Catholic Faith
Legion of Mary
Ioannes Paulus PP. II
Centesimus annus
To His Venerable Brothers
in the Episcopate
the Priests and Deacons
Families of Men and Women religious
all the Christian Faithful
and to all men and women
of good will
on the hundredth anniversary of
Rerum Novarum
1991.05.01
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Blessing
Venerable Brothers,
Beloved Sons and Daughters,
Health and the Apostolic Blessing!
INTRODUCTION
1. The Centenary of the promulgation of the Encyclical which begins
with the words "Rerum novarum", by my predecessor of venerable memory
Pope Leo XIII, is an occasion of great importance for the present
history of the Church and for my own Pontificate. It is an Encyclical
that has the distinction of having been commemorated by solemn Papal
documents from its fortieth anniversary to its ninetieth. It may be
said that its path through history has been marked by other documents
which paid tribute to it and applied it to the circumstances of the day.
In doing likewise for the hundredth anniversary, in response to
requests from many Bishops, Church institutions, and study centres, as
well as business leaders and workers, both individually and as members
of associations, I wish first and foremost to satisfy the debt of
gratitude which the whole Church owes to this great Pope and his
"immortal document". I also mean to show that the vital energies rising
from that root have not been spent with the passing of the years, but
rather have increased even more. This is evident from the various
initiatives which have preceded, and which are to accompany and follow
the celebration, initiatives promoted by Episcopal Conferences, by
international agencies, universities and academic institutes, by
professional associations and by other institutions and individuals in
many parts of the world.
2. The present Encyclical is part of these celebrations, which are
meant to thank God — the origin of "every good endowment and
every perfect gift" (Jas 1:17) — for having used a document
published a century ago by the See of Peter to achieve so much good and
to radiate so much light in the Church and in the world. Although the
commemoration at hand is meant to honour Rerum novarum, it also honours
those Encyclicals and other documents of my Predecessors which have
helped to make Pope Leo's Encyclical present and alive in history, thus
constituting what would come to be called the Church's "social
doctrine", "social teaching" or even "social magisterium".
The validity of this teaching has already been pointed out in two
Encyclicals published during my Pontificate: Laborem exercens on human
work, and Sollicitudo rei socialis on current problems regarding the
development of individuals and peoples.4
3. I now wish to propose a "re-reading" of Pope Leo's Encyclical by
issuing an invitation to "look back" at the text itself in order to
discover anew the richness of the fundamental principles which it
formulated for dealing with the question of the condition of workers.
But this is also an invitation to "look around" at the "new things"
which surround us and in which we find ourselves caught up, very
different from the "new things" which characterized the final decade of
the last century. Finally, it is an invitation to "look to the future"
at a time when we can already glimpse the third Millennium of the
Christian era, so filled with uncertainties but also with promises
— uncertainties and promises which appeal to our imagination
and
creativity, and which reawaken our responsibility, as disciples of the
"one teacher" (cf. Mt 23:8), to show the way, to proclaim the truth and
to communicate the life which is Christ (cf. Jn 14:6).
A re-reading of this kind will not only confirm the permanent value of
such teaching, but will also manifest the true meaning of the Church's
Tradition which, being ever living and vital, builds upon the
foundation laid by our fathers in the faith, and particularly upon what
"the Apostles passed down to the Church" in the name of Jesus Christ,
who is her irreplaceable foundation (cf. 1 Cor 3:11).
It was out of an awareness of his mission as the Successor of Peter
that Pope Leo XIII proposed to speak out, and Peter's Successor today
is moved by that same awareness. Like Pope Leo and the Popes before and
after him, I take my inspiration from the Gospel image of "the scribe
who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven", whom the Lord compares
to "a householder who brings out of his treasure what is new and what
is old" (Mt 13:52). The treasure is the great outpouring of the
Church's Tradition, which contains "what is old" — received
and
passed on from the very beginning — and which enables us to
interpret the "new things" in the midst of which the life of the Church
and the world unfolds.
Among the things which become "old" as a result of being incorporated
into Tradition, and which offer opportunities and material for
enriching both Tradition and the life of faith, there is the fruitful
activity of many millions of people, who, spurred on by the social
Magisterium, have sought to make that teaching the inspiration for
their involvement in the world. Acting either as individuals or joined
together in various groups, associations and organizations, these
people represent a great movement for the defence of the human person
and the safeguarding of human dignity. Amid changing historical
circumstances, this movement has contributed to the building up of a
more just society or at least to the curbing of injustice.
