demands
of evangelization. For these reasons,
Populorum Progressio,
situated within the great current of Tradition, can still speak
to us today.
13. In addition to its important
link with the entirety of the Church's social doctrine,
Populorum Progressio
is closely connected to the overall
magisterium of Paul VI, especially his social magisterium.
His was certainly a social teaching of great importance: he
underlined the indispensable importance of the Gospel for
building a society according to freedom and justice, in the
ideal and historical perspective of a civilization animated by
love. Paul VI clearly understood that the social question had
become worldwide
[25]
and he grasped the interconnection between the impetus towards
the unification of humanity and the Christian ideal of a single
family of peoples in solidarity and fraternity. In the notion
of development, understood in human and Christian terms, he
identified the heart of the Christian social message, and he
proposed Christian charity as the principal force at the service
of development. Motivated by the wish to make Christ's love
fully visible to contemporary men and women, Paul VI addressed
important ethical questions robustly, without yielding to the
cultural weaknesses of his time.
14. In his Apostolic Letter
Octogesima Adveniens of 1971, Paul VI reflected on the
meaning of politics, and the danger constituted by utopian
and ideological visions that place its ethical and human
dimensions in jeopardy. These are matters closely connected with
development. Unfortunately the negative ideologies continue to
flourish. Paul VI had already warned against the technocratic
ideology so prevalent today[26],
fully aware of the great danger of entrusting the entire process
of development to technology alone, because in that way it would
lack direction. Technology, viewed in itself, is ambivalent. If
on the one hand, some today would be inclined to entrust the
entire process of development to technology, on the other hand
we are witnessing an upsurge of ideologies that deny in toto
the very value of development, viewing it as radically
anti-human and merely a source of degradation. This leads to a
rejection, not only of the distorted and unjust way in which
progress is sometimes directed, but also of scientific
discoveries themselves, which, if well used, could serve as an
opportunity of growth for all. The idea of a world without
development indicates a lack of trust in man and in God. It is
therefore a serious mistake to undervalue human capacity to
exercise control over the deviations of development or to
overlook the fact that man is constitutionally oriented towards
“being more”. Idealizing technical progress, or contemplating
the utopia of a return to humanity's original natural state, are
two contrasting ways of detaching progress from its moral
evaluation and hence from our responsibility.
15. Two further documents by Paul
VI without any direct link to social doctrine — the Encyclical
Humanae Vitae (25 July 1968) and the Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Nuntiandi (8 December 1975) — are highly
important for delineating the fully human meaning of the
development that the Church proposes. It is therefore
helpful to consider these texts too in relation to
Populorum Progressio.
The Encyclical Humanae Vitae
emphasizes both the unitive and the procreative meaning of
sexuality, thereby locating at the foundation of society the
married couple, man and woman, who accept one another mutually,
in distinction and in complementarity: a couple, therefore, that
is open to life[27].
This is not a question of purely individual morality: Humanae
Vitae indicates the strong links between life ethics and
social ethics, ushering in a new area of magisterial
teaching that has gradually been articulated in a series of
documents, most recently John Paul II's Encyclical Evangelium
Vitae[28].
The Church forcefully maintains this link between life ethics
and social ethics, fully aware that “a society lacks solid
foundations when, on the one hand, it asserts values such as the
dignity of the person, justice and peace, but then, on the other
hand, radically acts to the contrary by allowing or tolerating a
variety of ways in which human life is devalued and violated,
especially where it is weak or marginalized.”[29]
The Apostolic Exhortation
Evangelii Nuntiandi, for its part, is very closely linked
with development, given that, in Paul VI's words,
“evangelization would not be complete if it did not take account
of the unceasing interplay of the Gospel and of man's concrete
life, both personal and social.”[30]
“Between evangelization and human advancement — development and
liberation — there are in fact profound links”[31]:
on the basis of this insight, Paul VI clearly presented the
relationship between the proclamation of Christ and the
advancement of the individual in society. Testimony to
Christ's charity, through works of justice, peace and
development, is part and parcel of evangelization, because
Jesus Christ, who loves us, is concerned with the whole person.
These important teachings form the basis for the missionary
aspect[32]
of the Church's social doctrine, which is an essential element
of evangelization[33].
The Church's social doctrine proclaims and bears witness to
faith. It is an instrument and an indispensable setting for
formation in faith.
16. In
Populorum Progressio, Paul VI
taught that progress, in its origin and essence, is first and
foremost a vocation: “in the design of God, every man is
called upon to develop and fulfil himself, for every life is a
vocation.”[34]
This is what gives legitimacy to the Church's involvement in the
whole question of development. If development were concerned
with merely technical aspects of human life, and not with the
meaning of man's pilgrimage through history in company with his
fellow human beings, nor with identifying the goal of that
journey, then the Church would not be entitled to speak on it.
Paul VI, like Leo XIII before him in Rerum Novarum[35],
knew that he was carrying out a duty proper to his office by
shedding the light of the Gospel on the social questions of his
time[36].
To regard development as a
vocation is to recognize, on the one hand, that it derives
from a transcendent call, and on the other hand that it is
incapable, on its own, of supplying its ultimate meaning. Not
without reason the word “vocation” is also found in another
passage of the Encyclical, where we read: “There is no true
humanism but that which is open to the Absolute, and is
conscious of a vocation which gives human life its true
meaning.”[37]
This vision of development is at the heart of
Populorum Progressio,
and it lies behind all Paul VI's reflections on freedom, on
truth and on charity in development. It is also the principal
reason why that Encyclical is still timely in our day.
17. A vocation is a call that
requires a free and responsible answer. Integral human
development presupposes the responsible freedom of the
individual and of peoples: no structure can guarantee this
development over and above human responsibility. The “types of
messianism which give promises but create illusions”[38]
always build their case on a denial of the transcendent
dimension of development, in the conviction that it lies
entirely at their disposal. This false security becomes a
weakness, because it involves reducing man to subservience, to a
mere means for development, while the humility of those who
accept a vocation is transformed into true autonomy, because it
sets them free. Paul VI was in no doubt that obstacles and forms
of conditioning hold up development, but he was also certain
that “each one remains, whatever be these influences affecting
him, the principal agent of his own success or failure.”[39]
This freedom concerns the type of development we are
considering, but it also affects situations of underdevelopment
which are not due to chance or historical necessity, but are
attributable to human responsibility. This is why “the peoples
in hunger are making a dramatic appeal to the peoples blessed
with abundance”[40].
This too is a vocation, a call addressed by free subjects to
other free subjects in favour of an assumption of shared
responsibility. Paul VI had a keen sense of the importance of
economic structures and institutions, but he had an equally
clear sense of their nature as instruments of human freedom.
Only when it is free can development be integrally human; only
in a climate of responsible freedom can it grow in a
satisfactory manner.
18. Besides requiring freedom,
integral human development as a vocation also demands respect
for its truth. The vocation to progress drives us to “do
more, know more and have more in order to be more”[41].
But herein lies the problem: what does it mean “to be more”?
Paul VI answers the question by indicating the essential quality
of “authentic” development: it must be “integral, that is, it
has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man”[42].
Amid the various competing anthropological visions put forward
in today's society, even more so than in Paul VI's time, the
Christian vision has the particular characteristic of asserting
and justifying the unconditional value of the human person and
the meaning of his growth. The Christian vocation to development
helps to promote the advancement of all men and of the whole
man. As Paul VI wrote: “What we hold important is man, each man
and each group of men, and we even include the whole of
humanity”[43].
In promoting development, the Christian faith does not rely on
privilege or positions of power, nor even on the merits of
Christians (even though these existed and continue to exist
alongside their natural limitations)[44],
but only on Christ, to whom every authentic vocation to integral
human development must be directed. The Gospel is fundamental
for development, because in the Gospel, Christ, “in the very
revelation of the mystery of the Father and of his love, fully
reveals humanity to itself”[45].
Taught by her Lord, the Church examines the signs of the times
and interprets them, offering the world “what she possesses as
her characteristic attribute: a global vision of man and of the
human race”[46].
Precisely because God gives a resounding “yes” to man[47],
man cannot fail to open himself to the divine vocation to pursue
his own development. The truth of development consists in its
completeness: if it does not involve the whole man and every
man, it is not true development. This is the central message of
Populorum Progressio, valid for
today and for all time. Integral human development on the
natural plane, as a response to a vocation from God the Creator[48],
demands self-fulfilment in a “transcendent humanism which gives
[to man] his greatest possible perfection: this is the highest
goal of personal development”[49].
The Christian vocation to this development therefore applies to
both the natural plane and the supernatural plane; which is why,
“when God is eclipsed, our ability to recognize the natural
order, purpose and the ‘good' begins to wane”[50].
19. Finally, the vision of
development as a vocation brings with it the central place of
charity within that development. Paul VI, in his Encyclical
Letter
Populorum Progressio, pointed out
that the causes of underdevelopment are not primarily of the
material order. He invited us to search for them in other
dimensions of the human person: first of all, in the will, which
often neglects the duties of solidarity; secondly in thinking,
which does not always give proper direction to the will. Hence,
in the pursuit of development, there is a need for “the deep
thought and reflection of wise men in search of a new humanism
which will enable modern man to find himself anew”[51].
But that is not all. Underdevelopment has an even more important
cause than lack of deep thought: it is “the lack of brotherhood
among individuals and peoples”[52].
Will it ever be possible to obtain this brotherhood by human
effort alone? As society becomes ever more globalized, it makes
us neighbours but does not make us brothers. Reason, by itself,
is capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving
stability to their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish
fraternity. This originates in a transcendent vocation from God
the Father, who loved us first, teaching us through the Son what
fraternal charity is. Paul VI, presenting the various levels in
the process of human development, placed at the summit, after
mentioning faith, “unity in the charity of Christ who calls us
all to share as sons in the life of the living God, the Father
of all”[53].
20. These perspectives, which
Populorum Progressio opens up,
remain fundamental for giving breathing-space and direction to
our commitment for the development of peoples. Moreover,
Populorum Progressio repeatedly
underlines the urgent need for reform[54],
and in the face of great problems of injustice in the
development of peoples, it calls for courageous action to be
taken without delay. This urgency is also a consequence of
charity in truth. It is Christ's charity that drives us on:
“caritas Christi urget nos” (2 Cor 5:14). The urgency is
inscribed not only in things, it is not derived solely from the
rapid succession of events and problems, but also from the very
matter that is at stake: the establishment of authentic
fraternity.
The
importance of this goal is such as to demand our openness to
understand it in depth and to mobilize ourselves at the level of
the “heart”, so as to ensure that current economic and social
processes evolve towards fully human outcomes.
CHAPTER TWO
HUMAN DEVELOPMENT
IN OUR TIME
21.
Paul VI had an articulated vision of development. He
understood the term to indicate the goal of rescuing peoples,
first and foremost, from hunger, deprivation, endemic diseases
and illiteracy. From the economic point of view, this meant
their active participation, on equal terms, in the international
economic process; from the social point of view, it meant their
evolution into educated societies marked by solidarity; from the
political point of view, it meant the consolidation of
democratic regimes capable of ensuring freedom and peace. After
so many years, as we observe with concern the developments and
perspectives of the succession of crises that afflict the world
today, we ask to what extent Paul VI's expectations have been
fulfilled by the model of development adopted in recent
decades. We recognize, therefore, that the Church had good
reason to be concerned about the capacity of a purely
technological society to set realistic goals and to make good
use of the instruments at its disposal. Profit is useful if it
serves as a means towards an end that provides a sense both of
how to produce it and how to make good use of it. Once profit
becomes the exclusive goal, if it is produced by improper means
and without the common good as its ultimate end, it risks
destroying wealth and creating poverty. The economic development
that Paul VI hoped to see was meant to produce real growth, of
benefit to everyone and genuinely sustainable. It is true that
growth has taken place, and it continues to be a positive factor
that has lifted billions of people out of misery — recently it
has given many countries the possibility of becoming effective
players in international politics. Yet it must be acknowledged
that this same economic growth has been and continues to be
weighed down by malfunctions and dramatic problems,
highlighted even further by the current crisis. This presents us
with choices that cannot be postponed concerning nothing less
than the destiny of man, who, moreover, cannot prescind from his
nature. The technical forces in play, the global interrelations,
the damaging effects on the real economy of badly managed and
largely speculative financial dealing, large-scale migration of
peoples, often provoked by some particular circumstance and then
given insufficient attention, the unregulated exploitation of
the earth's resources: all this leads us today to reflect on the
measures that would be necessary to provide a solution to
problems that are not only new in comparison to those addressed
by Pope Paul VI, but also, and above all, of decisive impact
upon the present and future good of humanity. The different
aspects of the crisis, its solutions, and any new development
that the future may bring, are increasingly interconnected, they
imply one another, they require new efforts of holistic
understanding and a new humanistic synthesis. The
complexity and gravity of the present economic situation rightly
cause us concern, but we must adopt a realistic attitude as we
take up with confidence and hope the new responsibilities to
which we are called by the prospect of a world in need of
profound cultural renewal, a world that needs to rediscover
fundamental values on which to build a better future. The
current crisis obliges us to re-plan our journey, to set
ourselves new rules and to discover new forms of commitment, to
build on positive experiences and to reject negative ones. The
crisis thus becomes an opportunity for discernment, in which
to shape a new vision for the future. In this spirit, with
confidence rather than resignation, it is appropriate to address
the difficulties of the present time.
22. Today the picture of
development has many overlapping layers. The actors and
the causes in both underdevelopment and development are
manifold, the faults and the merits are differentiated. This
fact should prompt us to liberate ourselves from ideologies,
which often oversimplify reality in artificial ways, and it
should lead us to examine objectively the full human dimension
of the problems. As John Paul II has already observed, the
demarcation line between rich and poor countries is no longer as
clear as it was at the time of
Populorum Progressio[55].
The world's wealth is growing in absolute terms, but
inequalities are on the increase. In rich countries, new
sectors of society are succumbing to poverty and new forms of
poverty are emerging. In poorer areas some groups enjoy a sort
of “superdevelopment” of a wasteful and consumerist kind which
forms an unacceptable contrast with the ongoing situations of
dehumanizing deprivation. “The scandal of glaring inequalities”[56]
continues. Corruption and illegality are unfortunately evident
in the conduct of the economic and political class in rich
countries, both old and new, as well as in poor ones. Among
those who sometimes fail to respect the human rights of workers
are large multinational companies as well as local producers.
International aid has often been diverted from its proper ends,
through irresponsible actions both within the chain of donors
and within that of the beneficiaries. Similarly, in the context
of immaterial or cultural causes of development and
underdevelopment, we find these same patterns of responsibility
reproduced. On the part of rich countries there is excessive
zeal for protecting knowledge through an unduly rigid assertion
of the right to intellectual property, especially in the field
of health care. At the same time, in some poor countries,
cultural models and social norms of behaviour persist which
hinder the process of development.
23.
Many areas of the globe today have evolved considerably, albeit
in problematical and disparate ways, thereby taking their place
among the great powers destined to play important roles in the
future. Yet it should be stressed that progress of a merely
economic and technological kind is insufficient. Development
needs above all to be true and integral. The mere fact of
emerging from economic backwardness, though positive in itself,
does not resolve the complex issues of human advancement,
neither for the countries that are spearheading such progress,
nor for those that are already economically developed, nor even
for those that are still poor, which can suffer not just through
old forms of exploitation, but also from the negative
consequences of a growth that is marked by irregularities and
imbalances.
After the collapse of the
economic and political systems of the Communist countries of
Eastern Europe and the end of the so-called opposing blocs,
a complete re-examination of development was needed. Pope John
Paul II called for it, when in 1987 he pointed to the existence
of these blocs as one of the principal causes of
underdevelopment[57],
inasmuch as politics withdrew resources from the economy and
from the culture, and ideology inhibited freedom. Moreover, in
1991, after the events of 1989, he asked that, in view of the
ending of the blocs, there should be a comprehensive new plan
for development, not only in those countries, but also in the
West and in those parts of the world that were in the process of
evolving[58].
