THE TWELVE PRINCIPLES OF CATHOLIC SOCIAL TEACHING
(taken from the Compendium)
1. Human Dignity and Equalitya. Creatures in the image of God
The fundamental of Sacred Scripture proclaims that the human person is a creature of God and sees in his being in the image God the element that characterizes and distinguishes him: “God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them” (Gen1:27). God places the human creature at the center and summit of the created order. Man (in Hebrew,”adam”) is form the earth (“adamah”) and God blows into his nostrils the breath of life. (Gen. 2:7). Therefore, “being in the image of God, the human individual possesses the dignity of a person, who is not just something, but someone. He is capable of self-knowledge, of self-possession and of freely giving himself and entering into communion with other persons. Further, he is called by grace to a covenant with his Creator, to offer him a response of faith and love that no other creature can give in his stead. (CSDC # 108) b. Dignity of Conscience and Freedom of Choice Man can turn to good only in freedom, which God has given to him as one of the highest signs of his image. “For God has willed that man remain ‘under control of his own decisions’ (Sir. 15:14), so that he can seek his Creator spontaneously, and come freely to utter and blissful perfection through loyalty to Him. Hence, man’s dignity demands that he act according to a knowing and free choice that that is personally motivated and prompted from within, neither blind internal impulse nor by mere external pressure. Man rightly appreciates freedom and strives for it passionately: rightly does he desire and must form and guide, by his own free initiative, his personal and social life, accepting personal responsibility for it. In fact, freedom not only allows man suitably to modify the state of things outside of himself, but it also determines the growth of his being as a person through choices consistent with the true good. In this way, man generates himself, he is father of his own being, he constructs the social order. (CSDC # 135). Freedom is not contrary to man’s dependence as a creature on God. Revelation teaches that the power to decide good and evil does not belong to man but to God alone (cf. Gen.2:16-17). “Man is certainly free, in as much as he can understand and accept God’s commands. And he possesses an extremely far-reaching freedom, since he can eat ‘of every tree of the garden’. But his freedom is not unlimited; it must halt before the ‘tree of the knowledge of good and evil’, for it is called to accept the moral law by God. In fact, human freedom finds its authentic and complete fulfillment precisely in the acceptance of that law. (CSDC # 136) c. Equal Dignity of all People “God shows no partiality” (Acts 10:34; cf.Rom.2:11; Gal.2:6; Eph.6.9), since all people have the same dignity and creatures made in his image and likeness. The Incarnation of the Son of God shows the equality of all people with to dignity: “There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus” (gal. 3:28; cf. Rom.10:12; 1 Cor.12:13; Col.3:11) Since something of the glory of God shines on the face of every person, the dignity of every person before God is the basis of the dignity of man before other men. Moreover, this is the ultimate foundation of the radical equality and brotherhood among all people, regardless of their race nation, sex, origin, culture or class. (CSDC # 144) 2. Respect for Human Rights Man and woman are in relationship with others above all as those to whom the lives of others have been entrusted. “For your lifeblood I will surely require a reckoning… I will require it…of man [and] of every man’s brother” (Gen. 9:5), God tells Noah after the flood. In this perspective, the relationship with God requires that the life of man be considered sacred and inviolable. The fifth commandment, “Thou shalt not kill” (Ex.20:13; Deut.5:17), has validity because God alone is Lord of life and death. The respect owed to the inviolability and integrity of physical life finds its climax in the positive commandment: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself” (Lev.19:18), by which Jesus enjoins the obligation to tend to the needs of one’s neighbor (cf. Mt. 22:37-40; Mk.12:39-31; Lk.10:27-28). (CSDC # 112) See also specification of rights below for the right to life from the moment of conception to its natural end. 3. Promotion of Human Rights The ultimate source of human rights is not found in the mere will of human beings, in the reality of the State, in public powers, but in man himself and in God his Creator. These rights are universal, inviolable, inalienable”. Universal because they are present in all human beings, without exception of time, place or subject. Inviolable insofar as “they are inherent in the human person and in human dignity” and because “it would be vain to proclaim rights, if at the same time everything were not done to ensure the duty of respecting them by all people, everywhere, and for all people”. Inalienable insofar as “no one can legitimately deprive another person, whoever they may be, of these rights, since this would do violence to their nature”. Human rights are to be defended not only individually but also as a whole: protecting them only partially would imply a kind of failure to recognize them. They correspond