The present Encyclical seeks to show the fruitfulness of the principles
enunciated by Leo XIII, which belong to the Church's doctrinal
patrimony and, as such, involve the exercise of her teaching authority.
But pastoral solicitude also prompts me to propose an analysis of some
events of recent history. It goes without saying that part of the
responsibility of Pastors is to give careful consideration to current
events in order to discern the new requirements of evangelization.
However, such an analysis is not meant to pass definitive judgments
since this does not fall per se within the Magisterium's specific
domain.
I. CHARACTERISTICS OF "RERUM NOVARUM"
4. Towards the end of the last century the Church found herself facing
an historical process which had already been taking place for some
time, but which was by then reaching a critical point. The determining
factor in this process was a combination of radical changes which had
taken place in the political, economic and social fields, and in the
areas of science and technology, to say nothing of the wide influence
of the prevailing ideologies. In the sphere of politics, the result of
these changes was a new conception of society and of the State, and
consequently of authority itself. A traditional society was passing
away and another was beginning to be formed — one which
brought
the hope of new freedoms but also the threat of new forms of injustice
and servitude.
In the sphere of economics, in which scientific discoveries and their
practical application come together, new structures for the production
of consumer goods had progressively taken shape. A new form of property
had appeared — capital; and a new form of labour —
labour
for wages, characterized by high rates of production which lacked due
regard for sex, age or family situation, and were determined solely by
efficiency, with a view to increasing profits.
In this way labour became a commodity to be freely bought and sold on
the market, its price determined by the law of supply and demand,
without taking into account the bare minimum required for the support
of the individual and his family. Moreover, the worker was not even
sure of being able to sell "his own commodity", continually threatened
as he was by unemployment, which, in the absence of any kind of social
security, meant the spectre of death by starvation.
The result of this transformation was a society "divided into two
classes, separated by a deep chasm". This situation was linked to the
marked change taking place in the political order already mentioned.
Thus the prevailing political theory of the time sought to promote
total economic freedom by appropriate laws, or, conversely, by a
deliberate lack of any intervention. At the same time, another
conception of property and economic life was beginning to appear in an
organized and often violent form, one which implied a new political and
social structure.
At the height of this clash, when people finally began to realize fully
the very grave injustice of social realities in many places and the
danger of a revolution fanned by ideals which were then called
"socialist", Pope Leo XIII intervened with a document which dealt in a
systematic way with the "condition of the workers". The Encyclical had
been preceded by others devoted to teachings of a political character;
still others would appear later. Here, particular mention must be made
of the Encyclical Libertas praestantissimum, which called attention to
the essential bond between human freedom and truth, so that freedom
which refused to be bound to the truth would fall into arbitrariness
and end up submitting itself to the vilest of passions, to the point of
selfdestruction. Indeed, what is the origin of all the evils to which
Rerum novarum wished to respond, if not a kind of freedom which, in the
area of economic and social activity, cuts itself off from the truth
about man?
The Pope also drew inspiration from the teaching of his Predecessors,
as well as from the many documents issued by Bishops, from scientific
studies promoted by members of the laity, from the work of Catholic
movements and associations, and from the Church's practical
achievements in the social field during the second half of the
nineteenth century.
5. The "new things" to which the Pope devoted his attention were
anything but positive. The first paragraph of the Encyclical describes
in strong terms the "new things" (rerum novarum) which gave it its
name: "That the spirit of revolutionary change which has long been
disturbing the nations of the world should have passed beyond the
sphere of politics and made its influence felt in the related sphere of
practical economics is not surprising. Progress in industry, the
development of new trades, the changing relationship between employers
and workers, the enormous wealth of a few as opposed to the poverty of
the many, the increasing self-reliance of the workers and their closer
association with each other, as well as a notable decline in morality:
all these elements have led to the conflict now taking place".
The Pope and the Church with him were confronted, as was the civil
community, by a society which was torn by a conflict all the more harsh
and inhumane because it knew no rule or regulation. It was the conflict
between capital and labour, or — as the Encyclical puts it
— the worker question. It is precisely about this conflict,
in
the very pointed terms in which it then appeared, that the Pope did not
hesitate to speak.