This has been achieved only in part, and it is still a real duty
that needs to be discharged, perhaps by means of the choices
that are necessary to overcome current economic problems.
24. The world that Paul VI had
before him — even though society had already evolved to such an
extent that he could speak of social issues in global terms —
was still far less integrated than today's world. Economic
activity and the political process were both largely conducted
within the same geographical area, and could therefore feed off
one another. Production took place predominantly within national
boundaries, and financial investments had somewhat limited
circulation outside the country, so that the politics of many
States could still determine the priorities of the economy and
to some degree govern its performance using the instruments at
their disposal. Hence
Populorum Progressio assigned a
central, albeit not exclusive, role to “public authorities”[59].
In
our own day, the State finds itself having to address the
limitations to its sovereignty imposed by the new context of
international trade and finance, which is characterized by
increasing mobility both of financial capital and means of
production, material and immaterial. This new context has
altered the political power of States.
Today, as we take to heart the lessons of the current economic
crisis, which sees the State's public authorities
directly involved in correcting errors and malfunctions, it
seems more realistic to re-evaluate their role and their
powers, which need to be prudently reviewed and remodelled so as
to enable them, perhaps through new forms of engagement, to
address the challenges of today's world. Once the role of public
authorities has been more clearly defined, one could foresee an
increase in the new forms of political participation, nationally
and internationally, that have come about through the activity
of organizations operating in civil society; in this way it is
to be hoped that the citizens' interest and participation in the
res publica will become more deeply rooted.
25. From the social point of
view, systems of protection and welfare, already present in many
countries in Paul VI's day, are finding it hard and could find
it even harder in the future to pursue their goals of true
social justice in today's profoundly changed environment. The
global market has stimulated first and foremost, on the part of
rich countries, a search for areas in which to outsource
production at low cost with a view to reducing the prices of
many goods, increasing purchasing power and thus accelerating
the rate of development in terms of greater availability of
consumer goods for the domestic market. Consequently, the market
has prompted new forms of competition between States as they
seek to attract foreign businesses to set up production centres,
by means of a variety of instruments, including favourable
fiscal regimes and deregulation of the labour market. These
processes have led to a downsizing of social security systems
as the price to be paid for seeking greater competitive
advantage in the global market, with consequent grave danger for
the rights of workers, for fundamental human rights and for the
solidarity associated with the traditional forms of the social
State. Systems of social security can lose the capacity to carry
out their task, both in emerging countries and in those that
were among the earliest to develop, as well as in poor
countries. Here budgetary policies, with cuts in social spending
often made under pressure from international financial
institutions, can leave citizens powerless in the face of old
and new risks; such powerlessness is increased by the lack of
effective protection on the part of workers' associations.
Through the combination of social and economic change, trade
union organizations experience greater difficulty in
carrying out their task of representing the interests of
workers, partly because Governments, for reasons of economic
utility, often limit the freedom or the negotiating capacity of
labour unions. Hence traditional networks of solidarity have
more and more obstacles to overcome. The repeated calls issued
within the Church's social doctrine, beginning with Rerum
Novarum[60],
for the promotion of workers' associations that can defend their
rights must therefore be honoured today even more than in the
past, as a prompt and far-sighted response to the urgent need
for new forms of cooperation at the international level, as well
as the local level.
The mobility of labour,
associated with a climate of deregulation, is an important
phenomenon with certain positive aspects, because it can
stimulate wealth production and cultural exchange. Nevertheless,
uncertainty over working conditions caused by mobility and
deregulation, when it becomes endemic, tends to create new forms
of psychological instability, giving rise to difficulty in
forging coherent life-plans, including that of marriage. This
leads to situations of human decline, to say nothing of the
waste of social resources. In comparison with the casualties of
industrial society in the past, unemployment today provokes new
forms of economic marginalization, and the current crisis can
only make this situation worse. Being out of work or dependent
on public or private assistance for a prolonged period
undermines the freedom and creativity of the person and his
family and social relationships, causing great psychological and
spiritual suffering. I would like to remind everyone, especially
governments engaged in boosting the world's economic and social
assets, that the primary capital to be safeguarded and valued
is man, the human person in his or her integrity: “Man is
the source, the focus and the aim of all economic and social
life”[61].
26. On the cultural plane,
compared with Paul VI's day, the difference is even more marked.
At that time cultures were relatively well defined and had
greater opportunity to defend themselves against attempts to
merge them into one. Today the possibilities of interaction
between cultures have increased significantly, giving rise
to new openings for intercultural dialogue: a dialogue that, if
it is to be effective, has to set out from a deep-seated
knowledge of the specific identity of the various dialogue
partners. Let it not be forgotten that the increased
commercialization of cultural exchange today leads to a twofold
danger. First, one may observe a cultural eclecticism
that is often assumed uncritically: cultures are simply placed
alongside one another and viewed as substantially equivalent and
interchangeable. This easily yields to a relativism that does
not serve true intercultural dialogue; on the social plane,
cultural relativism has the effect that cultural groups coexist
side by side, but remain separate, with no authentic dialogue
and therefore with no true integration. Secondly, the opposite
danger exists, that of cultural levelling and
indiscriminate acceptance of types of conduct and life-styles.
In this way one loses sight of the profound significance of the
culture of different nations, of the traditions of the various
peoples, by which the individual defines himself in relation to
life's fundamental questions[62].
What eclecticism and cultural levelling have in common is the
separation of culture from human nature. Thus, cultures can no
longer define themselves within a nature that transcends them[63],
and man ends up being reduced to a mere cultural statistic. When
this happens, humanity runs new risks of enslavement and
manipulation.
27. Life in many poor countries
is still extremely insecure as a consequence of food shortages,
and the situation could become worse: hunger still reaps
enormous numbers of victims among those who, like Lazarus, are
not permitted to take their place at the rich man's table,
contrary to the hopes expressed by Paul VI[64].
Feed the hungry (cf. Mt 25: 35, 37, 42) is an ethical
imperative for the universal Church, as she responds to the
teachings of her Founder, the Lord Jesus, concerning solidarity
and the sharing of goods. Moreover, the elimination of world
hunger has also, in the global era, become a requirement for
safeguarding the peace and stability of the planet. Hunger is
not so much dependent on lack of material things as on shortage
of social resources, the most important of which are
institutional. What is missing, in other words, is a network of
economic institutions capable of guaranteeing regular access to
sufficient food and water for nutritional needs, and also
capable of addressing the primary needs and necessities ensuing
from genuine food crises, whether due to natural causes or
political irresponsibility, nationally and internationally. The
problem of food insecurity needs to be addressed within a
long-term perspective, eliminating the structural causes that
give rise to it and promoting the agricultural development of
poorer countries. This can be done by investing in rural
infrastructures, irrigation systems, transport, organization of
markets, and in the development and dissemination of
agricultural technology that can make the best use of the human,
natural and socio-economic resources that are more readily
available at the local level, while guaranteeing their
sustainability over the long term as well. All this needs to be
accomplished with the involvement of local communities in
choices and decisions that affect the use of agricultural land.
In this perspective, it could be useful to consider the new
possibilities that are opening up through proper use of
traditional as well as innovative farming techniques, always
assuming that these have been judged, after sufficient testing,
to be appropriate, respectful of the environment and attentive
to the needs of the most deprived peoples. At the same time, the
question of equitable agrarian reform in developing countries
should not be ignored. The right to food, like the right to
water, has an important place within the pursuit of other
rights, beginning with the fundamental right to life. It is
therefore necessary to cultivate a public conscience that
considers food and access to water as universal rights of all
human beings, without distinction or discrimination[65].
It is important, moreover, to emphasize that solidarity with
poor countries in the process of development can point towards a
solution of the current global crisis, as politicians and
directors of international institutions have begun to sense in
recent times. Through support for economically poor countries by
means of financial plans inspired by solidarity — so that these
countries can take steps to satisfy their own citizens' demand
for consumer goods and for development — not only can true
economic growth be generated, but a contribution can be made
towards sustaining the productive capacities of rich countries
that risk being compromised by the crisis.
28. One of the most striking
aspects of development in the present day is the important
question of respect for life, which cannot in any way be
detached from questions concerning the development of peoples.
It is an aspect which has acquired increasing prominence in
recent times, obliging us to broaden our concept of poverty[66]
and underdevelopment to include questions connected with the
acceptance of life, especially in cases where it is impeded in a
variety of ways.
Not
only does the situation of poverty still provoke high rates of
infant mortality in many regions, but some parts of the world
still experience practices of demographic control, on the part
of governments that often promote contraception and even go so
far as to impose abortion. In economically developed countries,
legislation contrary to life is very widespread, and it has
already shaped moral attitudes and praxis, contributing to the
spread of an anti-birth mentality; frequent attempts are made to
export this mentality to other States as if it were a form of
cultural progress.
Some
non-governmental Organizations work actively to spread abortion,
at times promoting the practice of sterilization in poor
countries, in some cases not even informing the women concerned.
Moreover, there is reason to suspect that development aid is
sometimes linked to specific health-care policies which de
facto involve the imposition of strong birth control
measures. Further grounds for concern are laws permitting
euthanasia as well as pressure from lobby groups, nationally and
internationally, in favour of its juridical recognition.
Openness to life is at the centre of true
development. When a society moves
towards the denial or suppression of life, it ends up no longer
finding the necessary motivation and energy to strive for man's
true good. If personal and social sensitivity towards the
acceptance of a new life is lost, then other forms of acceptance
that are valuable for society also wither away[67].
The acceptance of life strengthens moral fibre and makes people
capable of mutual help. By cultivating openness to life, wealthy
peoples can better understand the needs of poor ones, they can
avoid employing huge economic and intellectual resources to
satisfy the selfish desires of their own citizens, and instead,
they can promote virtuous action within the perspective of
production that is morally sound and marked by solidarity,
respecting the fundamental right to life of every people and
every individual.
29. There is another aspect of
modern life that is very closely connected to development: the
denial of the right to religious freedom. I am not
referring simply to the struggles and conflicts that continue to
be fought in the world for religious motives, even if at times
the religious motive is merely a cover for other reasons, such
as the desire for domination and wealth. Today, in fact, people
frequently kill in the holy name of God, as both my predecessor
John Paul II and I myself have often publicly acknowledged and
lamented[68].
Violence puts the brakes on authentic development and impedes
the evolution of peoples towards greater socio-economic and
spiritual well-being. This applies especially to terrorism
motivated by fundamentalism[69],
which generates grief, destruction and death, obstructs dialogue
between nations and diverts extensive resources from their
peaceful and civil uses.
Yet it should be added that, as
well as religious fanaticism that in some contexts impedes the
exercise of the right to religious freedom, so too the
deliberate promotion of religious indifference or practical
atheism on the part of many countries obstructs the requirements
for the development of peoples, depriving them of spiritual and
human resources. God is the guarantor of man's true
development, inasmuch as, having created him in his image,
he also establishes the transcendent dignity of men and women
and feeds their innate yearning to “be more”. Man is not a lost
atom in a random universe[70]:
he is God's creature, whom God chose to endow with an immortal
soul and whom he has always loved. If man were merely the fruit
of either chance or necessity, or if he had to lower his
aspirations to the limited horizon of the world in which he
lives, if all reality were merely history and culture, and man
did not possess a nature destined to transcend itself in a
supernatural life, then one could speak of growth, or evolution,
but not development. When the State promotes, teaches, or
actually imposes forms of practical atheism, it deprives its
citizens of the moral and spiritual strength that is
indispensable for attaining integral human development and it
impedes them from moving forward with renewed dynamism as they
strive to offer a more generous human response to divine love[71].
In the context of cultural, commercial or political relations,
it also sometimes happens that economically developed or
emerging countries export this reductive vision of the person
and his destiny to poor countries. This is the damage that
“superdevelopment”[72]
causes to authentic development when it is accompanied by “moral
underdevelopment”[73].
30. In this context, the theme of
integral human development takes on an even broader range of
meanings: the correlation between its multiple elements requires
a commitment to foster the interaction of the different
levels of human knowledge in order to promote the authentic
development of peoples. Often it is thought that development, or
the socio-economic measures that go with it, merely require to
be implemented through joint action. This joint action, however,
needs to be given direction, because “all social action involves
a doctrine”[74].
In view of the complexity of the issues, it is obvious that the
various disciplines have to work together through an orderly
interdisciplinary exchange. Charity does not exclude knowledge,
but rather requires, promotes, and animates it from within.
Knowledge is never purely the work of the intellect. It can
certainly be reduced to calculation and experiment, but if it
aspires to be wisdom capable of directing man in the light of
his first beginnings and his final ends, it must be “seasoned”
with the “salt” of charity. Deeds without knowledge are blind,
and knowledge without love is sterile. Indeed, “the individual
who is animated by true charity labours skilfully to discover
the causes of misery, to find the means to combat it, to
overcome it resolutely”[75].
Faced with the phenomena that lie before us, charity in truth
requires first of all that we know and understand, acknowledging
and respecting the specific competence of every level of
knowledge. Charity is not an added extra, like an appendix to
work already concluded in each of the various disciplines: it
engages them in dialogue from the very beginning. The demands of
love do not contradict those of reason. Human knowledge is
insufficient and the conclusions of science cannot indicate by
themselves the path towards integral human development. There is
always a need to push further ahead: this is what is required by
charity in truth[76].
Going beyond, however, never means prescinding from the
conclusions of reason, nor contradicting its results.
Intelligence and love are not in separate compartments: love
is rich in intelligence and intelligence is full of love.
31. This means that moral
evaluation and scientific research must go hand in hand, and
that charity must animate them in a harmonious interdisciplinary
whole, marked by unity and distinction. The Church's social
doctrine, which has “an important interdisciplinary dimension”[77],
can exercise, in this perspective, a function of extraordinary
effectiveness. It allows faith, theology, metaphysics and
science to come together in a collaborative effort in the
service of humanity. It is here above all that the Church's
social doctrine displays its dimension of wisdom. Paul VI had
seen clearly that among the causes of underdevelopment there is
a lack of wisdom and reflection, a lack of thinking capable of
formulating a guiding synthesis[78],
for which “a clear vision of all economic, social, cultural and
spiritual aspects”[79]
is required. The excessive segmentation of knowledge[80],
the rejection of metaphysics by the human sciences[81],
the difficulties encountered by dialogue between science and
theology are damaging not only to the development of knowledge,
but also to the development of peoples, because these things
make it harder to see the integral good of man in its various
dimensions. The “broadening [of] our concept of reason and its
application”[82]
is indispensable if we are to succeed in adequately weighing all
the elements involved in the question of development and in the
solution of socio-economic problems.
32.
The significant new elements in the picture of the development
of peoples today in many cases demand new solutions.
These need to be found together, respecting the laws proper to
each element and in the light of an integral vision of man,
reflecting the different aspects of the human person,
contemplated through a lens purified by charity. Remarkable
convergences and possible solutions will then come to light,
without any fundamental component of human life being obscured.
The dignity of the individual and
the demands of justice require, particularly today, that
economic choices do not cause disparities in wealth to increase
in an excessive and morally unacceptable manner[83],
and that we continue to prioritize the goal of access to
steady employment for everyone. All things considered, this
is also required by “economic logic”. Through the systemic
increase of social inequality, both within a single country and
between the populations of different countries (i.e. the massive
increase in relative poverty), not only does social cohesion
suffer, thereby placing democracy at risk, but so too does the
economy, through the progressive erosion of “social capital”:
the network of relationships of trust, dependability, and
respect for rules, all of which are indispensable for any form
of civil coexistence.
