The Disciple
is Committed to Love
God has done wondrous things. The Bible is
witness to this. God has been, in the Old Testament, a liberating God. God
liberated the people of Israel from the slavery of Egypt. During the wandering
in the desert God was kind of "in-charge" of everything. But when the
people entered the land of Canaan, the people themselves had to be
"in-charge" of their social lives. That was where the Law came in. A
close look at the Law will show us a basic "presupposition". What is
this? God is a God who liberated the people from slavery. The Law was
given so
that the people continue to live in liberation and not return to slavery. This is what we see in
the Decalogue or Ten Commandments.
We see this also in the notion of
the Sabbath and Jubilee. The core of that prescription was to avoid the
possibility of living in slavery again. So periodically loans, debts and loss
of properties had to be erased. Although the Sabbath was not strictly observed,
it was still a deep and meaningful prescription.
Unfortunately the human person
refuses to be in communion with the Lord God and with fellows. The Bible sees
this as "sin". Sin is the breaking away from communion with God and
with others. For the Church social doctrine here in sin is where we find the
roots of all evils striking society (see Compendium # 27).
Jesus Christ came with a beautiful
message--that of the Kingdom. To put that message simply, we can say that it is
about God's love. Like the Father in the famous parable of the "prodigal
son", God has never really given up on us. He keeps his arms wide open to
embrace us and be in communion with us. This message of Jesus was evident in
his very own way of living. To witness Jesus was, at the same time, to witness
the credibility of his message. Jesus lived his message. There was no gap
between his words and his life. Hence we can say that Jesus revealed the love
of God in a very visible way.
The Word became flesh, as we read in
Jn.1/14. The Word entered fully into human history, culture, society. This
tells us that we cannot set ourselves apart from social realities for our very
own God has affirmed the value of society and social living. Vatican II would
say that we, as humans, are integral and must develop and
grow integrally in relationships, in culture, and in other
social realities. We, as humans, are integrally connected with
these. We are involved with and implicated within with social-temporal
realities. It will be a serious mistake to separate our life of
faith from social life (see Gaudium et spes #43). As
the Word came to us--and lived among us--we in return can go to and live with
the Father. Jesus knew the love of the Father and he shared it with us. Thanks
to Jesus we too can enter into the life of the Father. Jesus as Son is our
"elder brother", so to speak. And his sacrifice has confirmed how we
are brothers and sisters to one another with the Father as Our Father. Hence we
are given the chance to live fraternally. We belong to the Father in
the Spirit.
We have received the message of
God's love. We have been assured that we belong to God. Jesus took this so
seriously that he was willing to die for it. The cross tells us how Jesus took
seriously his mission of proclaiming the Kingdom. Of course all that is finally
confirmed in the Resurrection. With the Resurrection of Jesus we see how sin,
darkness, evil do not have the final word. We be of good cheer, Jesus has won!
We respond to this. Christian life
is a life of thanksgiving. We are thankful for what Christ has done for us. We
have received love, so we too love in return. Just as Jesus has loved
us we then love each other. Let the world see, let society see how we
love each other in the same way that Jesus loved. Let the world see and let
society see that we are taking this love seriously. We mark love with justice
and with peace. We share this love among ourselves and within society. We tell
the world and society that the message of God's love is what reigns.
Notice then that we respond to
a prior initiative from God. God took the initiative to love
us and so our social life is a response to that. We live in justice, in peace,
in the promotion of human rights and human dignity. Our social life is marked
by our commitment to share the love of God that we have
received.
As disciples of Christ we
conform to Christ. The Social Doctrine of the Church will insist that
a disciple of Christ is committed to bring remedies to social problems. Yes,
society is marked by sin and darkness. There is so much complexity and
in-authenticity. The fidelity to human fulfillment is something we
find rare. Society is characterized by poverty, misery, discrimination,
inequality, and so on. The disciple of Christ says that even with such darkness
there is always love and life. Be of good cheer, Jesus has won. So the disciple
refuses to allow sin and darkness to reign in society.
Of course the disciple is in
the Church. The Church herself, as a community of disciples, is
committed to truth and justice and peace within society. The Church wants to be
a visible sign of God's love in the world and in society. The Church wants to
proclaim how the human is destined for life and for happiness and communion
with God.
Inspired by the wonderful things
Christ has done, the Church works for social transformation by presenting the
"powerful instrument of change" which is love. (See Compendium #
55).
Remember what Jesus said: "what
you did to the least, you did it to me" (see Matt.25/40). The disciple and
the Church look forward to that day when again these words of Jesus will echo.
We await for that fulfillment of time--the so-called
"eschatology"--in which we can look back and say, "we have done
good to the least and to Jesus" and we have done it in
thanksgiving for what the Lord has done for us.
Of course we have Mary, the Mother
of God, as model of discipleship and commitment to God's love. Mary said
"yes" to God and it was a "yes" for all
humanity. She was willing to bear in her womb the incarnate Word, the
Saviour of all. In her prayer Mary affirmed that God had a special preference
for the poor, the lowly, the "little ones". "He has raised the
lowly"! So we see in her a model of commitment in sharing love--justice,
peace, goodwill--to society, especially to the "lowly".
Redemption has been announced in the good news--the Gospel--of Jesus. It is the
message of liberation. The Church wants to stay faithful to this message and stay faithful to the
proclamation of the Gospel. The
Church sees herself as on mission to tell the world about the Love of God.
Redemption happened through the
Incarnation. The man Jesus was truly human and truly lived among us. The sower
of the seed was not an abstract figure floating in the clouds. He was truly and
fully human. This tells us that when the Word became flesh, flesh really
mattered and had such a high value for God. Redemption did not happen in thin
air. Redemption definitely happened in the Incarnation of Jesus. The Word
became flesh and was in
solidarity with everything human. Take note that this solidarity was
with everything integrally human. This includes social life.
Culture and society are also
integral to the human. So the message of the Gospel was proclaimed to all of
what is human including social reality. The human in all entirety and
integration is implicated in Redemption.
When the Church goes on her
proclamation of the Christian message she does not do it in thin air. The
Christian message--the Gospel of Christ--is not an abstract "other
worldy" message. It is also about concrete social reality. When the Church
proclaims, her proclamation is of social relevance. (See Compendium 64, 71 and 86). Inasmuch as Christ
went in solidarity will everything integrally human, the Church too involves
herself with all that is human--including social reality. Vatican II has
highlighted the fact that the Church is sign and sacrament of the Kingdom. This
assembly or ekklesia is a visible and tangible sign of the
Kingdom to a visible and tangible world.