Here we find the first reflection for our times as suggested by the
Encyclical. In the face of a conflict which set man against man, almost
as if they were "wolves", a conflict between the extremes of mere
physical survival on the one side and opulence on the other, the Pope
did not hesitate to intervene by virtue of his "apostolic office", that
is, on the basis of the mission received from Jesus Christ himself to
"feed his lambs and tend his sheep" (cf. Jn 21:15-17), and to "bind and
loose" on earth for the Kingdom of Heaven (cf. Mt 16:19). The Pope's
intention was certainly to restore peace, and the present-day reader
cannot fail to note his severe condemnation, in no uncertain terms, of
the class struggle. However, the Pope was very much aware that peace is
built on the foundation of justice: what was essential to the
Encyclical was precisely its proclamation of the fundamental conditions
for justice in the economic and social situation of the time.
In this way, Pope Leo XIII, in the footsteps of his Predecessors,
created a lasting paradigm for the Church. The Church, in fact, has
something to say about specific human situations, both individual and
communal, national and international. She formulates a genuine doctrine
for these situations, a corpus which enables her to analyze social
realities, to make judgments about them and to indicate directions to
be taken for the just resolution of the problems involved.
In Pope Leo XIII's time such a concept of the Church's right and duty
was far from being commonly admitted. Indeed, a two-fold approach
prevailed: one directed to this world and this life, to which faith
ought to remain extraneous; the other directed towards a purely
other-worldly salvation, which neither enlightens nor directs existence
on earth. The Pope's approach in publishing Rerum novarum gave the
Church "citizenship status" as it were, amid the changing realities of
public life, and this standing would be more fully confirmed later on.
In effect, to teach and to spread her social doctrine pertains to the
Church's evangelizing mission and is an essential part of the Christian
message, since this doctrine points out the direct consequences of that
message in the life of society and situates daily work and struggles
for justice in the context of bearing witness to Christ the Saviour.
This doctrine is likewise a source of unity and peace in dealing with
the conflicts which inevitably arise in social and economic life. Thus
it is possible to meet these new situations without degrading the human
person's transcendent dignity, either in oneself or in one's
adversaries, and to direct those situations towards just solutions.
Today, at a distance of a hundred years, the validity of this approach
affords me the opportunity to contribute to the development of
Christian social doctrine. The "new evangelization", which the modern
world urgently needs and which I have emphasized many times, must
include among its essential elements a proclamation of the Church's
social doctrine. As in the days of Pope Leo XIII, this doctrine is
still suitable for indicating the right way to respond to the great
challenges of today, when ideologies are being increasingly
discredited. Now, as then, we need to repeat that there can be no
genuine solution of the "social question" apart from the Gospel, and
that the "new things" can find in the Gospel the context for their
correct understanding and the proper moral perspective for judgment on
them.
6. With the intention of shedding light on the conflict which had
arisen between capital and labour, Pope Leo XIII affirmed the
fundamental rights of workers. Indeed, the key to reading the
Encyclical is the dignity of the worker as such, and, for the same
reason, the dignity of work, which is defined as follows: "to exert
oneself for the sake of procuring what is necessary for the various
purposes of life, and first of all for self-preservation". The Pope
describes work as "personal, inasmuch as the energy expended is bound
up with the personality and is the exclusive property of him who acts,
and, furthermore, was given to him for his advantage". Work thus
belongs to the vocation of every person; indeed, man expresses and
fulfils himself by working. At the same time, work has a "social"
dimension through its intimate relationship not only to the family, but
also to the common good, since "it may truly be said that it is only by
the labour of working-men that States grow rich". These are themes that
I have taken up and developed in my Encyclical Laborem exercens.
Another important principle is undoubtedly that of the right to
"private property". The amount of space devoted to this subject in the
Encyclical shows the importance attached to it. The Pope is well aware
that private property is not an absolute value, nor does he fail to
proclaim the necessary complementary principles, such as the universal
destination of the earth's goods.