to the demands of human dignity and entail, in the first place, the fulfillment of the essential needs of a person in the material and spiritual spheres. “These rights apply to every stage of life and to every political, social, economic and cultural situation. Together they form a single whole, directed unambiguously towards the promotion of every aspect of the good of both person and society… The integral promotion of every category of human rights is the true guarantee of full respect for individual right”. Universality and indivisibility are distinctive characteristics of human rights: they are “two guiding principles which at the same time demand that human rights be rooted in each culture and that their juridical profile be strengthened so as to ensure that they are fully observed.” (CSDC # 153-154) Specifications of Rights The teachings of Pope John XXIII, the Second Vatican Council and Pope Paul VI have given abundant indication of the concept of human rights as articulated by the Magisterium. Pope John Paul II has drawn up a list of them in the Encyclical Centesimus Annus: a. the right to life, an integral part of which is the right of the child to develop in the mother’s womb from the moment of conception; b. the right to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to growth of the child’s personality; c. the right to develop one’s intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; d. the right to share in the work which makes wise use of the earth’s material resources, and t derive from that work the means to support oneself and one’s dependents; e. the right to freely establish a family, to have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one’s sexuality. f. In a certain sense, the source and synthesis of these rights is religious freedom, understood as the right to live in the truth of one’s faith and in conformity with one’s transcendent dignity as a person. The first right presented in this list is the right to life, from conception to its natural end, which is the condition for the exercise of all other rights and, in particular, implies the illicitness of every form of procures abortion and of euthanasia. Emphasis is given to the paramount value of the right to religious freedom: “all men are to be immune from coercion on the part of individuals or of social groups and of any human power, in such wise that no one is to be forced to act in a manner contrary to his own beliefs, whether privately or publicly, whether alone or in association with others, within due limits”. The respect of this right is an indicative sign of “man’s authentic progress in any regime, in any society, system or milieu”. (CSDC # 155) 4. Common Good The principle of common good, to which every aspect of social life must be related if it is to attain its fullest meaning, stems from the dignity, unity and equality of all people. According to its primary and broadly accepted sense, the common good indicates “the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily”. The common good does not consist in the simple sum of the particular goods of each subject of a social entity. Belonging to everyone and each person, it is and remains, “common”, because is invisible and because only together it is possible to attain it, increase it and safeguard its effectiveness, with regard also to the future. Just as the moral actions of an individual are accomplished in doing what is good, so too the actions of society attain their full stature when they bring about the common good. The common good, in fact, can e understood as the social and community dimension of the moral good. A society that wishes and intends to remain at the service of the human being at every level is a society that has the common good - the good of all people and of the whole person - as its primary goal. The human person cannot find fulfillment in himself, that is, apart from the fact that he exist “with” others and “for” others. This truth does not simply require that he live with others at various level of social life, but that he seek unceasingly - in actual practice and not merely at the level of ideas - the good, that is, the meaning and truth, found in existing forms of social life. No expression of social life – form the family to intermediate social groups, associations, enterprises of an economic nature cities, regions, states, up to the community of peoples and nations – can escape the issue of its own common good, in that this is a constitutive element of its significance and the authentic reason for its existence. (CSDC # 164-165) Everyone also has the right to enjoy the conditions of social life that are brought about by the quest for the common good. The teaching of Pope Pius XI is still relevant: “the distribution of created goods, which, as every discerning person knows, is laboring today under the gravest evils due to the huge disparity between the few exceeding rich and the unnumbered propertyless, must be effectively called back to and brought into conformity with the norms of the common good, that is, social justice”. (CSDC # 167) 5. Association and Participation The human person is essentially a social being because God, who created humanity, willed it so. Human nature, in fact, reveals as nature of a being who responds to his own needs. This is based on a relational subjectivity, that is, in the