So comes the Social Doctrine. It is
part of the whole evangelizing activity of the Church. The Church understands
her Social Doctrine as an evangelizing too. But to bring the Good News to
society, again, is not just in thin air. It is concrete. It includes promoting the human. It includes concern for justice
and peace. It includes concern for authentic human-social development. The
Social Doctrine is an instrument of evangelizing making the Gospel connect with
social life. Remember that
Jesus himself lived his message--and he was the Gospel! So his message was not
just through his lips but also through his entire life. The Gospel is not just
a set of nice words, it is also to be put in practice (see Compendium 71). The Gospel is to be proclaimed
concretely--also in action, and in social action. It includes the work for
peace, justice and authentic living within society.
Now, the Church may be proclaiming, but she is also denouncing. Yes, she proclaims the message of
the Gospel, she proclaims the Gospel and the love of God. But she also makes
her denunciation wherever and whenever there is sin. Where there is injustice,
violence, whenever and wherever the poor and the weak are trampled and ignored,
the Church makes her denunciation. It is part of Church proclamation to
denounce injustice. (See Compendium 81).
The Social Doctrine is principally theological. In fact it is a major branch of
moral theology. It is a reflection
on social reality in the light of the Gospel and Church Tradition. The Social Doctrine hopes to motivate us to "do something" in
society, it hopes to offer directions
and guiding norms for social
living and eventually deliberately mediate, whenever possible,
concretely in social situations (see Compendium 73).
The Social Doctrine would interpret social reality and see if this reality
conforms to the teaching of the Gospel. Hopefully, it can guide Christian social
behaviour.
Although we have studied this in the
previous semester, we can still mention the fact that as a moral theological doctrine,
the Social Doctrine of the Church relies on the Scriptures, Church Tradition
and concrete experiences including the contribution of philosophy and the human
sciences.
A (quick) history of the social doctrine of the Church
Sometime in the 19th century, when
industrialization became more and more developed in Europe and the USA, many
Christians were alarmed by the conditions of workers. Some organized themselves
into a kind of “socially concerned” Catholics. They wanted that the Church say
something about the workers. Then came Pope Leo XIII who composed his
encyclical, the Rerum Novarum.
Pope Leo XIII was elected in 1878. It was an
interesting moment because at that time there was friction between Church and
State. The Church did not anymore have a strong influence on politics in Europe
(unlike before….check your Church history course). The Church—again in
Europe—had to face new relationships with the State. Already Pope Leo XIII was
writing texts that somehow made many government people uneasy. For example he
wrote about the right of Christians to celebrate their liturgies—and that
government should accept this right. The Pope was already writing about human
dignity and human freedom. As we know, politics can get very nasty and the Pope
was quite critical. Somehow the writings of Pope Leo XIII tried to situate the
place of the Church in front of political power. Yes, the Church did not
anymore have political-temporal power, and the Pope proposed reflections and
insights.
It was the time of the industrial revolution.
There came the emergence of the workers’ class—workers who were dependent on
the wages given by owners of capital. Workers did not have so much rights—and
in fact, at that time there were no laws yet allowing for unions and other
sorts of workers’ associations. The misery of workers was heavy.
At that time too there were ideas emerging
regarding socialism and the question against private ownership. The ideas of
Marxism were becoming popular. The Pope was disturbed by the times. So he
published Rerum
Novarum. It was a text that discussed the social conditions of workers—in
Europe, of course—at that time.
The Pope did not agree with the idea of socialism
and he agreed on the righto private ownership. But even at that time he was
also critical of private ownership—ownership still had to be oriented to the
common good. Ownership must also keep people away from a very precarious way of
life. The Pope did not agree that businesses be so free in whatever they wanted
to do. There still had to be the intervention of governments. Workers had to
have a just salary, they had to have the right to forming themselves in unions
and associations. They had the right to rest and leisure, like on a Sunday.
Work conditions had to improve, especially for women and children (and yes,
women and children did hard industrial work too at that time).
The Pope really wanted to awaken the hearts of
people in view of a social order that would reject social discrimination and
class struggles. The Pope wanted a social world of harmony.
The Rerum Novarum had
a strong ethical tone to it. What is interesting is the fact that the Church
has taken a stand regarding the social conditions of workers. The Church was
given the chance to raise questions and be critical about temporal matters of
society. Catholic social thinking was stimulated. In many parts of Europe
Catholic groups and associations emerged to question and confront social
conditions. It was a fruitful period for the Church. Rerum Novarum was
a kind of starting point for new social ideas in the Church and the succeeding
Popes after Pope Leo XIII would write texts on social realities.
Then came Pope Pius XI who published another
encyclical on social reality, Quadragesimo anno.
The situation was becoming more “global”—international—and the first world war
just ended. Technology was improving—and unfortunately part of that improvement
was used in warfare (like the development of the machine-gun, the use of
poisonous gas, etc.) Pope Pius XI picked up from the Rerum Novarum and
did his reflections on the social conditions of that time. Pope Pius XI was
keen on analyzing the economic-sociological conditions of that time in order to
determine the root causes of the social problems.
Pope Pius XI was like Pope Leo XIII—he also did
not accept socialism but was critical of too much economic freedom. Pope Pius
XI was very strong against communism and socialism because the doctrines of
these “schools” put too much weight on the social against the individual. Well,
Pope Pius XI was also very critical against a too liberal capitalism, this time
because liberal-capitalism put too much weight on the individual while
neglecting the social.
Yes, it was ok to have private property, said the
Pope, but such property is not an absolute. Private property can still be cause
of inequality. The Pope was afraid of the growing “dictatorship” of economics.
Just like Pope Leo XIII, Pope Pius XI believed in the role of government
intervention. This intervention would protect the poor, like the workers. Pope
Pius XI introduced many new ideas in social thinking, and we will have the
chance to look at them later.
Pope Pius XI had more courageous words compared to
Pope Leo XIII (who was more careful and prudent in writing). Pope Pius XI made
strong statements in favor of social change, in favor of justice and love.
Pope Pius XI published more texts touch on social realities,like Divini redemptoris and Mit brennender Sorge .
These were published sometime towards the end of his mandate. Then came Pope
Pius XII who picked up from Pope Pius XI. Pope Pius XII had his Radio messages
during the Second World War (1941 to 1944). In these messages something new
began to appear in the social reflections of the Church. This time the theme of
“human rights” emerged.
The theme of “human rights” was already part of
the discussions in Europe influenced by the French Revolution. The “human
rights” proposed by the French Revolution gave emphasis on individual rights
outside all religious affiliation. No religion would impose on the individual.
It seemed like an absolute independence of the individual. Specific groups in
Europe picked up from this idea of human rights proposed by the French
Revolution. What were they? One was Nazism. Curiously, the other was communism.
Both of these opened up political thinking that refused to have anything higher
than the human. Primacy would be given to the human. (Remember the rejection of
anything that had to do with religion).