Economic science tells us that structural insecurity generates
anti-productive attitudes wasteful of human resources, inasmuch
as workers tend to adapt passively to automatic mechanisms,
rather than to release creativity. On this point too, there is a
convergence between economic science and moral evaluation.
Human costs always include economic costs, and economic
dysfunctions always involve human costs.
It should be remembered that the
reduction of cultures to the technological dimension, even if it
favours short-term profits, in the long term impedes reciprocal
enrichment and the dynamics of cooperation. It is important to
distinguish between short- and long-term economic or
sociological considerations. Lowering the level of protection
accorded to the rights of workers, or abandoning mechanisms of
wealth redistribution in order to increase the country's
international competitiveness, hinder the achievement of lasting
development. Moreover, the human consequences of current
tendencies towards a short-term economy — sometimes very
short-term — need to be carefully evaluated. This requires
further and deeper reflection on the meaning of the economy and
its goals[84],
as well as a profound and far-sighted revision of the current
model of development, so as to correct its dysfunctions and
deviations. This is demanded, in any case, by the earth's state
of ecological health; above all it is required by the cultural
and moral crisis of man, the symptoms of which have been evident
for some time all over the world.
33. More than forty years after
Populorum Progressio, its basic
theme, namely progress, remains an open question, made
all the more acute and urgent by the current economic and
financial crisis. If some areas of the globe, with a history of
poverty, have experienced remarkable changes in terms of their
economic growth and their share in world production, other zones
are still living in a situation of deprivation comparable to
that which existed at the time of Paul VI, and in some cases one
can even speak of a deterioration. It is significant that some
of the causes of this situation were identified in
Populorum Progressio,
such as the high tariffs imposed by economically developed
countries, which still make it difficult for the products of
poor countries to gain a foothold in the markets of rich
countries. Other causes, however, mentioned only in passing in
the Encyclical, have since emerged with greater clarity. A case
in point would be the evaluation of the process of
decolonization, then at its height. Paul VI hoped to see the
journey towards autonomy unfold freely and in peace. More than
forty years later, we must acknowledge how difficult this
journey has been, both because of new forms of colonialism and
continued dependence on old and new foreign powers, and because
of grave irresponsibility within the very countries that have
achieved independence.
The
principal new feature has been the explosion of worldwide
interdependence, commonly known as globalization. Paul VI
had partially foreseen it, but the ferocious pace at which it
has evolved could not have been anticipated. Originating within
economically developed countries, this process by its nature has
spread to include all economies. It has been the principal
driving force behind the emergence from underdevelopment of
whole regions, and in itself it represents a great opportunity.
Nevertheless, without the guidance of charity in truth, this
global force could cause unprecedented damage and create new
divisions within the human family. Hence charity and truth
confront us with an altogether new and creative challenge, one
that is certainly vast and complex. It is about broadening
the scope of reason and making it capable of knowing and
directing these powerful new forces, animating them within
the perspective of that “civilization of love” whose seed God
has planted in every people, in every culture.
CHAPTER THREE
FRATERNITY, ECONOMIC
DEVELOPMENT AND CIVIL SOCIETY
34. Charity in truth
places man before the astonishing experience of gift.
Gratuitousness is present in our lives in many different forms,
which often go unrecognized because of a purely consumerist and
utilitarian view of life. The human being is made for gift,
which expresses and makes present his transcendent dimension.
Sometimes modern man is wrongly convinced that he is the sole
author of himself, his life and society. This is a presumption
that follows from being selfishly closed in upon himself, and it
is a consequence — to express it in faith terms — of original
sin. The Church's wisdom has always pointed to the presence
of original sin in social conditions and in the structure of
society: “Ignorance of the fact that man has a wounded nature
inclined to evil gives rise to serious errors in the areas of
education, politics, social action and morals”[85].
In the list of areas where the pernicious effects of sin are
evident, the economy has been included for some time now. We
have a clear proof of this at the present time. The conviction
that man is self-sufficient and can successfully eliminate the
evil present in history by his own action alone has led him to
confuse happiness and salvation with immanent forms of material
prosperity and social action. Then, the conviction that the
economy must be autonomous, that it must be shielded from
“influences” of a moral character, has led man to abuse the
economic process in a thoroughly destructive way. In the long
term, these convictions have led to economic, social and
political systems that trample upon personal and social freedom,
and are therefore unable to deliver the justice that they
promise. As I said in my Encyclical Letter
Spe Salvi, history is thereby
deprived of Christian hope[86],
deprived of a powerful social resource at the service of
integral human development, sought in freedom and in justice.
Hope encourages reason and gives it the strength to direct the
will[87].
It is already present in faith, indeed it is called forth by
faith. Charity in truth feeds on hope and, at the same time,
manifests it. As the absolutely gratuitous gift of God, hope
bursts into our lives as something not due to us, something that
transcends every law of justice. Gift by its nature goes beyond
merit, its rule is that of superabundance. It takes first place
in our souls as a sign of God's presence in us, a sign of what
he expects from us. Truth — which is itself gift, in the same
way as charity — is greater than we are, as Saint Augustine
teaches[88].
Likewise the truth of ourselves, of our personal conscience, is
first of all given to us. In every cognitive process,
truth is not something that we produce, it is always found, or
better, received. Truth, like love, “is neither planned nor
willed, but somehow imposes itself upon human beings”[89].
Because it is a gift received by everyone, charity in truth is a
force that builds community, it brings all people together
without imposing barriers or limits. The human community that we
build by ourselves can never, purely by its own strength, be a
fully fraternal community, nor can it overcome every division
and become a truly universal community. The unity of the human
race, a fraternal communion transcending every barrier, is
called into being by the word of God-who-is-Love. In addressing
this key question, we must make it clear, on the one hand, that
the logic of gift does not exclude justice, nor does it merely
sit alongside it as a second element added from without; on the
other hand, economic, social and political development, if it is
to be authentically human, needs to make room for the
principle of gratuitousness as an expression of fraternity.
35. In a climate of mutual trust,
the market is the economic institution that permits
encounter between persons, inasmuch as they are economic
subjects who make use of contracts to regulate their relations
as they exchange goods and services of equivalent value between
them, in order to satisfy their needs and desires. The market is
subject to the principles of so-called commutative justice,
which regulates the relations of giving and receiving between
parties to a transaction. But the social doctrine of the Church
has unceasingly highlighted the importance of distributive
justice and social justice for the market economy,
not only because it belongs within a broader social and
political context, but also because of the wider network of
relations within which it operates. In fact, if the market is
governed solely by the principle of the equivalence in value of
exchanged goods, it cannot produce the social cohesion that it
requires in order to function well. Without internal forms of
solidarity and mutual trust, the market cannot completely fulfil
its proper economic function. And today it is this trust
which has ceased to exist, and the loss of trust is a grave
loss. It was timely when Paul VI in
Populorum Progressio insisted that
the economic system itself would benefit from the wide-ranging
practice of justice, inasmuch as the first to gain from the
development of poor countries would be rich ones[90].
According to the Pope, it was not just a matter of correcting
dysfunctions through assistance. The poor are not to be
considered a “burden”[91],
but a resource, even from the purely economic point of view. It
is nevertheless erroneous to hold that the market economy has an
inbuilt need for a quota of poverty and underdevelopment in
order to function at its best. It is in the interests of the
market to promote emancipation, but in order to do so
effectively, it cannot rely only on itself, because it is not
able to produce by itself something that lies outside its
competence. It must draw its moral energies from other subjects
that are capable of generating them.
36.
Economic activity cannot solve all social problems through the
simple application of commercial logic. This needs to be
directed towards the pursuit of the common good, for which
the political community in particular must also take
responsibility. Therefore, it must be borne in mind that grave
imbalances are produced when economic action, conceived merely
as an engine for wealth creation, is detached from political
action, conceived as a means for pursuing justice through
redistribution.
The
Church has always held that economic action is not to be
regarded as something opposed to society. In and of itself, the
market is not, and must not become, the place where the strong
subdue the weak. Society does not have to protect itself from
the market, as if the development of the latter were ipso
facto to entail the death of authentically human relations.
Admittedly, the market can be a negative force, not because it
is so by nature, but because a certain ideology can make it so.
It must be remembered that the market does not exist in the pure
state. It is shaped by the cultural configurations which define
it and give it direction. Economy and finance, as instruments,
can be used badly when those at the helm are motivated by purely
selfish ends. Instruments that are good in themselves can
thereby be transformed into harmful ones. But it is man's
darkened reason that produces these consequences, not the
instrument per se. Therefore it is not the instrument
that must be called to account, but individuals, their moral
conscience and their personal and social responsibility.
The
Church's social doctrine holds that authentically human social
relationships of friendship, solidarity and reciprocity can also
be conducted within economic activity, and not only outside it
or “after” it. The economic sphere is neither ethically neutral,
nor inherently inhuman and opposed to society. It is part and
parcel of human activity and precisely because it is human, it
must be structured and governed in an ethical manner.
The
great challenge before us, accentuated by the problems of
development in this global era and made even more urgent by the
economic and financial crisis, is to demonstrate, in thinking
and behaviour, not only that traditional principles of social
ethics like transparency, honesty and responsibility cannot be
ignored or attenuated, but also that in commercial
relationships the principle of gratuitousness and the
logic of gift as an expression of fraternity can and must
find their place within normal economic activity. This is a
human demand at the present time, but it is also demanded by
economic logic. It is a demand both of charity and of truth.
37.
The Church's social doctrine has always maintained that
justice must be applied to every phase of economic activity,
because this is always concerned with man and his needs.
Locating resources, financing, production, consumption and all
the other phases in the economic cycle inevitably have moral
implications. Thus every economic decision has a moral
consequence. The social sciences and the direction taken by
the contemporary economy point to the same conclusion. Perhaps
at one time it was conceivable that first the creation of wealth
could be entrusted to the economy, and then the task of
distributing it could be assigned to politics. Today that would
be more difficult, given that economic activity is no longer
circumscribed within territorial limits, while the authority of
governments continues to be principally local. Hence the canons
of justice must be respected from the outset, as the economic
process unfolds, and not just afterwards or incidentally. Space
also needs to be created within the market for economic activity
carried out by subjects who freely choose to act according to
principles other than those of pure profit, without sacrificing
the production of economic value in the process. The many
economic entities that draw their origin from religious and lay
initiatives demonstrate that this is concretely possible.
In
the global era, the economy is influenced by competitive models
tied to cultures that differ greatly among themselves. The
different forms of economic enterprise to which they give rise
find their main point of encounter in commutative justice.
Economic life undoubtedly requires contracts, in
order to regulate relations of exchange between goods of
equivalent value. But it also needs just laws and
forms of redistribution governed by politics, and what is
more, it needs works redolent of the spirit of gift. The
economy in the global era seems to privilege the former logic,
that of contractual exchange, but directly or indirectly it also
demonstrates its need for the other two: political logic, and
the logic of the unconditional gift.
38. My predecessor John Paul II
drew attention to this question in
Centesimus Annus,
when he spoke of the need for a system with three subjects: the
market, the State and civil society[92].
He saw civil society as the most natural setting for an
economy of gratuitousness and fraternity, but did not mean
to deny it a place in the other two settings. Today we can say
that economic life must be understood as a multi-layered
phenomenon: in every one of these layers, to varying degrees and
in ways specifically suited to each, the aspect of fraternal
reciprocity must be present. In the global era, economic
activity cannot prescind from gratuitousness, which fosters and
disseminates solidarity and responsibility for justice and the
common good among the different economic players. It is clearly
a specific and profound form of economic democracy. Solidarity
is first and foremost a sense of responsibility on the part of
everyone with regard to everyone[93],
and it cannot therefore be merely delegated to the State. While
in the past it was possible to argue that justice had to come
first and gratuitousness could follow afterwards, as a
complement, today it is clear that without gratuitousness, there
can be no justice in the first place. What is needed, therefore,
is a market that permits the free operation, in conditions of
equal opportunity, of enterprises in pursuit of different
institutional ends. Alongside profit-oriented private enterprise
and the various types of public enterprise, there must be room
for commercial entities based on mutualist principles and
pursuing social ends to take root and express themselves. It is
from their reciprocal encounter in the marketplace that one may
expect hybrid forms of commercial behaviour to emerge, and hence
an attentiveness to ways of civilizing the economy.
Charity in truth, in this case, requires that shape and
structure be given to those types of economic initiative which,
without rejecting profit, aim at a higher goal than the mere
logic of the exchange of equivalents, of profit as an end in
itself.
39. Paul VI in
Populorum Progressio called for
the creation of a model of market economy capable of
including within its range all peoples and not just the better
off. He called for efforts to build a more human world for
all, a world in which “all will be able to give and receive,
without one group making progress at the expense of the other”[94].
In this way he was applying on a global scale the insights and
aspirations contained in Rerum Novarum, written when, as
a result of the Industrial Revolution, the idea was first
proposed — somewhat ahead of its time — that the civil order,
for its self-regulation, also needed intervention from the State
for purposes of redistribution. Not only is this vision
threatened today by the way in which markets and societies are
opening up, but it is evidently insufficient to satisfy the
demands of a fully humane economy. What the Church's social
doctrine has always sustained, on the basis of its vision of man
and society, is corroborated today by the dynamics of
globalization.
When
both the logic of the market and the logic of the State come to
an agreement that each will continue to exercise a monopoly over
its respective area of influence, in the long term much is lost:
solidarity in relations between citizens, participation and
adherence, actions of gratuitousness, all of which stand in
contrast with giving in order to acquire (the logic of
exchange) and giving through duty (the logic of public
obligation, imposed by State law). In order to defeat
underdevelopment, action is required not only on improving
exchange-based transactions and implanting public welfare
structures, but above all on gradually increasing openness,
in a world context, to forms of economic activity marked by
quotas of gratuitousness and communion. The exclusively
binary model of market-plus-State is corrosive of society, while
economic forms based on solidarity, which find their natural
home in civil society without being restricted to it, build up
society. The market of gratuitousness does not exist, and
attitudes of gratuitousness cannot be established by law. Yet
both the market and politics need individuals who are open to
reciprocal gift.
40. Today's international
economic scene, marked by grave deviations and failures,
requires a profoundly new way of understanding business
enterprise. Old models are disappearing, but promising new
ones are taking shape on the horizon. Without doubt, one of the
greatest risks for businesses is that they are almost
exclusively answerable to their investors, thereby limiting
their social value. Owing to their growth in scale and the need
for more and more capital, it is becoming increasingly rare for
business enterprises to be in the hands of a stable director who
feels responsible in the long term, not just the short term, for
the life and the results of his company, and it is becoming
increasingly rare for businesses to depend on a single
territory. Moreover, the so-called outsourcing of production can
weaken the company's sense of responsibility towards the
stakeholders — namely the workers, the suppliers, the consumers,
the natural environment and broader society — in favour of the
shareholders, who are not tied to a specific geographical area
and who therefore enjoy extraordinary mobility. Today's
international capital market offers great freedom of action. Yet
there is also increasing awareness of the need for greater
social responsibility on the part of business. Even if the
ethical considerations that currently inform debate on the
social responsibility of the corporate world are not all
acceptable from the perspective of the Church's social doctrine,
there is nevertheless a growing conviction that business
management cannot concern itself only with the interests of the
proprietors, but must also assume responsibility for all the
other stakeholders who contribute to the life of the business:
the workers, the clients, the suppliers of various elements of
production, the community of reference. In recent years a new
cosmopolitan class of managers has emerged, who are often
answerable only to the shareholders generally consisting of
anonymous funds which de facto determine their
remuneration. By contrast, though, many far-sighted managers
today are becoming increasingly aware of the profound links
between their enterprise and the territory or territories in
which it operates. Paul VI invited people to give serious
attention to the damage that can be caused to one's home country
by the transfer abroad of capital purely for personal advantage[95].