manner of a free and responsible being who recognizes the necessity of integrating himself in cooperation with his fellow human beings, and who is capable of communion with them on the level of knowledge and love. “A society is a group of persons bound together organically by a principle of unity that goes beyond each one of them. As an assembly that is at once visible and spiritual, a society endures through time: it gathers up the past and prepares for the future.” It is therefore necessary to stress that community life is a natural characteristic that distinguishes man from the rest of earthly creatures. Social activity carries in itself a particular sign of man and of humanity that of a person at work within a community of persons: this is the sign that determines man’s interior traits and in a sense constitutes his very nature. This relational characteristic takes on, in the light of faith, a more profound and enduring meaning. Made in the image and likeness of God, (Gen. 1:26), and made visible in the universe in order to live in society (Gen. 2:20,23) and exercise dominion over the earth (Gen. 1:26, 28-30), the human person is for this reason called from the very beginning to life in society: “God did not create man as a ‘solitary being’ but wished him to be a ‘social being’. Social life therefore is not exterior to man; he can only grow and realize his vocation in relation with others”. (CSDC # 149) The social nature of human beings is not uniform but is expressed in many different ways. In fact, the common good depends on a healthy social pluralism. The different components of society are called to build a unified and harmonious whole, within which it is possible for each element to preserve and develop its own characteristics and autonomy. Some components ---- such as the family, the civil community and the religious community --- respond more immediately to the intimate nature of man, while others come about more on a voluntary basis. “To promote the participation of the greatest number in the life of a society, the creation of voluntary associations and institutions must be encouraged ‘on both national and international levels, which relate to economic and social goals, to cultural and recreational activities, to sport, to various professions, and to political affairs’. This socialization also expresses the natural tendency for the sake of attaining objectives that exceed individual capacities. It develops the qualities of the person, especially the sense of initiative and responsibility, and helps guarantee his rights. (CSDC # 151) The family, the natural community in which human social nature is experienced, makes a unique and irreplaceable contribution to the good of the society. “Communion” has to do with the personal relationship between the “I” and the “Thou”. “Community” on the other hand transcends this framework and moves towards a ‘society’, a ‘we’. The family, as a community of persons, is thus the first human society. (CSDC # 213). The family is presented in the Creator’s plan, as “the primary place of ‘humanization’ for the person and society” and the “cradle of life and love.” (CSDC # 209) Participation in community life is not only one of the greatest aspirations of the citizen, called to exercise freely and responsibly his civic role with and for others, but is also one of the pillars of all democratic orders and one of the major guarantees of the permanence of the democratic system. Democratic government, in fact, is defined first of all by the assignments of powers and functions on the part of the people, exercised in their name, in their regard and on their behalf. It is therefore clearly evident that every democracy must be participative. This means that the different subjects of civil community at every level must be informed, listened to, and involved in the exercise of the carried-out functions. (CSDC # 190) In relation to the next principle of Catholic Social Teaching to be discussed, namely, on subsidiarity, the characteristic implication of subsidiarity is participation. Participation is expressed essentially in a series of activities by means if which the citizen, either as an individual or in association with others, whether directly or through representation, contributes to the cultural, economic, political and social life of the civil community to which he belongs. Participation is a duty to be fulfilled consciously by all, with responsibility and with a view to the common good. (CSDC # 189). 6. Subsidiarity Subsidiarity is among the most constant and characteristic directives of the Church’s social doctrine and has been present since the first great encyclical. It is impossible to promote the dignity of the person without showing concern for the family, groups, association, local territorial realities, in short, for that aggregate of economic, social, cultural, sports-oriented, recreational, professional and political expressions to which people spontaneously give life and which makes it possible for them to achieve effective social growth. This is the realm of civil society, understood as the sum of the relationships between individuals and intermediate social groupings, which are the first relationships to arise and which come about thanks to “the creative subjectivity of the citizen”. This network of relationships strengthens the social fabric and constitutes the basis of a true community of persons, making possible the recognition of higher forms of social activity. The necessity of defending and promoting the original expressions of social life is emphasized by the Church in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno, in which the principle of subsidiarity is indicated as a most important principle of “social philosophy”. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought, of its very nature, to furnish help to the members of the social body, and never destroy and absorb them”. On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) --- therefore of support, promotion, development --- with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end, seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place. Subsidiarity, understood in the positive sense as economic, institutional or juridical assistance offered to lesser social entities, entails a corresponding series of negative implications that require the State to refrain from anything that would de facto restrict the existential space of the smaller cells of society. Their initiative, freedom and responsibility must not be supplanted. The principle of subsidiarity protects people from abuses by a higher-level social authority and calls on these same authorities to help individuals and intermediate groups to fulfill their duties. This principle is imperative because every person, family and intermediate group has something original to offer to the community. Experience shows that the denial of subsidiarity, or its limitation in the name of an alleged democratization or equality of all members of society, limits and sometimes even destroys the spirit of freedom and initiative. This principle of subsidiarity is opposed to certain forms centralization, bureaucratization, and welfare assistance and to the unjustified and excessive presence of the State in public mechanisms. In order for the principle of subsidiarity to be put into practice there is a corresponding need for: respect and effective promotion of the human person and the family; ever greater appreciation of associations and intermediate organizations in their fundamental choices and in those that cannot be delegated to or exercised by others; the encouragement of private initiative so that every social entity remains at the service of the common good, each with its own distinctive characteristics; the presence of pluralism in society and due representation of its vital components; safeguarding human rights and the rights of minorities; bringing about bureaucratic and administrative decentralization; striking a balance between the public and private spheres, with the resulting recognition of the social function of the private sphere; appropriate methods for making citizens more responsible in actively “being a part” of the political and social reality of their country. (CSDC # 185 – 187). 7. Role of Political/Public Authorities a. The Political Community. The political community originates in the nature of persons, whose conscience “reveals to them and enjoins them to obey” the order which God has imprinted in all His creatures: “a moral order and religious order; and it is this order – and not considerations of a purely extraneous, material order --- which has the greatest validity in the solution of problems relation to their lives as individuals and as members of society, and problems concerning individual states and their interrelations”. This order must be gradually discovered and developed by humanity. The political community, a reality inherent in mankind, exists to achieve an end otherwise unobtainable: the full growth of each of its members, called to cooperate steadfastly for the attainment of the common good, under the impulse of their natural inclinations towards what is true and good. (CSDC # 384). b. The Foundation of Political Authority The Church has always considered different ways of understanding authority, taking care to defend and propose a model of authority that is founded on the social nature of the person. “Since God made men social by nature; and since no society can hold together unless someone be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every civilized community must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its author. Political authority is therefore necessary because of the responsibilities assigned to it. Political authority is and must be positive and irreplaceable component of civil life. Political authority must guarantee an ordered and upright community life without usurping the free activity of individuals and groups but disciplining and orienting this freedom, by respecting and defending the independence of the individual and social subjects, for the attainment of the common good. Political authority is an instrument of coordination and directions by means of which the many individuals and intermediate bodies must move towards an order in which relationships, institutions, and procedures are put at the service of integral human growth. Political authority, in fact, “whether in the community as such or in institutions representing the State, must always be exercised within the limits of morality and on behalf of the dynamically conceived common good, according to a juridical order enjoying legal status. When such is the case, citizens