The Church then had to react. Given the historical
conditions of that time—with Hitler for Nazism and Stalin for communism—the
Church needed to say something. Yes, the Church could not imposed political
power with reference to God’s authority. That was already “outmoded”. And yes,
the Church had to recognize human rights. Human rights presupposed human
dignity and the justice for common social good. Furthermore, human rights and
dignity are rooted in the fact that God created the human. Humanity—each and
every individual—is a creature of God. The State must assure the conditions of
well-being—the common good—proper to each individual. Pope Pius XII affirmed
the primacy of the person over the social. So a political lfe that has no room
for the human person in not acceptable. Institutions and other social realities
had to respect each person—and this is a human right. This notion of human
right would then become one of the major themes of the Social Doctrine of the
Church.
Notice then how the social reflections of Popes
Leo XIII, Pius XI and Pius XII put to question economic and political
institutions. The three Popes contributed a lot in the development of the
Social Doctrine of the Church; they added intelligence and insights in
reflections about social realities.
Slowly, as new Popes took over the leadership in
the Church, we would see new additions and changes in reflections about social
realities. So we see next Pope John XXIII, then some themes of Vatican II.
Pope John XIII wrote an encyclical, Mater et magistra,
and there he wrote about about the integral development of the human
person. A solid social life had to be grounded on the integral human person.
Human development, said the Pope, had to consider work and other
enterprises—these are part of the human world. A business, for example, would
be a “community of persons” and not just a cold institution. Pope John XIII
affirmed human rights which had to respect duties. Beyond human rights and
duties are the truth, justice, love and freedom. Each person is called to be
involved in working for justice and well-being of everyone. Christians are most
especially called to be involved.
Now, during the time of Pope John XIII the world
was becomes more and more “international” and “global”. Relationships among
nations were getting more complex. So the idea of “what is good for
everyone”—the “common good”—had to be international too. A global authority had
to be considered.
Vatican II picked this up in the text of Gaudium et spes.
The text Gaudium
et spes recognized the ever growing complexity of the modern world. It
had to reflect on the role of the gospel and revelation within the realities of
the complex modern world. A kind of “theological anthropology” was developed in
the text—thanks to the insights of Pope John XIII.
The “anthropology” of Gaudium et spes highlights
relationships. A human person is a person of relationships. Then of course the
human person is image of God, a creature of God and has a spiritual
dimension—making the anthropology theological. In fact, the human person can be
understood fully only in the light of the Word incarnate ( see Gaudium et spes 22).
The human person is integral and must develop and
grow integrally in relationships, in culture, and in other social realities.
The human person is integrally connected with these. And so the human person is
also involved with social-temporal realities. It will be a serious mistake,
says the document, to separate the life of faith from social life (
see Gaudium
et spes 43).
If God is Trinitarian—and therefore a community of
persons, so too must the human be. The human is community too ( see Gaudium et spes 24).
As community, the human is also communion—yes, communion with others. The
message of the Church, therefore, should not turn us away from social
realities. We are in community and in communion with society. We need to work
for a building of a just social world ( see Gaudium et spes 34).
The human is co-creator with the responsibility to build a correct social world
where “human fraternity” is possible.
Our faith tells us that our Lord God became
flesh—became human—and lived among us (see Jn.1/14). So faith is not about
abstract matters up in the clouds. It is also about life—concrete life in which
Jesus himself entered and got involved. Social life is one area that our faith
dares to dialogue with. As Christians we dare also question our social world.
Our faith is not just about what is “up there” above us…it is also about our
social world.
There is the need to clean up human conduct and
behavior in view of establishing the Kingdom of God. How is human “cleaning up”
possible? It is made possible through “the cross and resurrection of Christ”
(see Gaudium
et spes 37). Our “cleaning up” is through the Paschal sacrifice.
A lot of theological reflections followed. The
social doctrine of the Church refined its theological approaches after the
Vatican II. Theology went in more and more to clarify social realities and
social order.
The theological reflections shaped up the idea of
human rights. People had the right to religious freedom, for example. See the
declaration Dignitatis humanae. Freedom
must be respected.
Then came Pope Paul VI who wrote his encyclical, Populorum progressio. He
picked up from Pope John XIII and went more and more into a reflection that was
international. Within the international scene was the growing reality of
“underdevelopment”. One country tended to “develop” but at the cost of the
underdevelopment of other countries.
Part of the cause was the recent moves of many
countries to take freedom from their colonizers. This “decolonialisation” may
have allowed political independence from colonizers but the economic realities
showed more and more misery. Many countries fell into such horrible poverty and
misery while rich, industrial countries became richer. So Pope Paul VI opened
discussions about this…saying that the social problems have become
international, global. The poverty and misery of many countries had
international causes, and that poverty must be corrected. So Pope Paul VI
called for a more courageous international transformation. Human development,
he agreed, had to be integral, and this can happen with international
solidarity.
The solidarity cannot be purely economic and
political. It must be integral (and so note the influence of Pope John XIII and
Vatican II). The human person must bloom integrally in all aspects. This
involves the participation of people in responsibly combatting all forms of
oppression. “Integral” would have to include participation, solidarity among
people and nations. This solidarity, according to the Pope is based on
fraternity among all and with God.
The ideas of Pope Paul VI became so influential
that theologians and bishops in Latin America got together for a conference in
Medellin, Colombia in 1968. This conference was to be a crucial one—opening up
a lot of theological reflections that was to be known as “theology of
liberation”.
Many Catholics have then started to deepen their
social involvements fighting against injustices in their societies marked by
international inequalities. Many of the Catholic movements became marked
politically—borrowing a lot from Marxism.
Pope Paul VI responded to this new development in
the Church. He wrote another text, Octogesima adveniens(1971).
He cautioned socially involved Catholics about certain ideological stands,
especially the ideology of Marxism. He then emphasized that true liberation was
“interior” and not ideological. Later the pope published Evangelii nuntiandi (1975)
and here he emphasized the salvation and liberation coming from Christ who
frees us from sin. Yes, the Church should get involved with social problems but
must be in the line of Jesus Christ. The work for justice must be animated by
the love of Christ. So when we speak of social involvement, it must include
conversion of hearts for only here can we speak of social structures that are
just.
The Pope then had to add more spiritual content in
his social reflections. The existing secular ideologies of that time were quite
aggressive and led to the possibility of violence. The Pope took a more
“fraternal” stand, seeking for a more fraternal human community.
Then came Pope John Paul II. He picked up from
Pope Paul VI. He too emphasized human integral development and he took the line
of Vatican II—Gaudium
et spes—in emphasizing the theological anthropology of human relations and
solidarity.
With Pope John Paul II the world was becoming more
and more “liberal”. Yes, just as in the times of Pope Paul VI there were
problems of development and under-development of nations. But economic
liberalism became more and more acutely imposing. The world became so highly
global with the imposition of economic liberalism. Then also, the ecological
issue started to emerge.
Pope John Paul II wrote quite a number of
encyclicals touching on social issues: Laborem exercens (1981), Sollicitudo rei
socialis (1987),and Centesimus annus (1991).