John Paul II taught that investment always has moral, as well
as economic significance[96].
All this — it should be stressed — is still valid today, despite
the fact that the capital market has been significantly
liberalized, and modern technological thinking can suggest that
investment is merely a technical act, not a human and ethical
one. There is no reason to deny that a certain amount of capital
can do good, if invested abroad rather than at home. Yet the
requirements of justice must be safeguarded, with due
consideration for the way in which the capital was generated and
the harm to individuals that will result if it is not used where
it was produced[97].
What should be avoided is a speculative use of financial
resources that yields to the temptation of seeking only
short-term profit, without regard for the long-term
sustainability of the enterprise, its benefit to the real
economy and attention to the advancement, in suitable and
appropriate ways, of further economic initiatives in countries
in need of development. It is true that the export of
investments and skills can benefit the populations of the
receiving country. Labour and technical knowledge are a
universal good. Yet it is not right to export these things
merely for the sake of obtaining advantageous conditions, or
worse, for purposes of exploitation, without making a real
contribution to local society by helping to bring about a robust
productive and social system, an essential factor for stable
development.
41. In the context of this
discussion, it is helpful to observe that business enterprise
involves a wide range of values, becoming wider all the
time. The continuing hegemony of the binary model of
market-plus-State has accustomed us to think only in terms of
the private business leader of a capitalistic bent on the one
hand, and the State director on the other. In reality, business
has to be understood in an articulated way. There are a number
of reasons, of a meta-economic kind, for saying this. Business
activity has a human significance, prior to its professional one[98].
It is present in all work, understood as a personal action, an “actus
personae”[99],
which is why every worker should have the chance to make his
contribution knowing that in some way “he is working ‘for
himself'”[100].
With good reason, Paul VI taught that “everyone who works is a
creator”[101].
It is in response to the needs and the dignity of the worker, as
well as the needs of society, that there exist various types of
business enterprise, over and above the simple distinction
between “private” and “public”. Each of them requires and
expresses a specific business capacity. In order to construct an
economy that will soon be in a position to serve the national
and global common good, it is appropriate to take account of
this broader significance of business activity. It favours
cross-fertilization between different types of business
activity, with shifting of competences from the “non-profit”
world to the “profit” world and vice versa, from the public
world to that of civil society, from advanced economies to
developing countries.
“Political
authority” also involves a wide range of values,
which must not be overlooked in the process of constructing a
new order of economic productivity, socially responsible and
human in scale. As well as cultivating differentiated forms of
business activity on the global plane, we must also promote a
dispersed political authority, effective on different levels.
The integrated economy of the present day does not make the role
of States redundant, but rather it commits governments to
greater collaboration with one another. Both wisdom and prudence
suggest not being too precipitous in declaring the demise of the
State. In terms of the resolution of the current crisis, the
State's role seems destined to grow, as it regains many of its
competences. In some nations, moreover, the construction or
reconstruction of the State remains a key factor in their
development. The focus of international aid, within a
solidarity-based plan to resolve today's economic problems,
should rather be on consolidating constitutional, juridical and
administrative systems in countries that do not yet fully enjoy
these goods. Alongside economic aid, there needs to be aid
directed towards reinforcing the guarantees proper to the
State of law: a system of public order and effective
imprisonment that respects human rights, truly democratic
institutions. The State does not need to have identical
characteristics everywhere: the support aimed at strengthening
weak constitutional systems can easily be accompanied by the
development of other political players, of a cultural, social,
territorial or religious nature, alongside the State. The
articulation of political authority at the local, national and
international levels is one of the best ways of giving direction
to the process of economic globalization. It is also the way to
ensure that it does not actually undermine the foundations of
democracy.
42. Sometimes globalization
is viewed in fatalistic terms, as if the dynamics involved were
the product of anonymous impersonal forces or structures
independent of the human will[102].
In this regard it is useful to remember that while globalization
should certainly be understood as a socio-economic process, this
is not its only dimension. Underneath the more visible process,
humanity itself is becoming increasingly interconnected; it is
made up of individuals and peoples to whom this process should
offer benefits and development[103],
as they assume their respective responsibilities, singly and
collectively. The breaking-down of borders is not simply a
material fact: it is also a cultural event both in its causes
and its effects. If globalization is viewed from a deterministic
standpoint, the criteria with which to evaluate and direct it
are lost. As a human reality, it is the product of diverse
cultural tendencies, which need to be subjected to a process of
discernment. The truth of globalization as a process and its
fundamental ethical criterion are given by the unity of the
human family and its development towards what is good. Hence a
sustained commitment is needed so as to promote a
person-based and community-oriented cultural process of
world-wide integration that is open to transcendence.
Despite some of its structural
elements, which should neither be denied nor exaggerated,
“globalization, a priori, is neither good nor bad. It
will be what people make of it”[104].
We should not be its victims, but rather its protagonists,
acting in the light of reason, guided by charity and truth.
Blind opposition would be a mistaken and prejudiced attitude,
incapable of recognizing the positive aspects of the process,
with the consequent risk of missing the chance to take advantage
of its many opportunities for development. The processes of
globalization, suitably understood and directed, open up the
unprecedented possibility of large-scale redistribution of
wealth on a world-wide scale; if badly directed, however, they
can lead to an increase in poverty and inequality, and could
even trigger a global crisis. It is necessary to correct the
malfunctions, some of them serious, that cause new divisions
between peoples and within peoples, and also to ensure that the
redistribution of wealth does not come about through the
redistribution or increase of poverty: a real danger if the
present situation were to be badly managed. For a long time it
was thought that poor peoples should remain at a fixed stage of
development, and should be content to receive assistance from
the philanthropy of developed peoples. Paul VI strongly opposed
this mentality in
Populorum Progressio.
Today the material resources available for rescuing these
peoples from poverty are potentially greater than before, but
they have ended up largely in the hands of people from developed
countries, who have benefited more from the liberalization that
has occurred in the mobility of capital and labour. The
world-wide diffusion of forms of prosperity should not therefore
be held up by projects that are self-centred, protectionist or
at the service of private interests. Indeed the involvement of
emerging or developing countries allows us to manage the crisis
better today. The transition inherent in the process of
globalization presents great difficulties and dangers that can
only be overcome if we are able to appropriate the underlying
anthropological and ethical spirit that drives globalization
towards the humanizing goal of solidarity. Unfortunately this
spirit is often overwhelmed or suppressed by ethical and
cultural considerations of an individualistic and utilitarian
nature. Globalization is a multifaceted and complex phenomenon
which must be grasped in the diversity and unity of all its
different dimensions, including the theological dimension. In
this way it will be possible to experience and to steer the
globalization of humanity in relational terms, in terms of
communion and the sharing of goods.
CHAPTER FOUR
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLE
RIGHTS AND DUTIES
THE ENVIRONMENT
43. “The reality of human
solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a duty”[105].
Many people today would claim that they owe nothing to anyone,
except to themselves. They are concerned only with their rights,
and they often have great difficulty in taking responsibility
for their own and other people's integral development. Hence it
is important to call for a renewed reflection on how rights
presuppose duties, if they are not to become mere licence[106].
Nowadays we are witnessing a grave inconsistency. On the one
hand, appeals are made to alleged rights, arbitrary and
non-essential in nature, accompanied by the demand that they be
recognized and promoted by public structures, while, on the
other hand, elementary and basic rights remain unacknowledged
and are violated in much of the world[107].
A link has often been noted between claims to a “right to
excess”, and even to transgression and vice, within affluent
societies, and the lack of food, drinkable water, basic
instruction and elementary health care in areas of the
underdeveloped world and on the outskirts of large metropolitan
centres. The link consists in this: individual rights, when
detached from a framework of duties which grants them their full
meaning, can run wild, leading to an escalation of demands which
is effectively unlimited and indiscriminate. An overemphasis on
rights leads to a disregard for duties. Duties set a limit on
rights because they point to the anthropological and ethical
framework of which rights are a part, in this way ensuring that
they do not become licence. Duties thereby reinforce rights and
call for their defence and promotion as a task to be undertaken
in the service of the common good. Otherwise, if the only basis
of human rights is to be found in the deliberations of an
assembly of citizens, those rights can be changed at any time,
and so the duty to respect and pursue them fades from the common
consciousness. Governments and international bodies can then
lose sight of the objectivity and “inviolability” of rights.
When this happens, the authentic development of peoples is
endangered[108].
Such a way of thinking and acting compromises the authority of
international bodies, especially in the eyes of those countries
most in need of development. Indeed, the latter demand that the
international community take up the duty of helping them to be
“artisans of their own destiny”[109],
that is, to take up duties of their own. The sharing of
reciprocal duties is a more powerful incentive to action than
the mere assertion of rights.
44. The notion of rights and
duties in development must also take account of the problems
associated with population growth. This is a very
important aspect of authentic development, since it concerns the
inalienable values of life and the family[110].
To consider population increase as the primary cause of
underdevelopment is mistaken, even from an economic point of
view. Suffice it to consider, on the one hand, the significant
reduction in infant mortality and the rise in average life
expectancy found in economically developed countries, and on the
other hand, the signs of crisis observable in societies that are
registering an alarming decline in their birth rate. Due
attention must obviously be given to responsible procreation,
which among other things has a positive contribution to make to
integral human development. The Church, in her concern for man's
authentic development, urges him to have full respect for human
values in the exercise of his sexuality. It cannot be reduced
merely to pleasure or entertainment, nor can sex education be
reduced to technical instruction aimed solely at protecting the
interested parties from possible disease or the “risk” of
procreation. This would be to impoverish and disregard the
deeper meaning of sexuality, a meaning which needs to be
acknowledged and responsibly appropriated not only by
individuals but also by the community. It is irresponsible to
view sexuality merely as a source of pleasure, and likewise to
regulate it through strategies of mandatory birth control. In
either case materialistic ideas and policies are at work, and
individuals are ultimately subjected to various forms of
violence. Against such policies, there is a need to defend the
primary competence of the family in the area of sexuality[111],
as opposed to the State and its restrictive policies, and to
ensure that parents are suitably prepared to undertake their
responsibilities.
Morally responsible openness to life represents a
rich social and economic resource.
Populous nations have been able to emerge from poverty thanks
not least to the size of their population and the talents of
their people. On the other hand, formerly prosperous nations are
presently passing through a phase of uncertainty and in some
cases decline, precisely because of their falling birth rates;
this has become a crucial problem for highly affluent societies.
The decline in births, falling at times beneath the so-called
“replacement level”, also puts a strain on social welfare
systems, increases their cost, eats into savings and hence the
financial resources needed for investment, reduces the
availability of qualified labourers, and narrows the “brain
pool” upon which nations can draw for their needs. Furthermore,
smaller and at times miniscule families run the risk of
impoverishing social relations, and failing to ensure effective
forms of solidarity. These situations are symptomatic of scant
confidence in the future and moral weariness. It is thus
becoming a social and even economic necessity once more to hold
up to future generations the beauty of marriage and the family,
and the fact that these institutions correspond to the deepest
needs and dignity of the person. In view of this, States are
called to enact policies promoting the centrality and the
integrity of the family founded on marriage between a man
and a woman, the primary vital cell of society[112],
and to assume responsibility for its economic and fiscal needs,
while respecting its essentially relational character.
45.
Striving to meet the deepest moral needs of the person also has
important and beneficial repercussions at the level of
economics. The economy needs ethics in order to function
correctly — not any ethics whatsoever, but an ethics which
is people-centred. Today we hear much talk of ethics in the
world of economy, finance and business. Research centres and
seminars in business ethics are on the rise; the system of
ethical certification is spreading throughout the developed
world as part of the movement of ideas associated with the
responsibilities of business towards society. Banks are
proposing “ethical” accounts and investment funds. “Ethical
financing” is being developed, especially through micro-credit
and, more generally, micro-finance. These processes are
praiseworthy and deserve much support. Their positive effects
are also being felt in the less developed areas of the world. It
would be advisable, however, to develop a sound criterion of
discernment, since the adjective “ethical” can be abused. When
the word is used generically, it can lend itself to any number
of interpretations, even to the point where it includes
decisions and choices contrary to justice and authentic human
welfare.
Much in fact depends on the
underlying system of morality. On this subject the Church's
social doctrine can make a specific contribution, since it is
based on man's creation “in the image of God” (Gen 1:27), a
datum which gives rise to the inviolable dignity of the human
person and the transcendent value of natural moral norms. When
business ethics prescinds from these two pillars, it inevitably
risks losing its distinctive nature and it falls prey to forms
of exploitation; more specifically, it risks becoming
subservient to existing economic and financial systems rather
than correcting their dysfunctional aspects. Among other things,
it risks being used to justify the financing of projects that
are in reality unethical. The word “ethical”, then, should not
be used to make ideological distinctions, as if to suggest that
initiatives not formally so designated would not be ethical.
Efforts are needed — and it is essential to say this — not only
to create “ethical” sectors or segments of the economy or the
world of finance, but to ensure that the whole economy — the
whole of finance — is ethical, not merely by virtue of an
external label, but by its respect for requirements intrinsic to
its very nature. The Church's social teaching is quite clear on
the subject, recalling that the economy, in all its branches,
constitutes a sector of human activity[113].
46.
When we consider the issues involved in the relationship
between business and ethics, as well as the evolution
currently taking place in methods of production, it would appear
that the traditionally valid distinction between profit-based
companies and non-profit organizations can no longer do full
justice to reality, or offer practical direction for the future.
In recent decades a broad intermediate area has emerged between
the two types of enterprise. It is made up of traditional
companies which nonetheless subscribe to social aid agreements
in support of underdeveloped countries, charitable foundations
associated with individual companies, groups of companies
oriented towards social welfare, and the diversified world of
the so-called “civil economy” and the “economy of communion”.
This is not merely a matter of a “third sector”, but of a broad
new composite reality embracing the private and public spheres,
one which does not exclude profit, but instead considers it a
means for achieving human and social ends. Whether such
companies distribute dividends or not, whether their juridical
structure corresponds to one or other of the established forms,
becomes secondary in relation to their willingness to view
profit as a means of achieving the goal of a more humane market
and society. It is to be hoped that these new kinds of
enterprise will succeed in finding a suitable juridical and
fiscal structure in every country. Without prejudice to the
importance and the economic and social benefits of the more
traditional forms of business, they steer the system towards a
clearer and more complete assumption of duties on the part of
economic subjects. And not only that. The very plurality of
institutional forms of business gives rise to a market which is
not only more civilized but also more competitive.
47. The strengthening of
different types of businesses, especially those capable of
viewing profit as a means for achieving the goal of a more
humane market and society, must also be pursued in those
countries that are excluded or marginalized from the influential
circles of the global economy. In these countries it is very
important to move ahead with projects based on subsidiarity,
suitably planned and managed, aimed at affirming rights yet also
providing for the assumption of corresponding responsibilities.
In development programmes, the principle of the
centrality of the human person, as the subject primarily
responsible for development, must be preserved. The principal
concern must be to improve the actual living conditions of the
people in a given region, thus enabling them to carry out those
duties which their poverty does not presently allow them to
fulfil. Social concern must never be an abstract attitude.
Development programmes, if they are to be adapted to individual
situations, need to be flexible; and the people who benefit from
them ought to be directly involved in their planning and
implementation. The criteria to be applied should aspire towards
incremental development in a context of solidarity — with
careful monitoring of results — inasmuch as there are no
universally valid solutions. Much depends on the way programmes
are managed in practice. “The peoples themselves have the prime
responsibility to work for their own development. But they will
not bring this about in isolation”[114].
These words of Paul VI are all the more timely nowadays, as our
world becomes progressively more integrated. The dynamics of
inclusion are hardly automatic. Solutions need to be carefully
designed to correspond to people's concrete lives, based on a
prudential evaluation of each situation. Alongside
macro-projects, there is a place for micro-projects, and above
all there is need for the active mobilization of all the
subjects of civil society, both juridical and physical persons.