are conscience-bound to obey”. The subject of political authority is the people considered in its entirety as those who have sovereignty. In various forms, this people transfers the exercise of sovereignty to those whom it freely elects as its representatives, but it preserves the prerogative to assert this sovereignty in evaluating the work of those charged with governing and also in replacing them when they do not fulfill their functions satisfactorily. Although this right is operative in every State and in every kind of political regime, a democratic form of government, due to its procedures for verification, allows and guarantees its fullest application. The mere consent of the people is not, however, sufficient for considering “just” the ways in which political authority is exercised. (CSDC 393 – 395). 8. Dignity of Human Work or Labor a. The Objective and Subjective Dimensions of Work Human work has a twofold significance: objective and subjective. In the objective sense, it is the sum of activities, resources, instruments and technologies used by men and women to produce things, to exercise dominion over the earth, in the words of the Book of Genesis. In the subjective sense, work is the activity of the human person as a dynamic being capable of performing a variety of actions that are part of the work process and that correspond to his personal vocation: “Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the ‘image of God’ he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself, and with a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject of work. Work in the objective sense constitutes the contingent aspect of human activity, which constantly varies in its expressions according to the changing technological, cultural, social and political conditions. Work in the subjective sense, however, represents its stable dimension, since it does not depend on what people produce or on the type of activity they undertake, but only and exclusively on their dignity as human beings. This distinction is critical, both for understanding what the ultimate foundation of the value and dignity of work is, and with regard to the difficulties of organizing economic and social systems that respect human rights. This subjectivity gives to work its particular dignity, which does not allow that it be considered a simple commodity or an impersonal element of the apparatus for productivity. Cut off from its lesser or greater objective value, work is an essential expression of the person, it is an “actus personae”. Any form of materialism or economic tenet that tries to reduce the worker to being a mere instrument of production, a simple labour force with an exclusively material value, would end up hopelessly distorting the essence of work and stripping it of its most noble and basic human finality. The human person is the measure of the dignity of work: “In fact, there is no doubt that human work has an ethical value of its own, which clearly and directly remains linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person”. The subjective dimension of work must take precedence over the objective dimension, because it is the dimension of the person himself who engage in work, determining its quality and consummate value. If this awareness is lacking, or if one chooses not to recognize this truth, work loses its truest and most profound meaning. In such cases --- which are unfortunately all too frequent and widespread --- work activity and the very technology employed become more important than the person himself and at the same time are transformed into enemies of his dignity. Human work not only proceeds from the person, but it is also essentially ordered to and has its final goal in the human person. Independently of its objective content, work must be oriented to the subject who performs it, because the end of work, any work whatsoever, always remains man. Even if one cannot ignore the objective component of work with regard to its quality, this component must nonetheless be subordinated to the self-realization of the person, and therefore to the subjective dimension, thanks to which it is possible to affirm that work is for man and not man for work. “It is always man who is the purpose of work, whatever work it is that is done by man --- even if the common scale of value rates it as the merest ‘service’, as the most monotonous, even the most alienating work”. (CSDC # 270-272) b. The Relationship between Labor and Capital Work, because of its subjective or personal character, is superior to every other factor connected with productivity; this principle applies, in particular, with regard to capital. The term, “capital” has different meanings today. Sometimes, it indicates the material means of production in a given enterprise, sometimes the financial resources employed to bring about production or used in a stock market operations. One can also speak of “human capital” to refer to human resources, that is, to man himself in his capacity to engage in labor, to make use of knowledge and creativity, to sense the needs of his fellow workers and a mutual understanding with other members of an organization. The term “social capital” is also used to indicate the capacity of a collective group to work together, the fruit of investments in a mutually-binding fiduciary trust. This variety of meaning offers further material for reflecting on what the relationship between work and capital may be today. The Church’s social doctrine has not failed to insist on the relationship between labor and capital, placing in evidence both the priority of the first over the second as well as their complementaries. Labor has an intrinsic priority over capital. “This principle directly concerns the process of production: in this process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital, the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or instrumental cause. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from the whole of man’s historical experience”. This “is part of the abiding heritage of the Church’s teaching”. There must exist between work and capital a relationship of complementaries: the very logic inherent within the process of production shows that the two must mutually permeate one another and there is an urgent need to create economic systems in which the opposition between capital and labor is overcome. In times when “capital” and “hired labor”, within a less complicated economic system, used to identify with a certain precision not only two elements of production but also and above all two concrete social classes, the Church affirmed that both were in themselves legitimate: “Capital cannot stand with labor, nor labor without capital”. This is a truth that applies also today, because “ it is altogether false to ascribe either to capital alone or to labor alone what is achieved by the joint work of both; and it is utterly unjust that the one should arrogate unto itself what is being done, denying the effectiveness of the other”. (CSDC # 276 – 277) 9. Universal Destination of Goods Among the numerous implications of the common good, immediate significance is taken on by the principle of the universal destination of goods. “God has destined the earth and all it contains for all men and all peoples so that all created things would be shared fairly by all mankind under the guidance of justice tempered by charity”. This principle is based on the fact that the “original source of all that is good is the very act of God, who created both the earth and man, and who gave the earth to man so that he might have dominion over it by his work and enjoy its fruits (Gen. 1:28-29). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favoring anyone. This is the foundation of the universal destination of goods. The earth, by reason of its fruitfulness and its capacity to satisfy human needs, is God’s first gift for the sustenance of human life”. The human person cannot do without the material goods that correspond to his primary needs and constitute the basic conditions for his existence; these goods are absolutely indispensable if he is to feed himself, grow, communicate, associate with others, and attain the highest purposes to which he is called. The universal right to use the goods of the earth is based on the principle of the universal destination of goods. Each person must have access to the level of well-being necessary for his full development. The right to the common use of goods is the “first principle of the whole ethical ad social order” and the “the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine”. For this reason, the Church feels bound in duty to specify the nature and characteristics of this principle. It is first of all a natural right, inscribed in human nature and not merely a positive right connected with changing historical circumstances; moreover, it is an “inherent” right. It is innate in individual persons, in every person, and has a priority with regard to any human intervention concerning goods, to any legal system concerning the same, to any economic or social system or method: “All other rights, whatever the are, including property rights and the rights of free trade must be subordinated to this norm [the universal destination of goods]; they must not hinder it, but must rather expedite its application. It must be considered a serious and urgent social obligation to refer these rights to their original purpose”. Putting the principle of the universal destination of goods into concrete practice, according to the different cultural and social contexts, means that methods, limits, and objects must be precisely defined. Universal destination and utilization of goods do not mean that everything is at the disposal of each person or of all people, or at that the same object may be useful or belong to each person or all people. If it is true that everyone is born with the right to use the goods of the earth, it is likewise true that, in order to ensure that this right is exercised in an equitable and orderly fashion, regulated interventions are necessary, interventions that re the result of national and international agreements, and a juridical order that adjudicates and specifies the exercise of this right. The principle of the universal destination of goods is an invitation to develop an economic vision inspired by moral values that permit people not lose sight of the origin and purpose of these goods, so as to bring about a world of fairness and solidarity, in which the creation of wealth can take on a positive function. Wealth, in effect, presents this possibility in the many different forms in which it can find expression as the result of a process of