In these encyclicals he took effort to struggle with economic questions. He
emphasized the central role of the human person precisely as person. The human person,
he said, is a relational being and the moral autonomy of the human person is
what builds social order. If we look at institutions, they are built from human
liberty and decision. So institutions must be in the service of the human
person.
For Pope John Paul II what guides the social
doctrine of the Church is the idea of humanity—what is a person. We need t
correct view of the human person—the value, the uniqueness, the dignity of the
human person. Let us not forget that the human person is the creature that God
willed to exist. God created the human for the sake of the human.
A lot of “mal functioning” happens in the fields
of economics and politics and even ecology because of this error in viewing the
human person. Economic and political institutions are human
creations—underneath these institutions is the human being. So in way they
represent the human. The mistake happens when the human person is pulled out of
the truth, pulled out of human rights, pulled out of inter-human relationships—pulled
out of being integrally human.
What is the truth about the human person? The
human person is created in the image of God. The human person grows and
develops in webs of relationships—with family, neighborhood, society—in
community even with future generations. The human person is fulfilled within
this community and communion with others and with God.
It is a mistake to say that the human is purely
material—and so all that the human must do is revolve life around material
things. The human person is relational and so life is more than just material
things. Life is relational too. It is also wrong to say that the human is
purely individual. The fact of being relational is proof of this mistake. It is
also wrong to say that the human is purely collective—as if the individual is
not important.
Pope John Paul II gave importance to the world of
work—labor. Work is an area of human integration. So it is ok to have private
property, especially when it is a fruit of labor. The “market”—with all its
complexities of supply and demand—is also ok for the pope. Thanks to the
market, economic resources are allocated effectively. To make profit out of
business is also ok for the pope. Profit is a sign of good business management.
Yet the Pope sets limits to what is ok. (This
echoes the Biblical notion of “you may….but” in Gen.2/16-17.) Business and
economics, says the Pope are not just for profit and reaping money. The
business enterprise must be a “community”—yes, a “community of persons”. An
enterprise must look for the satisfaction of basic, fundamental human needs of
the members. Also a business enterprise must aim for the well-being of the
whole society.
So institutions—economic or political—must have
the aim of developing an integral humanity. This aim should be the basis for
constructing institutions. Persons interact and are interdependent. So each and
every one should participate interactively with the fulfillment of the vocation
of each human. All activities of institutions must be oriented to the
fulfillment of being human and human person. So notice then how the Pope does
not follow the line of “profit alone”.
The encyclical, Laborem exercens,
illustrates well the position of the Pope regarding Labor. Labor or work is
integral to the human person—it is basic in fulfilling the human person.
Through work the human develops capacities and abilities. In work, we become
“more humanized” and we can participate in furthering the Kingdom of God.
In business at time capital is opposed to work.
The Pope disagrees. Capital itself is a fruit of human labor. So capital is
designed for the worker and for work. Labor has higher importance over capital.
This leads the Pope to question a strict “pro private ownership”. Private
ownership is ok, but it is not an absolute. In fact it can be an obstacle to
human integration—especially that of the laborer. Private ownership itself
should serve labor. Business and economics should have an ethical-moral
dimension and not subordinate workers from capital and profit.
Note then the importance given by Pope John Paul
II on human integration. Work, business, economics and politics should aim for
human integration. They should allow for people to accomplish their full
humanity and fulfill their vocation as being truly human, participating in the
common good of everyone.
Then comes Pope Benedict XVI with his encyclical Caritas in veritate.
Now in the time of Pope Benedict XVI, the world is highly globalized. What the
world needs is caritas –
charity, love. Pope Benedict XVI gives this a theological tone.
Yes, the Pope may seem critical of this globalized
world—especially with regards to financial institutions. Yet, the Pope is
optimist and positive. His positive attitude is grounded on charity. He says
that love animates us all. It is love that allows for fraternity among all. If
Pope John Paul II focused on the integral human person, Pope Benedict XVI
focused on charity as central to social thinking.
The charity that Pope Benedict XVI writes about is
the charity of God—the love of God. It is gift of God. Love is in the heart of
the social doctrine of the Church. The human person ought to live in love.
Solidarity and fraternity and family unity of all humanity is built on love.
The Pope sounds like Pope John Paul
II—institutions are human creations. So institutions are for the human. In the
light of love and truth the human can shape up actions, decisions and
institutional building based on charity—justice, solidarity, fraternity, the
well-being of all. Let the human live in charity and construct a social world
in charity.
Love should be behind politics, economics,
ecology, science. If, for example, economics is to be solid and true, then
there must be fraternal love in it.
Economics and business and politics and financial
mechanisms—they are not bad in themselves, says the Pope. Yet they should have
an ethical tone that orients to the fulfillment of the human person.
Institutions should be animated and lived fully in view of human fulfillment.
People should animate their institutions with love—fraternal love. This,
according to the Pope, is in response to the call made by God who is love.
What about Pope Francis? Well, our researches have
not gone this far…things are still new.
Note that the social doctrine of the Church
responds consistently to the social conditions of each moment of history.
Notice too how the human person is so central. Of course this human person is
always in reference with Christ. The human has dignity, being created in the
image of God. The human has the capacity to love and to build a social world
out of love…out of the desire for the common good of all. To live a socially
coherent and ethical life is a response to the love of God for the human person
and for society.
The human
person
The initial discussion about the human is characterized by the human as having been created basically with dignity. Human dignity is "already there" in creation. Later we will see that there is sin and sin tends to distort human dignity.
Each
person, is image of God. The Church is especially concerned with the human
person. Remember that what is social is human. The Church has always recognized
the centrality of the human person in all domains and specifically in the
social domain. The social as human is what the social doctrine is concerned
with. The human is foundation of social living.
So
we can say that the human is the heart or center of the social doctrine of the
Church. Everything that we read about in the Social Doctrine takes as central
starting point the human and the dignity of the human.
The
human is image of God. The human is, in fact, on the summit of all creation.
Among all creatures, the human is the only one who has received the breath of
the Lord God. The fact that the human is image of God makes the human
dignified. Human dignity is based on this fact of being God’s image.
The human--and shall we say "we"--is endowed with the capacity for self-knowing, self-possession and can enter into communion with others and with God. (Let us not forget that the human is also in communion with oneself.) The human is called to enter into communion with God--a communion that is called "covenant". In faith and in love the human is called to a covenant. No other creature has these features.
Notice then how "dignified" the human is. The human is "not something but someone" (see Compendium 108).
When we say "image" of God, we can think of "who the human is". When we say "in the likeness" of God we can think of "what the human is to do". And what must we do? What is it that constitutes our being "in God's likeness"? We are like God by the fact that we are relational. God is relational and we ought to be relational. We enter into relationship with God and with others. Of course the basic relationship is with God. To relate with God is to be "like God".