International cooperation requires people who can be part of
the process of economic and human development through the
solidarity of their presence, supervision, training and respect.
From this standpoint, international organizations might question
the actual effectiveness of their bureaucratic and
administrative machinery, which is often excessively costly. At
times it happens that those who receive aid become subordinate
to the aid-givers, and the poor serve to perpetuate expensive
bureaucracies which consume an excessively high percentage of
funds intended for development. Hence it is to be hoped that all
international agencies and non-governmental organizations will
commit themselves to complete transparency, informing donors and
the public of the percentage of their income allocated to
programmes of cooperation, the actual content of those
programmes and, finally, the detailed expenditure of the
institution itself.
48.
Today the subject of development is also closely related to the
duties arising from our relationship to the natural
environment. The environment is God's gift to everyone, and
in our use of it we have a responsibility towards the poor,
towards future generations and towards humanity as a whole. When
nature, including the human being, is viewed as the result of
mere chance or evolutionary determinism, our sense of
responsibility wanes. In nature, the believer recognizes the
wonderful result of God's creative activity, which we may use
responsibly to satisfy our legitimate needs, material or
otherwise, while respecting the intrinsic balance of creation.
If this vision is lost, we end up either considering nature an
untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abusing it. Neither
attitude is consonant with the Christian vision of nature as the
fruit of God's creation.
Nature expresses a design of love and truth.
It is prior to us, and it has been given to us by God as the
setting for our life. Nature speaks to us of the Creator (cf.
Rom 1:20) and his love for humanity. It is destined to be
“recapitulated” in Christ at the end of time (cf. Eph
1:9-10; Col 1:19-20). Thus it too is a “vocation”[115].
Nature is at our disposal not as “a heap of scattered refuse”[116],
but as a gift of the Creator who has given it an inbuilt order,
enabling man to draw from it the principles needed in order “to
till it and keep it” (Gen 2:15). But it should also be stressed
that it is contrary to authentic development to view nature as
something more important than the human person. This position
leads to attitudes of neo-paganism or a new pantheism — human
salvation cannot come from nature alone, understood in a purely
naturalistic sense. This having been said, it is also necessary
to reject the opposite position, which aims at total technical
dominion over nature, because the natural environment is more
than raw material to be manipulated at our pleasure; it is a
wondrous work of the Creator containing a “grammar” which sets
forth ends and criteria for its wise use, not its reckless
exploitation. Today much harm is done to development precisely
as a result of these distorted notions. Reducing nature merely
to a collection of contingent data ends up doing violence to the
environment and even encouraging activity that fails to respect
human nature itself. Our nature, constituted not only by matter
but also by spirit, and as such, endowed with transcendent
meaning and aspirations, is also normative for culture. Human
beings interpret and shape the natural environment through
culture, which in turn is given direction by the responsible use
of freedom, in accordance with the dictates of the moral law.
Consequently, projects for integral human development cannot
ignore coming generations, but need to be marked by solidarity
and inter-generational justice, while taking into account
a variety of contexts: ecological, juridical, economic,
political and cultural[117].
49.
Questions linked to the care and preservation of the environment
today need to give due consideration to the energy problem.
The fact that some States, power groups and companies hoard
non-renewable energy resources represents a grave obstacle to
development in poor countries. Those countries lack the economic
means either to gain access to existing sources of non-renewable
energy or to finance research into new alternatives. The
stockpiling of natural resources, which in many cases are found
in the poor countries themselves, gives rise to exploitation and
frequent conflicts between and within nations. These conflicts
are often fought on the soil of those same countries, with a
heavy toll of death, destruction and further decay. The
international community has an urgent duty to find institutional
means of regulating the exploitation of non-renewable resources,
involving poor countries in the process, in order to plan
together for the future.
On this front too, there is a
pressing moral need for renewed solidarity, especially in
relationships between developing countries and those that are
highly industrialized[118].
The technologically advanced societies can and must lower their
domestic energy consumption, either through an evolution in
manufacturing methods or through greater ecological sensitivity
among their citizens. It should be added that at present it is
possible to achieve improved energy efficiency while at the same
time encouraging research into alternative forms of energy. What
is also needed, though, is a worldwide redistribution of energy
resources, so that countries lacking those resources can have
access to them. The fate of those countries cannot be left in
the hands of whoever is first to claim the spoils, or whoever is
able to prevail over the rest. Here we are dealing with major
issues; if they are to be faced adequately, then everyone must
responsibly recognize the impact they will have on future
generations, particularly on the many young people in the poorer
nations, who “ask to assume their active part in the
construction of a better world”[119].
50. This responsibility is a
global one, for it is concerned not just with energy but with
the whole of creation, which must not be bequeathed to future
generations depleted of its resources. Human beings legitimately
exercise a responsible stewardship over nature, in order
to protect it, to enjoy its fruits and to cultivate it in new
ways, with the assistance of advanced technologies, so that it
can worthily accommodate and feed the world's population. On
this earth there is room for everyone: here the entire human
family must find the resources to live with dignity, through the
help of nature itself — God's gift to his children — and through
hard work and creativity. At the same time we must recognize our
grave duty to hand the earth on to future generations in such a
condition that they too can worthily inhabit it and continue to
cultivate it. This means being committed to making joint
decisions “after pondering responsibly the road to be taken,
decisions aimed at strengthening that covenant between human
beings and the environment, which should mirror the creative
love of God, from whom we come and towards whom we are
journeying”[120].
Let us hope that the international community and individual
governments will succeed in countering harmful ways of treating
the environment. It is likewise incumbent upon the competent
authorities to make every effort to ensure that the economic and
social costs of using up shared environmental resources are
recognized with transparency and fully borne by those who incur
them, not by other peoples or future generations: the protection
of the environment, of resources and of the climate obliges all
international leaders to act jointly and to show a readiness to
work in good faith, respecting the law and promoting solidarity
with the weakest regions of the planet[121].
One of the greatest challenges facing the economy is to achieve
the most efficient use — not abuse — of natural resources, based
on a realization that the notion of “efficiency” is not
value-free.
51. The way humanity treats
the environment influences the way it treats itself, and vice
versa. This invites contemporary society to a serious review
of its life-style, which, in many parts of the world, is prone
to hedonism and consumerism, regardless of their harmful
consequences[122].
What is needed is an effective shift in mentality which can lead
to the adoption of new life-styles “in which the quest
for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the
sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer
choices, savings and investments”[123].
Every violation of solidarity and civic friendship harms the
environment, just as environmental deterioration in turn upsets
relations in society. Nature, especially in our time, is so
integrated into the dynamics of society and culture that by now
it hardly constitutes an independent variable. Desertification
and the decline in productivity in some agricultural areas are
also the result of impoverishment and underdevelopment among
their inhabitants. When incentives are offered for their
economic and cultural development, nature itself is protected.
Moreover, how many natural resources are squandered by wars!
Peace in and among peoples would also provide greater protection
for nature. The hoarding of resources, especially water, can
generate serious conflicts among the peoples involved. Peaceful
agreement about the use of resources can protect nature and, at
the same time, the well-being of the societies concerned.
The Church has a responsibility towards creation
and she must assert this responsibility in the public sphere. In
so doing, she must defend not only earth, water and air as gifts
of creation that belong to everyone. She must above all protect
mankind from self-destruction. There is need for what might be
called a human ecology, correctly understood. The deterioration
of nature is in fact closely connected to the culture that
shapes human coexistence: when “human ecology”[124]
is respected within society, environmental ecology also
benefits. Just as human virtues are interrelated, such that
the weakening of one places others at risk, so the ecological
system is based on respect for a plan that affects both the
health of society and its good relationship with nature.
In
order to protect nature, it is not enough to intervene with
economic incentives or deterrents; not even an apposite
education is sufficient. These are important steps, but the
decisive issue is the overall moral tenor of society. If
there is a lack of respect for the right to life and to a
natural death, if human conception, gestation and birth are made
artificial, if human embryos are sacrificed to research, the
conscience of society ends up losing the concept of human
ecology and, along with it, that of environmental ecology. It is
contradictory to insist that future generations respect the
natural environment when our educational systems and laws do not
help them to respect themselves. The book of nature is one and
indivisible: it takes in not only the environment but also life,
sexuality, marriage, the family, social relations: in a word,
integral human development. Our duties towards the environment
are linked to our duties towards the human person, considered in
himself and in relation to others. It would be wrong to uphold
one set of duties while trampling on the other. Herein lies a
grave contradiction in our mentality and practice today: one
which demeans the person, disrupts the environment and damages
society.
52.
Truth, and the love which it reveals, cannot be produced: they
can only be received as a gift. Their ultimate source is not,
and cannot be, mankind, but only God, who is himself Truth and
Love. This principle is extremely important for society and for
development, since neither can be a purely human product; the
vocation to development on the part of individuals and peoples
is not based simply on human choice, but is an intrinsic part of
a plan that is prior to us and constitutes for all of us a duty
to be freely accepted. That which is prior to us and constitutes
us — subsistent Love and Truth — shows us what goodness is, and
in what our true happiness consists. It shows us the road to
true development.
CHAPTER FIVE
THE COOPERATION
OF THE HUMAN FAMILY
53. One of the deepest forms of
poverty a person can experience is isolation. If we look closely
at other kinds of poverty, including material forms, we see that
they are born from isolation, from not being loved or from
difficulties in being able to love. Poverty is often produced by
a rejection of God's love, by man's basic and tragic tendency to
close in on himself, thinking himself to be self-sufficient or
merely an insignificant and ephemeral fact, a “stranger” in a
random universe. Man is alienated when he is alone, when he is
detached from reality, when he stops thinking and believing in a
foundation[125].
All of humanity is alienated when too much trust is placed in
merely human projects, ideologies and false utopias[126].
Today humanity appears much more interactive than in the past:
this shared sense of being close to one another must be
transformed into true communion. The development of peoples
depends, above all, on a recognition that the human race is a
single family working together in true communion, not simply
a group of subjects who happen to live side by side[127].
Pope Paul VI noted that “the
world is in trouble because of the lack of thinking”[128].
He was making an observation, but also expressing a wish: a new
trajectory of thinking is needed in order to arrive at a better
understanding of the implications of our being one family;
interaction among the peoples of the world calls us to embark
upon this new trajectory, so that integration can signify
solidarity[129]
rather than marginalization. Thinking of this kind requires a
deeper critical evaluation of the category of relation. This
is a task that cannot be undertaken by the social sciences
alone, insofar as the contribution of disciplines such as
metaphysics and theology is needed if man's transcendent dignity
is to be properly understood.
As a spiritual being, the human
creature is defined through interpersonal relations. The more
authentically he or she lives these relations, the more his or
her own personal identity matures. It is not by isolation that
man establishes his worth, but by placing himself in relation
with others and with God. Hence these relations take on
fundamental importance. The same holds true for peoples as well.
A metaphysical understanding of the relations between persons is
therefore of great benefit for their development. In this
regard, reason finds inspiration and direction in Christian
revelation, according to which the human community does not
absorb the individual, annihilating his autonomy, as happens in
the various forms of totalitarianism, but rather values him all
the more because the relation between individual and community
is a relation between one totality and another[130].
Just as a family does not submerge the identities of its
individual members, just as the Church rejoices in each “new
creation” (Gal 6:15; 2 Cor 5:17) incorporated by Baptism into
her living Body, so too the unity of the human family does not
submerge the identities of individuals, peoples and cultures,
but makes them more transparent to each other and links them
more closely in their legitimate diversity.
54. The theme of development can
be identified with the inclusion-in-relation of all individuals
and peoples within the one community of the human family, built
in solidarity on the basis of the fundamental values of justice
and peace. This perspective is illuminated in a striking way by
the relationship between the Persons of the Trinity within the
one divine Substance. The Trinity is absolute unity insofar as
the three divine Persons are pure relationality. The reciprocal
transparency among the divine Persons is total and the bond
between each of them complete, since they constitute a unique
and absolute unity. God desires to incorporate us into this
reality of communion as well: “that they may be one even as we
are one” (Jn 17:22). The Church is a sign and instrument of this
unity[131].
Relationships between human beings throughout history cannot but
be enriched by reference to this divine model. In particular,
in the light of the revealed mystery of the Trinity, we
understand that true openness does not mean loss of individual
identity but profound interpenetration. This also emerges from
the common human experiences of love and truth. Just as the
sacramental love of spouses unites them spiritually in “one
flesh” (Gen 2:24; Mt 19:5; Eph 5:31) and makes out of the two a
real and relational unity, so in an analogous way truth unites
spirits and causes them to think in unison, attracting them as a
unity to itself.
55. The Christian revelation of
the unity of the human race presupposes a metaphysical
interpretation of the “humanum” in which relationality is an
essential element. Other cultures and religions teach
brotherhood and peace and are therefore of enormous importance
to integral human development. Some religious and cultural
attitudes, however, do not fully embrace the principle of love
and truth and therefore end up retarding or even obstructing
authentic human development. There are certain religious
cultures in the world today that do not oblige men and women to
live in communion but rather cut them off from one other in a
search for individual well-being, limited to the gratification
of psychological desires. Furthermore, a certain proliferation
of different religious “paths”, attracting small groups or even
single individuals, together with religious syncretism, can give
rise to separation and disengagement. One possible negative
effect of the process of globalization is the tendency to favour
this kind of syncretism[132]
by encouraging forms of “religion” that, instead of bringing
people together, alienate them from one another and distance
them from reality. At the same time, some religious and cultural
traditions persist which ossify society in rigid social
groupings, in magical beliefs that fail to respect the dignity
of the person, and in attitudes of subjugation to occult powers.
In these contexts, love and truth have difficulty asserting
themselves, and authentic development is impeded.
For this reason, while it may be
true that development needs the religions and cultures of
different peoples, it is equally true that adequate discernment
is needed. Religious freedom does not mean religious
indifferentism, nor does it imply that all religions are equal[133].
Discernment is needed regarding the contribution of cultures and
religions, especially on the part of those who wield political
power, if the social community is to be built up in a spirit of
respect for the common good. Such discernment has to be based on
the criterion of charity and truth. Since the development of
persons and peoples is at stake, this discernment will have to
take account of the need for emancipation and inclusivity, in
the context of a truly universal human community. “The whole man
and all men” is also the criterion for evaluating cultures and
religions. Christianity, the religion of the “God who has a
human face”[134],
contains this very criterion within itself.
56. The Christian religion and
other religions can offer their contribution to development
only if God has a place in the public realm, specifically in
regard to its cultural, social, economic, and particularly its
political dimensions. The Church's social doctrine came into
being in order to claim “citizenship status” for the Christian
religion[135].
Denying the right to profess one's religion in public and the
right to bring the truths of faith to bear upon public life has
negative consequences for true development. The exclusion of
religion from the public square — and, at the other extreme,
religious fundamentalism — hinders an encounter between persons
and their collaboration for the progress of humanity. Public
life is sapped of its motivation and politics takes on a
domineering and aggressive character. Human rights risk being
ignored either because they are robbed of their transcendent
foundation or because personal freedom is not acknowledged.
Secularism and fundamentalism exclude the possibility of
fruitful dialogue and effective cooperation between reason and
religious faith. Reason always stands in need of being
purified by faith: this also holds true for political
reason, which must not consider itself omnipotent. For its part,
religion always needs to be purified by reason in order to
show its authentically human face. Any breach in this dialogue
comes only at an enormous price to human development.
57. Fruitful dialogue between
faith and reason cannot but render the work of charity more
effective within society, and it constitutes the most
appropriate framework for promoting fraternal collaboration
between believers and non-believers in their shared
commitment to working for justice and the peace of the human
family. In the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes, the
Council fathers asserted that “believers and unbelievers agree
almost unanimously that all things on earth should be ordered
towards man as to their centre and summit”[136].