production that works with the available technological and economic resources, both natural and derived. This result is guided by resourcefulness, planning and labor, and used as a means for promoting the well-being of all men and all peoples and for preventing their exclusion and exploitation. The universal destination of goods requires a common effort to obtain for every person and for all peoples the conditions necessary for integral development,, so that everyone can contribute to making a more humane world, “in which each individual can give and receive, and in which the progress of some will no longer be an obstacle to the development of others, nor a pretext for their enslavement”. This principle corresponds to the call made unceasingly by the Gospel to people and societies of all times, tempted as they always are by the desire to possess, temptations which the Lord chose to undergo (cf. Mk. 1:12-13; Mt. 4:1-11; Lk. 4:1-13) in order to teach us how to overcome them with his grace. (CSDC # 171 – 175) 10. Preferential Option for the Poor The principle of the universal destination of goods requires that the poor, the marginalized and in all cases those whose living conditions interfere with their proper growth should be the focus of particular concern. To this end, the preferential option for the poor should be reaffirmed in all its force. This is an option, or a special from, of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decision to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods. Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed, this love of preference for the poor and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without health care and above all, those without hope of a better future”. Human misery is a clear sign of man’s natural condition of frailty and of his need for salvation. Christ the Savior showed compassion in this regard, identifying himself with the “least” among men (cf. Mt. 25:40,45). “It is by what they have done for the poor that Jesus Christ will recognize his chosen ones. When ‘the poor have the good news preached to them’ (Mt. 11:5), it is a sign of Christ’s presence. Jesus says: “You always have the poor with you, but you will not always have me”. (Mt. 26:11; cf. Mk. 14:7; Jn 12:8). He makes this statement not to contrast the attention due to him with service of the poor. Christian realism, while appreciating on the one hand the praiseworthy efforts being made to defeat poverty, is cautious on the other hand regarding ideological positions and Messianic beliefs that sustain the illusion that it is possible to eliminate the problem of poverty completely from this world. This will happen only upon Christ’s return, when he will be with use once more, forever. In the meantime, the poor remain entrusted to us and it is this responsibility upon which we shall be judged at the end of time (cf. Mt. 25:31-46): “Our Lord warns us that we shall be separated from him if we fail to meet the serious needs of the poor and the little ones who are his brethren”. The Church’s love for the poor is inspired by the Gospel of the Beatitudes, by the poverty of Jesus and by his attention to the poor. This love concerns material poverty and also the numerous forms of cultural and religious poverty. The Church, “since her origin and in spite of the failing of many of her members, has not ceased to work for their relief, defence and liberation through numerous works of charity which remain indispensable always and everywhere”. Prompted by the Gospel injunction, “You have received without paying, give without pay” (Mt. 10:8), the Church teaches that one should assist one’s fellow man in his various needs and fills the human community with countless works of corporal and spiritual mercy. “Among all these, giving alms to the poor is one of the chief witnesses to fraternal charity: it is also a work of justice pleasing to God”, even if the practice of charity is not limited to alms-giving but implies addressing the social and political dimensions of the problem of poverty. In her teaching, the Church constantly returns to this relationship between charity and justice: “When we attend to the needs of those in want, we give them what is theirs, not ours. More than performing works of mercy, we are paying a debt of justice”. The Council Fathers strongly recommended that this duty be fulfilled correctly, remembering that “what is already due in justice is not to be offered as a gift of charity”. Love for the poor is certainly “incompatible with immoderate love of riches or their selfish use”. (CSDC # 182 – 184) |
|