The relationship with God is reflected in our relationship with each other and world. Created by God the human is created to be in relationship. Of course we can be related with others in different ways, but we should relate with others are we related with God.
Among all creatures, the human is called to relate. The form of relationship is in the likeness of God. In the works of St. Thomas Aquinas there is the notion of our being "participant" with God. As God is good, we too be good, it is our way of participating with God. In the book of Genesis we see in the first chapter that God showed mastery over his own mastery, symbolized especially by his "Sabbath distance". On the seventh day God put a "brake" on his mastery to allow room for creation to be what it is. The human is "like God" by the fact that the human, also, is to assume mastery over mastery. Different symbols are found in the first chapter--like the symbol of what to eat. Yes, the human is to have mastery over creation--as the word "dominion" signifies--but it is a mastery that is, itself mastered. It is not a mastery that abuses. It is a mastery that respects. It is a mastery that "reveres".
The relationship with God is then reflected in our relationship with each other--notably in our social relationships. Remember the others are also "image and likeness" of God. We relate to them as such--for common to all of us is this dignity.
Over the created world the human has mastery and dominion but, again, it is a responsible mastery, not an abusive mastery. Remember that for God the created world is "good".
Our relationship with each other, as the Social Doctrine calls as "reciprocity" (see Compendium 111), reflects "image of God".
Let us not forget that the human is fulfilled in relationship and not in isolation. Each one of us is fulfilled in union and reciprocity. Each is in covenant also with others just was each has covenant with God. The reciprocity we have with one another reflects our covenant with God.
The Social Doctrine gives emphasis on the reciprocity between man and woman. This reciprocity gives life. The life of others is "entrusted" on the relationship between man and woman (see Compendium 112). Note how important this reciprocity is. It is marked by covenant and it reflects the "being-in-relationship" of God. The life that comes from the reciprocity man-woman is sacred, it should not be violated. Do not kill. Love one another.
The human does not live all this in the abstract. Deep within the human is the capacity to discern what is good or evil in relationships. The human is endowed with moral reason.
But then there is sin. The Compendium--taking much from the CCC--takes the line of "original sin" as having been inherited from the first parents, Adam and Eve. We will not go into a questioning of this topic. Let us follow the parameters set by the document.
Human nature, by now, is wounded. The first couple, Adam and Eve, have transmitted to us a human nature deprived of holiness and justice. We are created in the image and likeness of God but we are wounded by sin. We are alienated from full communion with God and with one another. We are wounded personally and socially.
On one hand, personal sin is the cause of social sin. Yet, on the other hand, social sin promotes further sin. This is called "structural sin". Within the structures of social life are conditions that become sources of other sins. (See Compendium 119.) Yes, at the root of all social sins is the personal sin of each and every individual person. Yet social sin has become so structured and institutional that individuals are made to "play the game", so to speak. Each and every social member is made to sin further. This will be clear when we discuss some basic social issues later. For now, just think of the use of plastic. Plastic has been contributing to the pollution of rivers and seas and yet our daily lives continue to have use of plastic. The institutional use of plastic further promotes in each of us a personal fault.
Unfortunately social sin is not just in the social world now. It is also historical--it is transmitted over a wide span of lives of individual and generations.
Today, to focus on what is happening, we find two major features of social sin. One is the domination of profit making and the other is the domination of abusive power (see Compendium 119).
Let us add a bit to this by observing that basic to human life today is the reign of "survival". We live in ways that promote survival. We live in securing survival and those who have better access to wealth, power and prestige (following the ideas of Max Weber) secure better their survival. We do not anymore relate--we are not in reciprocity. We simply survive and we use each other to secure survival. Here is where we appreciate the citation of the Compendium on "profit and power".
Still we are grateful because of Jesus Christ. Jesus is the "New Adam" who reveals to us the love of the Father and who we are. Jesus Christ reveals to the human who the human really is. In a sense, we can say that Jesus recapitulates the "image of God" in each human.
How are we revealed to our true selves? The answer is in Christ himself--our true self is revealed in conformity to Christ. The human has been astray and lost in sin. Thanks to Christ we see ourselves authentically. Christ has given us the "good news" that we are "image and likeness" of God and we really belong to God. We have a share in the life of God.
Remember that Christ is in communion with the whole Trinity. Christ is in that divine life. Jesus has communicated to us that divine life. So thanks to Jesus Christ we are introduced into that life. "By means of Christ we share in the nature of God" (Compendium 122).
This sharing is for us, but in Christ all creation is renewed. So in the fulfillment of time, all creation with have a share--in a way we still do not fully see--in the life of God.
The Social Doctrine of the Church signals to a danger which is called "reductionism". Three features of reductionism can be mentioned. The human person is a mystery of many different aspects. Reductionism can focus only on one aspect and drop the other aspects. Hence the human person is reduced to just one feature. So for example we might say that the human person is "an animal just like the beasts". Yes, there is the animal dimension, but it is reductionism when we say that the human is nothing else but beast--a mere biological creature.
Another form of reductionism is to say that the human alone is the measure of all things. All that social is a pure human creation. Everything is simply what the human says about it. So for example when we say "love" we can reduce it to pure cultural activity. People can love in any way they want because love is cultural, it is what people create. This form of reductionism will say that there is no such thing as "essence of love" independent of what people say and desire.
Another form of reductionism is to reduce the human into "dot" within a system. The human is just a small part of a big system. So we might say that the whole economic system is marked by consumerism; all human activity is a matter of consumption. A whole life-structure will revolve around this and everyone should be consumeristic.
But the human person is integral. We cannot reduce the person into just a few aspects. What are some of the characteristics of human integration?
The human is embodied--there is the human body. There is also the spiritual in the human. The human is "body and spirit". The Compendium does not discuss what exactly these terms mean. In fact there is the word "soul". But the Compendium does not delve into describing what it is exactly. But what we do notice is that the Compendium attempts to situate the human in an integral way that resists reducing the human to a mere material entity.
Yes, the human, because of the body, is part of nature and is linked to the world. But the human is also relational with the world. The discovers the world. This is no longer a material function. The human penetrates the world with thought and understanding. The cell does not do science or philosophy or theology. There is something else in the human--something which can be named as "spiritual".
In passing we can say that this itself is a "miracle". The spiritual dimension is not simply an offshoot and derivation from the material-cellular. The spiritual is a level of its own.
Another word we can consider is "transcendence". The human is open to transcendence. Unlike the cell or the beast in the fields, the human is open to world and God. The human is not locked up in instinct or genetic functioning. The human is "open" and "opens up" what is in the world. The human "goes out of oneself" to enter into relationship and communion. (See Compendium 129).
Note then the value of the human. In embodiment the human is linked with the world, and in "spirit" the human is open to the world. Most importantly the human is creature of God and is turned to God.