For believers, the world derives neither from blind chance nor
from strict necessity, but from God's plan. This is what gives
rise to the duty of believers to unite their efforts with those
of all men and women of good will, with the followers of other
religions and with non-believers, so that this world of ours may
effectively correspond to the divine plan: living as a family
under the Creator's watchful eye. A particular manifestation of
charity and a guiding criterion for fraternal cooperation
between believers and non-believers is undoubtedly the
principle of subsidiarity[137],
an expression of inalienable human freedom. Subsidiarity is
first and foremost a form of assistance to the human person via
the autonomy of intermediate bodies. Such assistance is offered
when individuals or groups are unable to accomplish something on
their own, and it is always designed to achieve their
emancipation, because it fosters freedom and participation
through assumption of responsibility. Subsidiarity respects
personal dignity by recognizing in the person a subject who is
always capable of giving something to others. By considering
reciprocity as the heart of what it is to be a human being,
subsidiarity is the most effective antidote against any form of
all-encompassing welfare state. It is able to take account both
of the manifold articulation of plans — and therefore of the
plurality of subjects — as well as the coordination of those
plans. Hence the principle of subsidiarity is particularly
well-suited to managing globalization and directing it towards
authentic human development. In order not to produce a dangerous
universal power of a tyrannical nature, the governance of
globalization must be marked by subsidiarity, articulated
into several layers and involving different levels that can work
together. Globalization certainly requires authority, insofar as
it poses the problem of a global common good that needs to be
pursued. This authority, however, must be organized in a
subsidiary and stratified way[138],
if it is not to infringe upon freedom and if it is to yield
effective results in practice.
58.
The principle of subsidiarity must remain closely linked to the
principle of solidarity and vice versa, since the former
without the latter gives way to social privatism, while the
latter without the former gives way to paternalist social
assistance that is demeaning to those in need. This general rule
must also be taken broadly into consideration when addressing
issues concerning international development aid. Such
aid, whatever the donors' intentions, can sometimes lock people
into a state of dependence and even foster situations of
localized oppression and exploitation in the receiving country.
Economic aid, in order to be true to its purpose, must not
pursue secondary objectives. It must be distributed with the
involvement not only of the governments of receiving countries,
but also local economic agents and the bearers of culture within
civil society, including local Churches. Aid programmes must
increasingly acquire the characteristics of participation and
completion from the grass roots. Indeed, the most valuable
resources in countries receiving development aid are human
resources: herein lies the real capital that needs to accumulate
in order to guarantee a truly autonomous future for the poorest
countries. It should also be remembered that, in the economic
sphere, the principal form of assistance needed by developing
countries is that of allowing and encouraging the gradual
penetration of their products into international markets, thus
making it possible for these countries to participate fully in
international economic life. Too often in the past, aid has
served to create only fringe markets for the products of these
donor countries. This was often due to a lack of genuine demand
for the products in question: it is therefore necessary to help
such countries improve their products and adapt them more
effectively to existing demand. Furthermore, there are those who
fear the effects of competition through the importation of
products — normally agricultural products — from economically
poor countries. Nevertheless, it should be remembered that for
such countries, the possibility of marketing their products is
very often what guarantees their survival in both the short and
long term. Just and equitable international trade in
agricultural goods can be beneficial to everyone, both to
suppliers and to customers. For this reason, not only is
commercial orientation needed for production of this kind, but
also the establishment of international trade regulations to
support it and stronger financing for development in order to
increase the productivity of these economies.
59. Cooperation for
development must not be concerned exclusively with the
economic dimension: it offers a wonderful opportunity for
encounter between cultures and peoples. If the parties to
cooperation on the side of economically developed countries — as
occasionally happens — fail to take account of their own or
others' cultural identity, or the human values that shape it,
they cannot enter into meaningful dialogue with the citizens of
poor countries. If the latter, in their turn, are uncritically
and indiscriminately open to every cultural proposal, they will
not be in a position to assume responsibility for their own
authentic development[139].
Technologically advanced societies must not confuse their own
technological development with a presumed cultural superiority,
but must rather rediscover within themselves the oft-forgotten
virtues which made it possible for them to flourish throughout
their history. Evolving societies must remain faithful to all
that is truly human in their traditions, avoiding the temptation
to overlay them automatically with the mechanisms of a
globalized technological civilization. In all cultures there are
examples of ethical convergence, some isolated, some
interrelated, as an expression of the one human nature, willed
by the Creator; the tradition of ethical wisdom knows this as
the natural law[140].
This universal moral law provides a sound basis for all
cultural, religious and political dialogue, and it ensures that
the multi-faceted pluralism of cultural diversity does not
detach itself from the common quest for truth, goodness and God.
Thus adherence to the law etched on human hearts is the
precondition for all constructive social cooperation. Every
culture has burdens from which it must be freed and shadows from
which it must emerge. The Christian faith, by becoming incarnate
in cultures and at the same time transcending them, can help
them grow in universal brotherhood and solidarity, for the
advancement of global and community development.
60.
In the search for solutions to the current economic crisis,
development aid for poor countries must be considered a valid
means of creating wealth for all. What aid programme is
there that can hold out such significant growth prospects — even
from the point of view of the world economy — as the support of
populations that are still in the initial or early phases of
economic development? From this perspective, more economically
developed nations should do all they can to allocate larger
portions of their gross domestic product to development aid,
thus respecting the obligations that the international community
has undertaken in this regard. One way of doing so is by
reviewing their internal social assistance and welfare policies,
applying the principle of subsidiarity and creating better
integrated welfare systems, with the active participation of
private individuals and civil society. In this way, it is
actually possible to improve social services and welfare
programmes, and at the same time to save resources — by
eliminating waste and rejecting fraudulent claims — which could
then be allocated to international solidarity. A more devolved
and organic system of social solidarity, less bureaucratic but
no less coordinated, would make it possible to harness much
dormant energy, for the benefit of solidarity between peoples.
One
possible approach to development aid would be to apply
effectively what is known as fiscal subsidiarity, allowing
citizens to decide how to allocate a portion of the taxes they
pay to the State. Provided it does not degenerate into the
promotion of special interests, this can help to stimulate forms
of welfare solidarity from below, with obvious benefits in the
area of solidarity for development as well.
61.
Greater solidarity at the international level is seen especially
in the ongoing promotion — even in the midst of economic crisis
— of greater access to education, which is at the same
time an essential precondition for effective international
cooperation. The term “education” refers not only to classroom
teaching and vocational training — both of which are important
factors in development — but to the complete formation of the
person. In this regard, there is a problem that should be
highlighted: in order to educate, it is necessary to know the
nature of the human person, to know who he or she is. The
increasing prominence of a relativistic understanding of that
nature presents serious problems for education, especially moral
education, jeopardizing its universal extension. Yielding to
this kind of relativism makes everyone poorer and has a negative
impact on the effectiveness of aid to the most needy
populations, who lack not only economic and technical means, but
also educational methods and resources to assist people in
realizing their full human potential.
An illustration of the
significance of this problem is offered by the phenomenon of
international tourism[141],
which can be a major factor in economic development and cultural
growth, but can also become an occasion for exploitation and
moral degradation. The current situation offers unique
opportunities for the economic aspects of development — that is
to say the flow of money and the emergence of a significant
amount of local enterprise — to be combined with the cultural
aspects, chief among which is education. In many cases this is
what happens, but in other cases international tourism has a
negative educational impact both for the tourist and the local
populace. The latter are often exposed to immoral or even
perverted forms of conduct, as in the case of so-called sex
tourism, to which many human beings are sacrificed even at a
tender age. It is sad to note that this activity often takes
place with the support of local governments, with silence from
those in the tourists' countries of origin, and with the
complicity of many of the tour operators. Even in less extreme
cases, international tourism often follows a consumerist and
hedonistic pattern, as a form of escapism planned in a manner
typical of the countries of origin, and therefore not conducive
to authentic encounter between persons and cultures. We need,
therefore, to develop a different type of tourism that has the
ability to promote genuine mutual understanding, without taking
away from the element of rest and healthy recreation. Tourism of
this type needs to increase, partly through closer coordination
with the experience gained from international cooperation and
enterprise for development.
62. Another aspect of integral
human development that is worthy of attention is the phenomenon
of migration. This is a striking phenomenon because of
the sheer numbers of people involved, the social, economic,
political, cultural and religious problems it raises, and the
dramatic challenges it poses to nations and the international
community. We can say that we are facing a social phenomenon of
epoch-making proportions that requires bold, forward-looking
policies of international cooperation if it is to be handled
effectively. Such policies should set out from close
collaboration between the migrants' countries of origin and
their countries of destination; it should be accompanied by
adequate international norms able to coordinate different
legislative systems with a view to safeguarding the needs and
rights of individual migrants and their families, and at the
same time, those of the host countries. No country can be
expected to address today's problems of migration by itself. We
are all witnesses of the burden of suffering, the dislocation
and the aspirations that accompany the flow of migrants. The
phenomenon, as everyone knows, is difficult to manage; but there
is no doubt that foreign workers, despite any difficulties
concerning integration, make a significant contribution to the
economic development of the host country through their labour,
besides that which they make to their country of origin through
the money they send home. Obviously, these labourers cannot be
considered as a commodity or a mere workforce. They must not,
therefore, be treated like any other factor of production. Every
migrant is a human person who, as such, possesses fundamental,
inalienable rights that must be respected by everyone and in
every circumstance[142].
63. No consideration of the
problems associated with development could fail to highlight the
direct link between poverty and unemployment. In many
cases, poverty results from a violation of the dignity of
human work, either because work opportunities are limited
(through unemployment or underemployment), or “because a low
value is put on work and the rights that flow from it,
especially the right to a just wage and to the personal security
of the worker and his or her family”[143].
For this reason, on 1 May 2000 on the occasion of the Jubilee of
Workers, my venerable predecessor Pope John Paul II issued an
appeal for “a global coalition in favour of ‘decent work”'[144],
supporting the strategy of the International Labour
Organization. In this way, he gave a strong moral impetus to
this objective, seeing it as an aspiration of families in every
country of the world. What is meant by the word “decency” in
regard to work? It means work that expresses the essential
dignity of every man and woman in the context of their
particular society: work that is freely chosen, effectively
associating workers, both men and women, with the development of
their community; work that enables the worker to be respected
and free from any form of discrimination; work that makes it
possible for families to meet their needs and provide schooling
for their children, without the children themselves being forced
into labour; work that permits the workers to organize
themselves freely, and to make their voices heard; work that
leaves enough room for rediscovering one's roots at a personal,
familial and spiritual level; work that guarantees those who
have retired a decent standard of living.
64.
While reflecting on the theme of work, it is appropriate to
recall how important it is that labour unions — which
have always been encouraged and supported by the Church — should
be open to the new perspectives that are emerging in the world
of work. Looking to wider concerns than the specific category of
labour for which they were formed, union organizations are
called to address some of the new questions arising in our
society: I am thinking, for example, of the complex of issues
that social scientists describe in terms of a conflict between
worker and consumer. Without necessarily endorsing the thesis
that the central focus on the worker has given way to a central
focus on the consumer, this would still appear to constitute new
ground for unions to explore creatively. The global context in
which work takes place also demands that national labour unions,
which tend to limit themselves to defending the interests of
their registered members, should turn their attention to those
outside their membership, and in particular to workers in
developing countries where social rights are often violated. The
protection of these workers, partly achieved through appropriate
initiatives aimed at their countries of origin, will enable
trade unions to demonstrate the authentic ethical and cultural
motivations that made it possible for them, in a different
social and labour context, to play a decisive role in
development. The Church's traditional teaching makes a valid
distinction between the respective roles and functions of trade
unions and politics. This distinction allows unions to identify
civil society as the proper setting for their necessary activity
of defending and promoting labour, especially on behalf of
exploited and unrepresented workers, whose woeful condition is
often ignored by the distracted eye of society.
65.
Finance, therefore — through the renewed structures and
operating methods that have to be designed after its misuse,
which wreaked such havoc on the real economy — now needs to go
back to being an instrument directed towards improved wealth
creation and development. Insofar as they are instruments,
the entire economy and finance, not just certain sectors, must
be used in an ethical way so as to create suitable conditions
for human development and for the development of peoples. It is
certainly useful, and in some circumstances imperative, to
launch financial initiatives in which the humanitarian dimension
predominates. However, this must not obscure the fact that the
entire financial system has to be aimed at sustaining true
development. Above all, the intention to do good must not be
considered incompatible with the effective capacity to produce
goods. Financiers must rediscover the genuinely ethical
foundation of their activity, so as not to abuse the
sophisticated instruments which can serve to betray the
interests of savers. Right intention, transparency, and the
search for positive results are mutually compatible and must
never be detached from one another. If love is wise, it can find
ways of working in accordance with provident and just
expediency, as is illustrated in a significant way by much of
the experience of credit unions.
Both
the regulation of the financial sector, so as to safeguard
weaker parties and discourage scandalous speculation, and
experimentation with new forms of finance, designed to support
development projects, are positive experiences that should be
further explored and encouraged, highlighting the
responsibility of the investor. Furthermore, the
experience of micro-finance, which has its roots in the
thinking and activity of the civil humanists — I am thinking
especially of the birth of pawnbroking — should be strengthened
and fine-tuned. This is all the more necessary in these days
when financial difficulties can become severe for many of the
more vulnerable sectors of the population, who should be
protected from the risk of usury and from despair. The weakest
members of society should be helped to defend themselves against
usury, just as poor peoples should be helped to derive real
benefit from micro-credit, in order to discourage the
exploitation that is possible in these two areas. Since rich
countries are also experiencing new forms of poverty,
micro-finance can give practical assistance by launching new
initiatives and opening up new sectors for the benefit of the
weaker elements in society, even at a time of general economic
downturn.
66. Global interconnectedness has
led to the emergence of a new political power, that of
consumers and their associations. This is a phenomenon that
needs to be further explored, as it contains positive elements
to be encouraged as well as excesses to be avoided. It is good
for people to realize that purchasing is always a moral — and
not simply economic — act. Hence the consumer has a specific
social responsibility, which goes hand-in- hand with the
social responsibility of the enterprise. Consumers should be
continually educated[145]
regarding their daily role, which can be exercised with respect
for moral principles without diminishing the intrinsic economic
rationality of the act of purchasing. In the retail industry,
particularly at times like the present when purchasing power has
diminished and people must live more frugally, it is necessary
to explore other paths: for example, forms of cooperative
purchasing like the consumer cooperatives that have been in
operation since the nineteenth century, partly through the
initiative of Catholics. In addition, it can be helpful to
promote new ways of marketing products from deprived areas of
the world, so as to guarantee their producers a decent return.
However, certain conditions need to be met: the market should be
genuinely transparent; the producers, as well as increasing
their profit margins, should also receive improved formation in
professional skills and technology; and finally, trade of this
kind must not become hostage to partisan ideologies. A more
incisive role for consumers, as long as they themselves are not
manipulated by associations that do not truly represent them, is
a desirable element for building economic democracy.
67. In the face of the
unrelenting growth of global interdependence, there is a
strongly felt need, even in the midst of a global recession, for
a reform of the United Nations Organization, and likewise
of economic institutions and international finance, so
that the concept of the family of nations can acquire real
teeth. One also senses the urgent need to find innovative ways
of implementing the principle of the responsibility to
protect[146]
and of giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared
decision-making. This seems necessary in order to arrive at a
political, juridical and economic order which can increase and
give direction to international cooperation for the development
of all peoples in solidarity. To manage the global economy; to
revive economies hit by the crisis; to avoid any deterioration
of the present crisis and the greater imbalances that would
result; to bring about integral and timely disarmament, food
security and peace; to guarantee the protection of the
environment and to regulate migration: for all this, there is
urgent need of a true world political authority, as my
predecessor Blessed John XXIII indicated some years ago. Such an
authority would need to be regulated by law, to observe
consistently the principles of subsidiarity and solidarity, to
seek to establish the common good[147],
and to make a commitment to securing authentic integral human
development inspired by the values of charity in truth.