11. SolidaritySolidarity highlights in a particular way the intrinsic social nature of the human person, the equality of all in dignity and rights and the common path of individuals and peoples towards an ever more committed unity. Never before has there been such a widespread awareness of the bond of interdependence between individuals and peoples, which is found at every level. The very rapid expansion in ways and means of communication “in real time”, such as those offered by information technology, the extraordinary advances in computer technology, the increased volume of commerce and information exchange all bear witness to the fact that, for the first time since the beginning of human history, it is now possible --- at least technically --- to establish relationships between people who are separated by great distances and are unknown to each other. In the presence of the phenomenon of interdependence and its constant expansion, however, there persist in every part of the world stark inequalities between developed and developing countries, inequalities stoked also by various forms of exploitation, oppression and corruption that have a negative influence on the internal and international life of many States. The acceleration of interdependence between persons and peoples needs to be accompanied by equally intense efforts on the ethnic-social plane, in order to avoid the dangerous consequences of penetrating injustice on a global scale. This would have very negative repercussions even in the very countries that are presently more advantaged. Solidarity is seen thereof under two complementary aspects: that of a social principle and that of a moral virtue. Solidarity must be seen above all its value as a moral virtue that determines the order of institutions. On the basis of this principle, the “structures of sin” that dominate relationship between individuals and people must be overcome. They must be purified and transformed into structures of solidarity through the creation or appropriate modifications of laws, market regulations and judicial systems. Solidarity is also an authentic moral virtue, not a “feeling of vague compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far”. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all”. Solidarity rises to rank of fundamental social virtue since it places itself in the sphere of justice. It is the virtue directed par excellence to the common good, and is found in “a commitment” to the good of the one’s neigbor with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself’ for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and to ‘serve him’ instead of oppressing him for one’s own advantage (cf. Mt.10:40-42, 20:25; Mk.10:42-45; Lk 22:25-27). The message of the church’s social doctrine regarding solidarity clearly shows that there exists an intimate bond between solidarity and the common good, between solidarity and the universal destination of goods, between solidarity and equality among men and peoples, between solidarity and peace in the world. (CSDC # 192 – 194) |
12. Promotion of PeaceBefore being God’s gift to man and a human project in conformity with the divine plan, peace is in the first place a basic attribute of God: “the Lord is peace” (jdg 6:24). Creation, which is a reflection of the divine glory, aspires to peace. God created all that exists, and all of creation forms a harmonious whole that is good in its every part (cf. Gen. 1:4, 10, 18, 21, 25,31). Peace is founded on the primary relationship that exists between every human being and God Himself, a relationship marked by righteousness (cf. Gen. 17:1). Following upon the voluntary act by which man altered the divine order, the world experienced the shedding of blood and division. Violence made its appearance in interpersonal relationships (cf. Gen. 4:1-16) and in social relationships (cf. Gen 11:1-9). Peace and violence cannot dwell together, and where there is violence, God cannot be present (cf. 1 Chr. 22:8-9). In biblical revelation, peace is much more than the simple absence of war, it represents the fullness of life (cf. Mal. 2:5). Far from being the work of human hands, it is one of the greatest gifts that God offers to all men and women, and it involves obedience to the divine plan. Peace is the effect of the blessing that God bestows upon his people: peace produces fruitfulness (Is. 48:19), well-being (cf. Is. 48:18), prosperity (cf. Is. 54:13), absence of fear (cf. Lev. 26:6) and profound joy (cf. Pr. 12:20). Peace is the goal of life in society, as is made extraordinarily clear in the messianic vision of peace: when all peoples will go up to the Lord’s house, and he will teach them his ways and they will walk along the ways of peace (cf. Is. 2:2-5). A new world of peace that embraces all of nature is the promise of the messianic age (cf. Is. 11:6-9) and the Messiah himself is called the “Prince of Peace” (Is. 9:5). (CSDC # 488-490) Peace is a value and a universal duty founded on a rational and moral order of society that has its roots in God Himself, “the first source of being, the essential truth and the supreme good.” Peace is not merely the absence of war, nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies. Rather, it is founded on a correct understanding of the human person and requires the establishment of an order based on justice and charity. Peace is the fruit of justice, (cf. IS. 32:17) understood in the broad senses as the respect for the equilibrium of every dimension of the human person. peaces is threatened when man is not given all that is due him as a human person, when his dignity is not respected and when civil life is not directed to the common good. The defence and promotion of human rights is essential for the building up of a peaceful society and the integral development of individuals, peoples and nations. Peace is the fruit of love. “True and lasting peace is more a matter of love than of justice, because the function of justice is merely to do away with obstacles to peace: the injury done or the damage caused. Peace itself, however, is an act and results only from love. |