This is what we say for each of us--for each and every human person. Here is where we can appreciate the notion of "uniqueness". Each is unique--"singular"--and cannot be repeatable. Each has his/her own embodiment and each has his/her own openness to the world and God. Each has life experiences that nobody else experiences. In philosophy we would say "I am not you and you are not me".
Reductionism therefore cannot operate here. We cannot reduce a human person to something that will violate the uniqueness of the person. To reduce is to uproot the person from his/her "owness". The human should not be manipulated for goals that are foreign to the development--and uniqueness--of the person. (See Compendium 133). Integral to the human person is the turning-towards-God. God is the goal of human development. We were made for God and we find rest and fulfillment in God. Thus we should not manipulate the human person away from his/her turning to God.
Freedom--human freedom--is the highest sign of being in the image of God. To be free is to be in-charge of one's own decisions and actions. (See Compendium 135). We might want to use the term "self-propelling". The human does not just act according to how external forces operate on him/her. The human "self-propels" and determines for himself/herself goals and plans.
But then of course, we know, the freedom we have can be abused. We might live with the illusion that our freedom is unlimited and absolute. Genesis 2/16-17 describes the limit of our freedom. We may....but. We may do whatever we want...but there is a limit. If we connect this with Genesis chapter one, we can say that "we may...but there is the Sabbath". The uniqueness of the other person is my Sabbath. The value of the created world is my Sabbath. The "brake" God self-imposed on the seventh day is my Sabbath.
The Social Doctrine of the Church will express this as morality that is given to us by God. (See Compendium 136). To deviate from this moral law given by God is at the same time to deviate from our own freedom. In other words, we start losing hold of our freedom and we start living as if freedom is so absolute.
In philosophy we would say that "freedom is situated". Freedom is always within a situation--within a context. It is not absolute, it is not in a vacuum. Freedom, in its authenticity, is oriented to the construction of self and others. It is to live in "adventure", knowing that we are not fully masters of everything. We adventure with each other--explore and understand and grow together with others. The "prohibited tree" in Genesis is a prohibition of the knowledge of good and bad. In other words, recognize our level of ignorance. We do not know all, we do not have it all, we do not master over all. Hence we "adventure".
The sense of Beatitudes of Jesus in the Sermon on the Mount is precisely this: life is an adventure...and a happy one. Happy is the one who resists the craving for unlimited freedom.
The Church would rely on her tradition, and in morality she would rely on the notion of "natural law". Freedom refers to the "natural law" (see Compendium 140). Church tradition sees the natural law as the moral law within each of us. Within each of us is this "natural inclination" to "do good and avoid evil". Freedom is at its most authentic form when in conformity to the moral law given by God. We cannot just dictate whatever truth we want. The human is not the measure of all things. Somehow the human needs to conform to the natural-moral law.
Ok, fine. But the experiences we have in this world tells us about how abusive our freedom has become. Indeed, there is sin. But Christ is our redeemer and it is in him--in his Paschal life--where our wounded freedom is liberated.
Human Rights
When we say "human rights" we must root it in human dignity. The source of human rights is in the human person himself/herself...and not to forget God too. The rights of each human person do not depend on convention or "will of human beings". They are not dependent on what the State says. They are not dependent on any public power. Human rights find their source in the human by virtue of the fact that the human is human and had dignity as image of God.
Rights are universal--they are for all humans in any place or time. Rights are inviolable--they are inherent in every single human person; therefore they should be respected. Rights are inalienable--no human person is to be deprived of rights. (See Compendium 153).
What exactly are those human rights? The Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948), hailed to be a good step in the history of morality, gives us a list. The Compendium gives a broader list--as taking from Pope John Paul II. (See Compendium 155). For Pope John Paul II every person has the right to live, from conception to death. Included here is the right to develop within the womb of the mother. Every person has the right to live in a unified family and within a moral environment. Each person has the right to develop one's own intelligence and freedom in seeking to know the truth. Each person has the right to have a share in work. Work allows for the wise use of resources and support for self and dependents. Each person has the right to establish a family with the right to raise children and have a responsible exercise of sexuality. Finally, each person has the right to religious freedom. Inasmuch as every person has a transcendent dignity--the dignity in which one is fulfilled in God--each person then has the right to live in the truth of one's own faith.
Rights are always partners with duty. To have rights is to have them responsibly. In a way we can abuse rights and lose the sense of duty behind them. But rights are coupled with duties. The main feature of a duty is the respect of the rights of the person.
Ok, so we might think that rights are purely individual. No, not quite. Rights can be social--there are social rights, or rights of a people, a society, a nation. People have the right to exist socially. They have the right to their own language. They have the right to spiritual sovereignty. They have the right to shape their own lives according to their tradition. People have the right to build their future by providing appropriate education for their children. (See Compendium 157).
Ah, but yes, reality spells something different. In actual social reality rights are so violated. For the Church, it would be best if the more fortunate "renounce some of their rights" to place goods at the servicing of others. (See Compendium 158).
Can We violate Rights in view of a "Better Future"? Sometimes we might think of the possibility of violating rights now so that the future will be assured. Abortion can be an option for a "better future of less population". Refusing government transparency might be an option now and so refuse people their right to information. The government may think is is wise now so that people will not pester the government too much and the government can do a better job unhampered now.
For the Church there are moral norms that are absolute. Pope John Paul II wrote that there are acts that are bad in themselves and should not be done at any time. (See his encyclical Veritatis splendor). Even if we assume that there is a future that can be better assured by doing wrong actions now, we should not do those actions at all. In fact we are never in absolute control of the future; we can never say that our expectations will always be fulfilled. Also it is risky to claim that what we do will always lead to a betters future because we are sinners; we will systematically take our will of power to be the criterion of the morality of what we do. We refuse to fully accept what is objectively good or evil when we hold on dear to our very own will to power.
Principles
The principles of the Social Doctrine of the Church emerge from the encounter between the Gospel and social problems. This is a good example of "inculturation". Remember that the Gospel is not a cultural product; it is not "made by human hands". It is the message of the Lord God--it is from Christ. Hence it belongs to the domain of revelation.
The principles are listed (see Compendium 160), They are permanent principles--they do not change over time. They have a universal meaning that applies to everyone in any place, culture or time. The principles can serve as references, that is, when we have questions about social problems we can look up the principles and take guidance from them. The are moral references about how society is to be organized bot on a personal and institutional level. Again, they are moral principles. The Magisterium does not assume competence regarding the actual steps in social organization but it is competent in moral discernment. (See Compendium 161-163).
Common Good
The term itself already tells us about what is "common", what is for all. The principle of common good is about all conditions in society that can make social members bloom. What are the conditions necessary so that all members of society can develop and fulfill themselves in a full human way?