Furthermore, such an authority would need to be universally
recognized and to be vested with the effective power to ensure
security for all, regard for justice, and respect for rights[148].
Obviously it would have to have the authority to ensure
compliance with its decisions from all parties, and also with
the coordinated measures adopted in various international
forums. Without this, despite the great progress accomplished in
various sectors, international law would risk being conditioned
by the balance of power among the strongest nations. The
integral development of peoples and international cooperation
require the establishment of a greater degree of international
ordering, marked by subsidiarity, for the management of
globalization[149].
They also require the construction of a social order that at
last conforms to the moral order, to the interconnection between
moral and social spheres, and to the link between politics and
the economic and civil spheres, as envisaged by the Charter of
the United Nations.
CHAPTER SIX
THE DEVELOPMENT OF PEOPLES
AND TECHNOLOGY
68.
The development of peoples is intimately linked to the
development of individuals. The human person by nature is
actively involved in his own development. The development in
question is not simply the result of natural mechanisms, since
as everybody knows, we are all capable of making free and
responsible choices. Nor is it merely at the mercy of our
caprice, since we all know that we are a gift, not something
self-generated. Our freedom is profoundly shaped by our being,
and by its limits. No one shapes his own conscience arbitrarily,
but we all build our own “I” on the basis of a “self” which is
given to us. Not only are other persons outside our control, but
each one of us is outside his or her own control. A person's
development is compromised, if he claims to be solely
responsible for producing what he becomes. By analogy, the
development of peoples goes awry if humanity thinks it can
re-create itself through the “wonders” of technology, just as
economic development is exposed as a destructive sham if it
relies on the “wonders” of finance in order to sustain unnatural
and consumerist growth. In the face of such Promethean
presumption, we must fortify our love for a freedom that is not
merely arbitrary, but is rendered truly human by acknowledgment
of the good that underlies it. To this end, man needs to look
inside himself in order to recognize the fundamental norms of
the natural moral law which God has written on our hearts.
69. The challenge of development
today is closely linked to technological progress, with
its astounding applications in the field of biology. Technology
— it is worth emphasizing — is a profoundly human reality,
linked to the autonomy and freedom of man. In technology we
express and confirm the hegemony of the spirit over matter. “The
human spirit, ‘increasingly free of its bondage to creatures,
can be more easily drawn to the worship and contemplation of the
Creator'”[150].
Technology enables us to exercise dominion over matter, to
reduce risks, to save labour, to improve our conditions of life.
It touches the heart of the vocation of human labour: in
technology, seen as the product of his genius, man recognizes
himself and forges his own humanity. Technology is the objective
side of human action[151]
whose origin and raison d'etre is found in the subjective
element: the worker himself. For this reason, technology is
never merely technology. It reveals man and his aspirations
towards development, it expresses the inner tension that impels
him gradually to overcome material limitations. Technology,
in this sense, is a response to God's command to till and to
keep the land (cf. Gen 2:15) that he has entrusted to
humanity, and it must serve to reinforce the covenant between
human beings and the environment, a covenant that should mirror
God's creative love.
70. Technological development can
give rise to the idea that technology is self-sufficient when
too much attention is given to the “how” questions, and
not enough to the many “why” questions underlying human
activity. For this reason technology can appear ambivalent.
Produced through human creativity as a tool of personal freedom,
technology can be understood as a manifestation of absolute
freedom, the freedom that seeks to prescind from the limits
inherent in things. The process of globalization could replace
ideologies with technology[152],
allowing the latter to become an ideological power that
threatens to confine us within an a priori that holds us
back from encountering being and truth. Were that to happen, we
would all know, evaluate and make decisions about our life
situations from within a technocratic cultural perspective to
which we would belong structurally, without ever being able to
discover a meaning that is not of our own making. The
“technical” worldview that follows from this vision is now so
dominant that truth has come to be seen as coinciding with the
possible. But when the sole criterion of truth is efficiency and
utility, development is automatically denied. True development
does not consist primarily in “doing”. The key to development is
a mind capable of thinking in technological terms and grasping
the fully human meaning of human activities, within the context
of the holistic meaning of the individual's being. Even when we
work through satellites or through remote electronic impulses,
our actions always remain human, an expression of our
responsible freedom. Technology is highly attractive because it
draws us out of our physical limitations and broadens our
horizon. But human freedom is authentic only when it responds
to the fascination of technology with decisions that are the
fruit of moral responsibility. Hence the pressing need for
formation in an ethically responsible use of technology. Moving
beyond the fascination that technology exerts, we must
reappropriate the true meaning of freedom, which is not an
intoxication with total autonomy, but a response to the call of
being, beginning with our own personal being.
71.
This deviation from solid humanistic principles that a technical
mindset can produce is seen today in certain technological
applications in the fields of development and peace. Often the
development of peoples is considered a matter of financial
engineering, the freeing up of markets, the removal of tariffs,
investment in production, and institutional reforms — in other
words, a purely technical matter. All these factors are of great
importance, but we have to ask why technical choices made thus
far have yielded rather mixed results. We need to think hard
about the cause. Development will never be fully guaranteed
through automatic or impersonal forces, whether they derive from
the market or from international politics. Development is
impossible without upright men and women, without financiers and
politicians whose consciences are finely attuned to the
requirements of the common good. Both professional
competence and moral consistency are necessary. When technology
is allowed to take over, the result is confusion between ends
and means, such that the sole criterion for action in business
is thought to be the maximization of profit, in politics the
consolidation of power, and in science the findings of research.
Often, underneath the intricacies of economic, financial and
political interconnections, there remain misunderstandings,
hardships and injustice. The flow of technological know-how
increases, but it is those in possession of it who benefit,
while the situation on the ground for the peoples who live in
its shadow remains unchanged: for them there is little chance of
emancipation.
72.
Even peace can run the risk of being considered a technical
product, merely the outcome of agreements between governments or
of initiatives aimed at ensuring effective economic aid. It is
true that peace-building requires the constant interplay
of diplomatic contacts, economic, technological and cultural
exchanges, agreements on common projects, as well as joint
strategies to curb the threat of military conflict and to root
out the underlying causes of terrorism. Nevertheless, if such
efforts are to have lasting effects, they must be based on
values rooted in the truth of human life. That is, the voice of
the peoples affected must be heard and their situation must be
taken into consideration, if their expectations are to be
correctly interpreted. One must align oneself, so to speak, with
the unsung efforts of so many individuals deeply committed to
bringing peoples together and to facilitating development on the
basis of love and mutual understanding. Among them are members
of the Christian faithful, involved in the great task of
upholding the fully human dimension of development and peace.
73.
Linked to technological development is the increasingly
pervasive presence of the means of social communications.
It is almost impossible today to imagine the life of the human
family without them. For better or for worse, they are so
integral a part of life today that it seems quite absurd to
maintain that they are neutral — and hence unaffected by any
moral considerations concerning people. Often such views,
stressing the strictly technical nature of the media,
effectively support their subordination to economic interests
intent on dominating the market and, not least, to attempts to
impose cultural models that serve ideological and political
agendas. Given the media's fundamental importance in engineering
changes in attitude towards reality and the human person, we
must reflect carefully on their influence, especially in regard
to the ethical-cultural dimension of globalization and the
development of peoples in solidarity. Mirroring what is required
for an ethical approach to globalization and development, so too
the meaning and purpose of the media must be sought within an
anthropological perspective. This means that they can have a
civilizing effect not only when, thanks to technological
development, they increase the possibilities of communicating
information, but above all when they are geared towards a vision
of the person and the common good that reflects truly universal
values. Just because social communications increase the
possibilities of interconnection and the dissemination of ideas,
it does not follow that they promote freedom or internationalize
development and democracy for all. To achieve goals of this
kind, they need to focus on promoting the dignity of persons and
peoples, they need to be clearly inspired by charity and placed
at the service of truth, of the good, and of natural and
supernatural fraternity. In fact, human freedom is intrinsically
linked with these higher values. The media can make an important
contribution towards the growth in communion of the human family
and the ethos of society when they are used to promote
universal participation in the common search for what is just.
74. A particularly crucial
battleground in today's cultural struggle between the supremacy
of technology and human moral responsibility is the field of
bioethics, where the very possibility of integral human
development is radically called into question. In this most
delicate and critical area, the fundamental question asserts
itself force-fully: is man the product of his own labours or
does he depend on God? Scientific discoveries in this field and
the possibilities of technological intervention seem so advanced
as to force a choice between two types of reasoning: reason open
to transcendence or reason closed within immanence. We are
presented with a clear either/ or. Yet the rationality of
a self-centred use of technology proves to be irrational because
it implies a decisive rejection of meaning and value. It is no
coincidence that closing the door to transcendence brings one up
short against a difficulty: how could being emerge from nothing,
how could intelligence be born from chance?[153]
Faced with these dramatic questions, reason and faith can come
to each other's assistance. Only together will they save man.
Entranced by an exclusive reliance on technology, reason without
faith is doomed to flounder in an illusion of its own
omnipotence. Faith without reason risks being cut off from
everyday life[154].
75. Paul VI had already
recognized and drawn attention to the global dimension of the
social question[155].
Following his lead, we need to affirm today that the social
question has become a radically anthropological question, in
the sense that it concerns not just how life is conceived but
also how it is manipulated, as bio-technology places it
increasingly under man's control. In vitro fertilization,
embryo research, the possibility of manufacturing clones and
human hybrids: all this is now emerging and being promoted in
today's highly disillusioned culture, which believes it has
mastered every mystery, because the origin of life is now within
our grasp. Here we see the clearest expression of technology's
supremacy. In this type of culture, the conscience is simply
invited to take note of technological possibilities. Yet we must
not underestimate the disturbing scenarios that threaten our
future, or the powerful new instruments that the “culture of
death” has at its disposal. To the tragic and widespread scourge
of abortion we may well have to add in the future — indeed it is
already surreptiously present — the systematic eugenic
programming of births. At the other end of the spectrum, a
pro-euthanasia mindset is making inroads as an equally damaging
assertion of control over life that under certain circumstances
is deemed no longer worth living. Underlying these scenarios are
cultural viewpoints that deny human dignity. These practices in
turn foster a materialistic and mechanistic understanding of
human life. Who could measure the negative effects of this kind
of mentality for development? How can we be surprised by the
indifference shown towards situations of human degradation, when
such indifference extends even to our attitude towards what is
and is not human? What is astonishing is the arbitrary and
selective determination of what to put forward today as worthy
of respect. Insignificant matters are considered shocking, yet
unprecedented injustices seem to be widely tolerated. While the
poor of the world continue knocking on the doors of the rich,
the world of affluence runs the risk of no longer hearing those
knocks, on account of a conscience that can no longer
distinguish what is human. God reveals man to himself; reason
and faith work hand in hand to demonstrate to us what is good,
provided we want to see it; the natural law, in which creative
Reason shines forth, reveals our greatness, but also our
wretchedness insofar as we fail to recognize the call to moral
truth.
76. One aspect of the
contemporary technological mindset is the tendency to consider
the problems and emotions of the interior life from a purely
psychological point of view, even to the point of neurological
reductionism. In this way man's interiority is emptied of its
meaning and gradually our awareness of the human soul's
ontological depths, as probed by the saints, is lost. The
question of development is closely bound up with our
understanding of the human soul, insofar as we often reduce
the self to the psyche and confuse the soul's health with
emotional well-being. These over-simplifications stem from a
profound failure to understand the spiritual life, and they
obscure the fact that the development of individuals and peoples
depends partly on the resolution of problems of a spiritual
nature. Development must include not just material growth but
also spiritual growth, since the human person is a “unity of
body and soul”[156],
born of God's creative love and destined for eternal life. The
human being develops when he grows in the spirit, when his soul
comes to know itself and the truths that God has implanted deep
within, when he enters into dialogue with himself and his
Creator. When he is far away from God, man is unsettled and ill
at ease. Social and psychological alienation and the many
neuroses that afflict affluent societies are attributable in
part to spiritual factors. A prosperous society, highly
developed in material terms but weighing heavily on the soul, is
not of itself conducive to authentic development. The new forms
of slavery to drugs and the lack of hope into which so many
people fall can be explained not only in sociological and
psychological terms but also in essentially spiritual terms. The
emptiness in which the soul feels abandoned, despite the
availability of countless therapies for body and psyche, leads
to suffering. There cannot be holistic development and
universal common good unless people's spiritual and moral
welfare is taken into account, considered in their totality
as body and soul.
77.
The supremacy of technology tends to prevent people from
recognizing anything that cannot be explained in terms of matter
alone. Yet everyone experiences the many immaterial and
spiritual dimensions of life. Knowing is not simply a material
act, since the object that is known always conceals something
beyond the empirical datum. All our knowledge, even the most
simple, is always a minor miracle, since it can never be fully
explained by the material instruments that we apply to it. In
every truth there is something more than we would have expected,
in the love that we receive there is always an element that
surprises us. We should never cease to marvel at these things.
In all knowledge and in every act of love the human soul
experiences something “over and above”, which seems very much
like a gift that we receive, or a height to which we are raised.
The development of individuals and peoples is likewise located
on a height, if we consider the spiritual dimension that
must be present if such development is to be authentic. It
requires new eyes and a new heart, capable of rising above a
materialistic vision of human events, capable of glimpsing
in development the “beyond” that technology cannot give. By
following this path, it is possible to pursue the integral human
development that takes its direction from the driving force of
charity in truth.
CONCLUSION
78. Without God man neither knows
which way to go, nor even understands who he is. In the face of
the enormous problems surrounding the development of peoples,
which almost make us yield to discouragement, we find solace in
the sayings of our Lord Jesus Christ, who teaches us: “Apart
from me you can do nothing” (Jn 15:5) and then encourages us: “I
am with you always, to the close of the age” (Mt 28:20). As we
contemplate the vast amount of work to be done, we are sustained
by our faith that God is present alongside those who come
together in his name to work for justice. Paul VI recalled in
Populorum Progressio
that man cannot bring about his own
progress unaided, because by himself he cannot establish an
authentic humanism. Only if we are aware of our calling, as
individuals and as a community, to be part of God's family as
his sons and daughters, will we be able to generate a new vision
and muster new energy in the service of a truly integral
humanism. The greatest service to development, then, is a
Christian humanism[157]
that enkindles charity and takes its lead from truth, accepting
both as a lasting gift from God. Openness to God makes us open
towards our brothers and sisters and towards an understanding of
life as a joyful task to be accomplished in a spirit of
solidarity. On the other hand, ideological rejection of God and
an atheism of indifference, oblivious to the Creator and at risk
of becoming equally oblivious to human values, constitute some
of the chief obstacles to development today. A humanism which
excludes God is an inhuman humanism. Only a humanism open to
the Absolute can guide us in the promotion and building of forms
of social and civic life — structures, institutions, culture and
ethos — without exposing us to the risk of becoming ensnared
by the fashions of the moment. Awareness of God's undying love
sustains us in our laborious and stimulating work for justice
and the development of peoples, amid successes and failures, in
the ceaseless pursuit of a just ordering of human affairs.
God's love calls us to move beyond the limited and the
ephemeral, it gives us the courage to continue seeking and
working for the benefit of all, even if this cannot be
achieved immediately and if what we are able to achieve,
alongside political authorities and those working in the field
of economics, is always less than we might wish[158].
God gives us the strength to fight and to suffer for love of the
common good, because he is our All, our greatest hope.
79.
Development needs Christians with their arms raised towards God
in prayer, Christians moved by the knowledge that
truth-filled love, caritas in veritate, from which
authentic development proceeds, is not produced by us, but given
to us. For this reason, even in the most difficult and complex
times, besides recognizing what is happening, we must above all
else turn to God's love. Development requires attention to the
spiritual life, a serious consideration of the experiences of
trust in God, spiritual fellowship in Christ, reliance upon
God's providence and mercy, love and forgiveness, self-denial,
acceptance of others, justice and peace. All this is essential
if “hearts of stone” are to be transformed into “hearts of
flesh” (Ezek 36:26), rendering life on earth “divine” and thus
more worthy of humanity. All this is of man, because man
is the subject of his own existence; and at the same time it is
of God, because God is at the beginning and end of all that
is good, all that leads to salvation: “the world or life or
death or the present or the future, all are yours; and you are
Christ's; and Christ is God's” (1 Cor 3:22-23). Christians long
for the entire human family to call upon God as “Our Father!” In
union with the only-begotten Son, may all people learn to pray
to the Father and to ask him, in the words that Jesus himself
taught us, for the grace to glorify him by living according to
his will, to receive the daily bread that we need, to be
understanding and generous towards our debtors, not to be
tempted beyond our limits, and to be delivered from evil (cf. Mt
6:9-13).
At the conclusion of the
Pauline Year, I gladly express this hope in the Apostle's
own words, taken from the Letter to the Romans: “Let love
be genuine; hate what is evil, hold fast to what is good; love
one another with brotherly affection; outdo one another in
showing honour” (Rom 12:9-10). May the Virgin Mary — proclaimed
Mater Ecclesiae by Paul VI and honoured by Christians as
Speculum Iustitiae and Regina Pacis — protect us and
obtain for us, through her heavenly intercession, the strength,
hope and joy necessary to continue to dedicate ourselves with
generosity to the task of bringing about the “development of
the whole man and of all men”[159].
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 29 June, the Solemnity of
the Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, in the year 2009, the fifth of
my Pontificate.
BENEDICTUS PP. XVI
[1]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio
(26 March 1967), 22: AAS 59 (1967), 268; Second Vatican
Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church
in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 69.
[2]
Address for the Day of Development (23 August 1968): AAS
60 (1968), 626-627.
[3]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace:
AAS 94 (2002), 132-140.
[4]
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 26.
[5]
Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (11
April 1963): AAS 55 (1963), 268-270.
[6]
Cf. no. 16: loc. cit., 265.
[7]
Cf. ibid., 82: loc. cit., 297.
[8]
Ibid., 42: loc. cit., 278.
[9]
Ibid., 20: loc. cit., 267.
[10]
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 36; Paul
VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (14 May 1971),
4: AAS 63 (1971), 403-404; John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter
Centesimus Annus
(1 May 1991), 43: AAS 83 (1991), 847.
[11]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[12]
Cf. Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of
the Social Doctrine of the Church, 76.
[13]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address at the Inauguration of the Fifth
General Conference of the Bishops of Latin America and the
Caribbean (Aparecida, 13 May 2007).
[14]
Cf. nos. 3-5: loc. cit., 258-260.
[15]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis
(30 December 1987), 6-7: AAS 80 (1988), 517-519.
[16]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
14: loc. cit., 264.
[17]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est
(25 December 2005), 18: AAS 98 (2006), 232.
[18]
Ibid., 6: loc cit., 222.
[19]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Christmas Address to the Roman Curia,
22 December 2005.
[20]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
3: loc. cit., 515.
[21]
Cf. ibid., 1: loc. cit., 513-514.
[22]
Cf. ibid., 3: loc. cit., 515.
[23]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (14
September 1981), 3: AAS 73 (1981), 583-584.
[24]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
3: loc. cit., 794-796.
[25]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
3: loc. cit., 258.
[26]
Cf. ibid., 34: loc. cit., 274.
[27]
Cf. nos. 8-9: AAS 60 (1968), 485-487; Benedict XVI,
Address to the participants at the International Congress
promoted by the Pontifical Lateran University on the fortieth
anniversary of Paul VI's Encyclical “Humanae Vitae”, 10 May
2008.
[28]
Cf. Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae (25 March 1995),
93: AAS 87 (1995), 507-508.
[29]
Ibid., 101: loc. cit., 516-518.
[30]
No. 29: AAS 68 (1976), 25.
[31]
Ibid., 31: loc. cit., 26.
[32]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
41: loc. cit., 570-572.
[33]
Cf. ibid.; Id., Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
5, 54: loc. cit., 799,
859-860.
[34]
No. 15: loc. cit., 265.
[35]
Cf. ibid., 2: loc. cit., 258; Leo XIII, Encyclical
Letter Rerum Novarum (15 May 1891): Leonis XIII P.M.
Acta, XI, Romae 1892, 97-144; John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 8: loc. cit.,
519-520; Id., Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
5: loc. cit., 799.
[36]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
2, 13: loc. cit., 258, 263-264.
[37]
Ibid., 42: loc. cit., 278.
[38]
Ibid., 11: loc. cit., 262; cf. John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
25: loc. cit., 822-824.
[39]
Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
15: loc. cit., 265.
[40]
Ibid., 3: loc. cit., 258.
[41]
Ibid., 6: loc. cit., 260.
[42]
Ibid., 14: loc. cit., 264.
[43]
Ibid.; cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
53-62: loc. cit., 859-867; Id., Encyclical Letter
Redemptor Hominis (4 March 1979), 13-14: AAS 71
(1979), 282-286.
[44]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
12: loc. cit., 262-263.
[45]
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 22.
[46]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[47]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Fourth
National Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October
2006.
[48]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
16: loc. cit., 265.
[49]
Ibid.
[50]
Benedict XVI, Address to young people at Barangaroo,
Sydney, 17 July 2008.
[51]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
20: loc. cit., 267.
[52]
Ibid., 66: loc. cit., 289-290.
[53]
Ibid., 21: loc. cit., 267-268.
[54]
Cf. nos. 3, 29, 32: loc. cit., 258, 272, 273.
[55]
Cf. Encyclical Letter, Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 28:
loc. cit., 548-550.
[56]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
9: loc. cit., 261-262.
[57]
Cf. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 20:
loc. cit., 536-537.
[58]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
22-29: loc. cit., 819-830.
[59]
Cf. nos. 23, 33: loc. cit., 268-269, 273-274.
[60]
Cf. loc. cit., 135.
[61]
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 63.
[62]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
24: loc. cit., 821-822.
[63]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis Splendor (6
August 1993), 33, 46, 51: AAS 85 (1993), 1160, 1169-1171,
1174-1175; Id., Address to the Assembly of the United Nations,
5 October 1995, 3.
[64]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
47: loc. cit., 280-281; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Sollicitudo Rei Socialis, 42: loc. cit., 572-574.
[65]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Food Day:
AAS 99 (2007), 933-935.
[66]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 18,
59, 63-64: loc. cit., 419-421, 467-468, 472-475.
[67]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace,
5.
[68]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace,
4-7, 12-15: AAS 94 (2002), 134-136, 138-140; Id.,
Message for the 2004 World Day of Peace, 8: AAS 96
(2004), 119; Id., Message for the 2005 World Day of Peace,
4: AAS 97 (2005), 177-178; Benedict XVI, Message for
the 2006 World Day of Peace, 9-10: AAS 98 (2006),
60-61; Id., Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, 5,
14: loc. cit., 778, 782-783.
[69]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2002 World Day of Peace,
6: loc. cit., 135; Benedict XVI, Message for the
2006 World Day of Peace, 9-10: loc. cit., 60-61.
[70]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Homily at Mass, Islinger Feld,
Regensburg, 12 September 2006.
[71]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 1:
loc. cit., 217-218.
[72]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
28: loc. cit., 548-550.
[73]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
19: loc. cit., 266-267.
[74]
Ibid., 39: loc. cit., 276-277.
[75]
Ibid., 75: loc. cit., 293-294.
[76]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 28:
loc. cit., 238-240.
[77]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
59: loc. cit., 864.
[78]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
40, 85: loc. cit., 277, 298-299.
[79]
Ibid., 13: loc. cit., 263-264.
[80]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Fides et Ratio (14
September 1998), 85: AAS 91 (1999), 72-73.
[81]
Cf. ibid., 83: loc. cit., 70-71.
[82]
Benedict XVI, Address at the University of Regensburg, 12
September 2006.
[83]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
33: loc. cit., 273-274.
[84]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2000 World Day of Peace,
15: AAS 92 (2000), 366.
[85]
Catechism of the Catholic Church, 407; cf. John Paul II,
Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
25: loc. cit., 822-824.
[86]
Cf. no. 17: AAS 99 (2007), 1000.
[87]
Cf. ibid., 23: loc. cit., 1004-1005.
[88]
Saint Augustine expounds this teaching in detail in his dialogue
on free will (De libero arbitrio, II, 3, 8ff.). He
indicates the existence within the human soul of an “internal
sense”. This sense consists in an act that is fulfilled outside
the normal functions of reason, an act that is not the result of
reflection, but is almost instinctive, through which reason,
realizing its transient and fallible nature, admits the
existence of something eternal, higher than itself, something
absolutely true and certain. The name that Saint Augustine gives
to this interior truth is at times the name of God (Confessions
X, 24, 35; XII, 25, 35; De libero arbitrio II, 3, 8),
more often that of Christ (De magistro 11:38;
Confessions VII, 18, 24; XI, 2, 4).
[89]
Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus Caritas Est, 3:
loc. cit., 219.
[90]
Cf. no. 49: loc. cit., 281.
[91]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
28: loc. cit., 827-828.
[92]
Cf. no. 35: loc. cit., 836-838.
[93]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
38: loc. cit., 565-566.
[94]
No. 44: loc. cit., 279.
[95]
Cf. ibid., 24: loc. cit., 269.
[96]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
36: loc. cit., 838-840.
[97]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
24: loc. cit., 269.
[98]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus, 32: loc. cit.,
832-833; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
25: loc. cit., 269-270.
[99]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 24:
loc. cit., 637-638.
[100]
Ibid., 15: loc. cit., 616-618.
[101]
Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
27: loc. cit., 271.
[102]
Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on
Christian Freedom and Liberation Libertatis Conscientia
(22 March 1987), 74: AAS 79 (1987), 587.
[103]
Cf. John Paul II, Interview published in the Catholic daily
newspaper La Croix, 20 August 1997.
[104]
John Paul II, Address to the Pontifical Academy of Social
Sciences, 27 April 2001.
[105]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
17: loc. cit., 265-266.
[106]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 2003 World Day of Peace,
5: AAS 95 (2003), 343.
[107]
Cf. ibid.
[108]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace,
13: loc. cit., 781-782.
[109]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
65: loc. cit., 289.
[110]
Cf. ibid., 36-37: loc. cit., 275-276.
[111]
Cf. ibid., 37: loc. cit., 275-276.
[112]
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Decree on the Apostolate
of Lay People Apostolicam Actuositatem, 11.
[113]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio, 14: loc.
cit., 264; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
32: loc. cit., 832-833.
[114]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
77: loc. cit., 295.
[115]
John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace, 6:
AAS 82 (1990), 150.
[116]
Heraclitus of Ephesus (Ephesus, c. 535 B.C. - c. 475 B.C.),
Fragment 22B124, in H. Diels and W. Kranz, Die Fragmente der
Vorsokratiker, Weidmann, Berlin, 1952, 6(th) ed.
[117]
Pontifical Council for Justice And Peace, Compendium of the
Social Doctrine of the Church, 451-487.
[118]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace,
10: loc. cit., 152-153.
[119]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
65: loc. cit., 289.
[120]
Benedict XVI, Message for the 2008 World Day of Peace, 7:
AAS 100 (2008), 41.
[121]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization, New York, 18 April 2008.
[122]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1990 World Day of Peace,
13: loc. cit., 154-155.
[123]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
36: loc. cit., 838-840.
[124]
Ibid., 38: loc. cit., 840-841; Benedict XVI,
Message for the 2007 World Day of Peace, 8: loc. cit.,
779.
[125]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
41: loc. cit., 843-845.
[126]
Cf. ibid.
[127]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium Vitae, 20:
loc. cit., 422-424.
[128]
Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
85: loc. cit., 298-299.
[129]
Cf. John Paul II, Message for the 1998 World Day of Peace,
3: AAS 90 (1998), 150; Address to the Members of the
Vatican Foundation “Centesimus Annus – Pro Pontifice”, 9 May
1998, 2; Address to the Civil Authorities and Diplomatic
Corps of Austria, 20 June 1998, 8; Message to the
Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 5 May 2000, 6.
[130]
According to Saint Thomas “ratio partis contrariatur rationi
personae”, In III Sent., d. 5, q. 3, a. 2; also “Homo non
ordinatur ad communitatem politicam secundum se totum et
secundum omnia sua”, Summa Theologiae I-II, q. 21, a. 4, ad
3.
[131]
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on
the Church Lumen Gentium, 1.
[132]
Cf. John Paul II, Address to the Sixth Public Session of the
Pontifical Academies of Theology and of Saint Thomas Aquinas,
8 November 2001, 3.
[133]
Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Declaration on
the Unicity and Salvific Universality of Jesus Christ and the
Church Dominus Iesus (6 August 2000), 22: AAS
92 (2000), 763-764; Id., Doctrinal Note on some questions
regarding the participation of Catholics in political life
(24 November 2002), 8: AAS 96 (2004), 369-370.
[134]
Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Spe Salvi, 31: loc.
cit., 1010; Address to the Participants in the Fourth
National Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October
2006.
[135]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
5: loc. cit., 798-800; Benedict XVI, Address to the
Participants in the Fourth National Congress of the Church in
Italy, Verona, 19 October 2006.
[136]
No. 12.
[137]
Cf. Pius XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15 May
1931): AAS 23 (1931), 203; John Paul II, Encyclical
Letter
Centesimus Annus,
48: loc. cit., 852-854; Catechism of the Catholic
Church, 1883.
[138]
Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris,
loc. cit., 274.
[139]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
10, 41: loc. cit., 262, 277-278.
[140]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to Members of the International
Theological Commission, 5 October 2007; Address to the
Participants in the International Congress on Natural Moral Law,
12 February 2007.
[141]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Bishops of Thailand on their
“Ad Limina” Visit, 16 May 2008.
[142]
Cf. Pontifical Council for the Pastoral Care of Migrants and
Itinerant People, Instruction Erga Migrantes Caritas Christi
(3 May 2004): AAS 96 (2004), 762-822.
[143]
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 8:
loc. cit., 594-598.
[144]
Jubilee of Workers, Greeting after Mass, 1 May 2000.
[145]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter
Centesimus Annus,
36: loc. cit., 838-840.
[146]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Members of the General
Assembly of the United Nations Organization, New York, 18
April 2008.
[147]
Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris, loc. cit.,
293; Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of
the Social Doctrine of the Church, 441.
[148]
Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on
the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, 82.
[149]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis,
43: loc. cit., 574-575.
[150]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
41: loc. cit.,
277-278; cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et
Spes, 57.
[151]
Cf. John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens, 5:
loc. cit., 586-589.
[152]
Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 29:
loc. cit., 420.
[153]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Address to the Participants in the Fourth
National Congress of the Church in Italy, Verona, 19 October
2006; Id., Homily at Mass, Islinger Feld, Regensburg, 12
September 2006.
[154]
Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on
certain bioethical questions Dignitas Personae (8
September 2008): AAS 100 (2008), 858-887.
[155]
Cf. Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
3: loc. cit., 258.
[156]
Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the
Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes, 14.
[157]
Cf. Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
42: loc. cit., 278.
[158]
Cf. Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter
Spe Salvi,
35: loc. cit., 1013-1014.
[159]
Paul VI, Encyclical Letter
Populorum Progressio,
42: loc. cit., 278.
©
Copyright 2009 - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
This page is the work of the Servants of the Pierced Hearts of Jesus and
Mary