We can, first, think of ancient and medieval philosophy--taking from Aristotle and Thomas Aquinas. For Aristotle the human lives in society and finds fulfillment there. Political life is very important because it is what "organizes" social relationships. The organization is based on what is sufficiently good for all social members. Thomas Aquinas extends this Aristotelian view. Social organization, he says, must allow the fullness of the human person emerge, arise. Social members are then to live happily. Laws are meant for social members to live and be guided for the common good. Society in its entirety realizes itself as a community of persons in which each one becomes fully human. All this, of course, is under the project of God.
These philosophical approaches must have influence the Church's principle of the common good. What must be done so that social members bloom?
Society is not the arena of struggle between people. It is, in fact, the arena of just relationships. Hence, within society resources must be shared so much so that no one is inferior nor superior. This touches on the question of "access to". Social members, to bloom, need access to a peaceful life condition, they need access to equality under the legal system, they need equality in power, they need to live under a protected environment, services such as health and education must be available to all, human rights to food, clothing, shelter and other essentials must be available. (See Compendium 166).
The common good is the task of every single member of society. But it is not easy to attain. Hence there is the need for politics. It is the responsibility of the State to make sure that members of society share in the common good. The State has the responsibility to put in place an order that penetrates all society. Hence the idea of common good is a process that is t be achieved by all members of society facilitated by the State. (See Compendium 167). The State must assure that justice is applied to the different sectors of society; it should be vigilant that even the minority have access to the common good. (See Compendium 167).
Yet, it is not enough that social members have access to the common good. The common good is not the goal of the human society. The real goal is still transcendent--it is God. The common good is but a step for attaining the ultimate end of the human society. God is the ultimate end. Hence the common good cannot be an absolute. Pope Benedict XVI mentioned this when he said that society must favor a culture of integration open to transcendence (see Caritas veritate 42).
To appreciate this well, just think of goal and steps to attain a goal. I intend to have a drink in the kitchen so I go to the computer room. Ah, there is an inconsistency here. If my goal is to quench my thirst then I take steps going to the kitchen. My goal shapes my steps. So if the human is to find ultimate goal in the transcendence, then this goal shapes social life--including the process of attaining the common good.
Universal Destination of Goods
If we are interested in the good of everyone in society--the common good--then we need to look at how resources are to be distributed. Resources are to be shared because of a basic assumption: creation is God's and God destined creation to be shared by all under the guidance of justice and love. The earth, which is God's creation, is given to all so that all may sustain life, be fed, grow, develop humanly, communicate with others, live and work with others and attain the ultimate transcendent goal (see Compendium 171).
The issue here is that of "access to". How can the resources of the earth be accessible to all? This is important because everyone has the natural right to access. Access is not in the hands of someone or some groups who will then distribute the resources. Nobody owes anyone the right to access to resources. If ever we shall talk of right to property, even this right will have to presuppose as more fundamental to it the right to have access to earth's resources. (See Compendium 171).
What happens in society is that some have "more access to" than others. Many do not even enjoy access--they live in poverty and misery. Hence the question of "access to" requires a proper regulation of the distribution of resources. In the modern world we have modern economics. But this can be rather savage. Economics must be guided by morality so that we do not lose sight of the universal destination of all goods. (See Compendium 174).
Ok, so we see that God had destined all earth for the life of the human. Resources are to be shared--in a "nature friendly' way and in justice--the resources. But then there is still such a thing as "private property". Is the Church against this?
Private property seems to contradict the principle of universal destination. Because of ownership there is no sharing. A form of politics would rather confiscate private ownership and redistribute it socially. The Church does not take this line.
It is ok to own privately--so long as it is a result of work. (More will be said about work later). In fact, for the Church everyone must have the opportunity to private ownership (see Compendium 176). Thanks to private ownership each social member can secure the future, feed the family, send the children to school, carry their lives in good health, etc. Thanks to private property many options are available. (Just consider those who have practically little or no private ownership--they are so dependent on others, to the point of living under dole outs. What options are available for them in terms of career, education, health, etc? Many of them are stuck and in difficulty to have mobility.) Private ownership is really a big help to a secured and growing life (See Compendium 181).
Yet, private property is not an absolute. It must still be subordinated to common use. Private ownership too must be regulated. It is ok to live properly and live with the help of one's ownership. But there is a limit. At a certain point some things owned turn out to be superfluous--they are not necessary to live fully. One can live without them. But there is an addiction to the superfluous--so much so that the owner is enslaved to it. (See Compendium 181).
For the Church everyone must have private ownership so as to live fully and with security. Now, one's private ownership then can be an obstacle to the possibility that others will have their own properties. Here the Church takes a stand. Private ownership is ok so long as it helps in the development of oneself and family; it is not ok if it is marked by the superfluous and it even serves to hinder others from having their own properties. (Just think of the landed elite who own tracks of land in front of families who have not even a small piece of land to live on.) This is why the Church insists that private ownership is not an absolute (see Compendium 177).
In fact to own anything privately is not to usurp it. It is to be shared too. Private ownership has a social function (see Compendium 178). Yes, ownership benefits the owner and family, it should however benefit the common good. Private ownership should not be an obstacle to the common good. What one owns is still to be helpful to others. Hence, the Church does not agree that property be left idle--property must be for productive use.
Unfortunately, history has given us wounds. Colonialization has deeply wounded our societies. Land ownership was badly regulated by the colonizers, splitting up our societies and creating elite classes of immense land properties. The Church calls for land re-distribution (see Compendium 180).
But then, after all has been said, we ask: who really owns resources? I may own a bottle of beer but I owe it to the grains and oats; it owe it to the sand melted to become glass and bottles. Grains, oats, sand--they belong to God. God is the real owner. Creation is from him. By acknowledging this say that, really, we are not the full owners of resources. This has a liberating effect because it allows us to redirect resources for the common good.
The distribution of goods must have a priority--the poor. This is why the Church adds to the principle of the universal destination the term "preferential option for the poor". This is required by the universal destination of goods. People who have little or no opportunity for a decent life "should be the focus of particular concern" (Compendium 182). Christian charity is to make this primary. Focus on the poor because Jesus himself did so.
It is interesting to note that Christ focused on poor by being one with them, associating with them. (See Matt.24/40 and 45). In the poor is the preferential presence of Christ.
Jesus said that the poor will always be with us (see Mk.14/7). This is too often misunderstood to justify the existence of poverty--and the inaction of the more fortunate. Without going into Biblical analysis, we can say that Jesus said this to trigger the concern of his disciples. Jesus referred to Dt.5/15. Jesus mirrored to his disciples that they did not really care for the poor nor for the woman pouring perfume. In Dt. it is a shame that there are the poor--hence it is necessary to not to harden the heart nor close the hand to the poor (see Dt.15/7-8).
Seen in this light then, the statement of Jesus is not a justification for doing nothing to the poor. It is a statement that should shame us because the poor are plenty in our societies.
There is, however, a form of ideological thinking that believes that poverty can be eradicated in some social system in the (near or far) future. For the Church this is not acceptable. Poverty can be eradicated only upon the return of Christ. (See Compendium 183).
[The Compendium states that the poor is "entrusted to us". (See Compendium 183.) This can be interpreted to mean that it is ok to have the poor because we have reason to do something. Hopefully we do not see it this way.]
Why be concerned about the poor? Jesus was attentive to the poor. This is why we too are to concern ourselves with the plight of the poor. But let us be careful. Justice is basic. Whether we love or not, justice must be applied. The poor deserve justice. If there is an issue of justice, do it even if the "feeling of love" is absent. Justice is not exercised in dependence to charity. (See Compendium 184; see also Apostolicum Actuositatem 8; see Catechism of the Catholic Church 2446).
The Church would insist on justice because God wanted creation to be shared--it is integral to the function of the earth. The earth is a heritage for all (again, as we shall discuss later, this does not open the door to abusing nature.) The earth is for all. Hence, with or without "love feeling", this sharing must be justly done. It is the nature of nature to be justly shared.
Subsidiarity
This area must be so influenced by political philosophy. One view in this philosophy is that decisions made in society must include decisions made by the groups concerned. If we are to talk about indigenous people for example, what will they say? If we consider policies about workers, what will workers say?
In society we interact with groups such as the family, the neighborhood, the sports groups maybe, the work group, etc. Somehow our daily lives see us interacting with many "small groups". We have different networks of relationships.
But then there are also the more abstract and "higher" groups like the State or the Economic/Business world. In subsidiarity the "higher group" does not intervene in the life of the "lower group" except to help the "lower group" in areas of difficulties. It is not the authority of the "higher group" to substitute for the "lower group" decisions that concern the "lower group". In fact, the "higher group" must work to help the "lower group" accomplish its own functions.
During the height of the industrial revolution many workers were not given the chance by capitalists to organize as unions. Workers never had a role in deciding the future of the enterprises in which they worked. Subsidiarity would demand that workers be given the voice too.
Subsidiarity therefore means that the "lower group" be allowed to initiate and decide on matters that concern them. In case the "lower group" has difficulties, then the "higher group" comes in to "subsidize" or "help". The "higher group", such as the State, should refrain from whatever restricts the life of the "lower group" (see Compendium 186).
Subsidiarity is in opposition to centralizing everything. It is in opposition to excessive presence of the "higher group" in the decision and initiative of the "lower group". (See Compendium 187).
How is subsidiarity promoted? First of all, respect the lower groups--such as the family. Allow lower groups to associate and take initiatives on their own. Open the doors to pluralism and due representation. Decentralize bureaucracy. Make citizens active in the political sphere. (See Compendium 187). Yes, it is also ok to let the State intervene in the lives of the smaller groups but on the condition that the smaller groups really need help. Intervene only when necessary and "pull out" when intervention is no longer necessary.
Participation
Very much related to Subsidiarity is "Participation". It is a duty for social members to contribute to the life of society. The more disadvantaged social sectors must be given the chance to participate.
Participation guarantees permanence of the democratic system. In a democracy powers and functions are exercised by the people. Now there are certain sectors that do not enjoy this right. But democracy is to be participative and not marginalizing. Let no one, not even the minority, be voiceless in society. (See Compendium 190).
Unfortunately there is an "inadequacy" in participation when some people are dis-affected with the social and political life. This happens, for example, in cases in which citizens or groups associate with institutions to obtain conditions in their own favor but against the common good. Another example can be in the case of people who refuse to participate in healthy elections. These are actions that refuse the move for the common good.
Solidarity
The human person is intrinsically social. We are social beings--we live with others always. So in a way we are always one with specific forms of connections with others. We turn on the light, we pay for the electricity, so we are "one with" the electric industry. We buy consumer goods in the mall, we are "one with" that whole complex system of production, supply, selling, etc. We switch on our computers and click on a website or on a facebook post, we are "one with" that whole cyber space world.
Solidarity means to be "solid with"..."one with". Modern life has become so complex we do not know all the interconnections we are involved with. Somehow we are "one with" networks that we do not know--they are so anonymous. The Church invites us to be vigilant here (see Compendium 192). Our solidarity must be accompanied by ethics. There are the so-called "structures of sin" and they involve different forms of solidarity that exploit and harm. We need to be vigilant about our linkages and see where are the possible areas in which we contribute to injustice. Where do we contribute to sin? It will then be necessary to "de-solidarize" from structures and networks that are unjust. This is not easy because, somehow, we are "stuck" somewhere in networks. But it is crucial. As Pope Francis recently said, when we buy something we are not just doing an economic action we are also doing a moral action. (See http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/12/pope-francis-tells-shoppers-dont-buy-products-made-by-modern-day-slaves/)
Solidarity then, in the way of the Church, is a moral action, a moral option. We move into being "one with" a specific social way of living. Solidarity is not a feeling sort of action. It is not about feelings. It is a firm and persevering determination to connect with the common good. So we engage into being "one with" whatever that promotes the common good.
Given our way of social life, especially today, we are responsible for what we do (see Compendium 193). Somehow our consumption practices, our political involvement (or indifference)...these are in our responsibility. Solidarity, again in the way of the Church, is in the sphere of justice. We need to be responsible for justice. It is solidarity--of any form, whether just or not, that ties us together as a social whole. Solidarity, in the way of the Church, is responsible solidarity. We encourage space that allows for growth. We encourage commitment to the promotion of the common good, that no one is really lacking in basic human goods.
Yes, we cannot avoid disagreement and debates within society. We even see our relationships tend to fragmentation and separation. Solidarity however involves vigilance to dialogue in which we seek, as a social whole, to an attainable agreement (see Compendium 194).
According to the Compendium (195) we are all "debtors". We owe many people a lot. So many people have been involved in our lives--people we never know. People cleaned the streets for us. People built houses for us. People farmed and fished for us. People worked hard for us. It is a whole network of relationships that has, one way or another, brought us to where we are now. Hence we are "debtors" to one another.
Solidarity also means "taking the last place". Here we can think of Blessed Charles de Foucauld's intuition that as Jesus took the humble "last place" we too must do the same. Be in solidarity with the poor, the marginalized, the "little ones". Jesus is our basic model for solidarity (see Compendium 196). Jesus is God-with-us. His incarnation marked his solidarity with us. His effort to announce the Kingdom--and die for it--is his solidarity with us. His was not an easy time too. His was also a life marked by persecution, injustice, cheating, elitism and religious oppression. But he did not step away from solidarity with us. He continued and in his words and gestures he showed his solidarity. He showed that in social life it is possible to live the Kingdom.
So in the rock bottom of this all is Jesus. Solidarity is our form of solidarity like that of Jesus. Just as Jesus loved, we too love. Just as Jesus was "one with" the little ones, we too are to be "one with" others.