On the other hand, it is certainly true that the type of private
property which Leo XIII mainly considers is land ownership.18 But this
does not mean that the reasons adduced to safeguard private property or
to affirm the right to possess the things necessary for one's personal
development and the development of one's family, whatever the concrete
form which that right may assume, are not still valid today. This is
something which must be affirmed once more in the face of the changes
we are witnessing in systems formerly dominated by collective ownership
of the means of production, as well as in the face of the increasing
instances of poverty or, more precisely, of hindrances to private
ownership in many parts of the world, including those where systems
predominate which are based on an affirmation of the right to private
property. As a result of these changes and of the persistence of
poverty, a deeper analysis of the problem is called for, an analysis
which will be developed later in this document.
7. In close connection with the right to private property, Pope Leo
XIII's Encyclical also affirms other rights as inalienable and proper
to the human person. Prominent among these, because of the space which
the Pope devotes to it and the importance which he attaches to it, is
the "natural human right" to form private associations. This means
above all the right to establish professional associations of employers
and workers, or of workers alone. Here we find the reason for the
Church's defence and approval of the establishment of what are commonly
called trade unions: certainly not because of ideological prejudices or
in order to surrender to a class mentality, but because the right of
association is a natural right of the human being, which therefore
precedes his or her incorporation into political society. Indeed, the
formation of unions "cannot ... be prohibited by the State", because
"the State is bound to protect natural rights, not to destroy them; and
if it forbids its citizens to form associations, it contradicts the
very principle of its own existence".
Together with this right, which — it must be stressed
— the
Pope explicitly acknowledges as belonging to workers, or, using his own
language, to "the working class", the Encyclical affirms just as
clearly the right to the "limitation of working hours", the right to
legitimate rest and the right of children and women21 to be treated
differently with regard to the type and duration of work.
If we keep in mind what history tells us about the practices permitted
or at least not excluded by law regarding the way in which workers were
employed, without any guarantees as to working hours or the hygienic
conditions of the work-place, or even regarding the age and sex of
apprentices, we can appreciate the Pope's severe statement: "It is
neither just nor human so to grind men down with excessive labour as to
stupefy their minds and wear out their bodies". And referring to the
"contract" aimed at putting into effect "labour relations" of this
sort, he affirms with greater precision, that "in all agreements
between employers and workers there is always the condition expressed
or understood" that proper rest be allowed, proportionate to "the wear
and tear of one's strength". He then concludes: "To agree in any other
sense would be against what is right and just".
8. The Pope immediately adds another right which the worker has as a
person. This is the right to a "just wage", which cannot be left to the
"free consent of the parties, so that the employer, having paid what
was agreed upon, has done his part and seemingly is not called upon to
do anything beyond". It was said at the time that the State does not
have the power to intervene in the terms of these contracts, except to
ensure the fulfilment of what had been explicitly agreed upon. This
concept of relations between employers and employees, purely pragmatic
and inspired by a thorough-going individualism, is severely censured in
the Encyclical as contrary to the twofold nature of work as a personal
and necessary reality. For if work as something personal belongs to the
sphere of the individual's free use of his own abilities and energy, as
something necessary it is governed by the grave obligation of every
individual to ensure "the preservation of life". "It necessarily
follows", the Pope concludes, "that every individual has a natural
right to procure what is required to live; and the poor can procure
that in no other way than by what they can earn through their work".
A workman's wages should be sufficient to enable him to support
himself, his wife and his children. "If through necessity or fear of a
worse evil the workman accepts harder conditions because an employer or
contractor will afford no better, he is made the victim of force and
injustice".
Would that these words, written at a time when what has been called
"unbridled capitalism" was pressing forward, should not have to be
repeated today with the same severity. Unfortunately, even today one
finds instances of contracts between employers and employees which lack
reference to the most elementary justice regarding the employment of
children or women, working hours, the hygienic condition of the
work-place and fair pay; and this is the case despite the International
Declarations and Conventions on the subject and the internal laws of
States. The Pope attributed to the "public authority" the "strict duty"
of providing properly for the welfare of the workers, because a failure
to do so violates justice; indeed, he did not hesitate to speak of
"distributive justice".
9. To these rights Pope Leo XIII adds another right regarding the
condition of the working class, one which I wish to mention because of
its importance: namely, the right to discharge freely one's religious
duties. The Pope wished to proclaim this right within the context of
the other rights and duties of workers, notwithstanding the general
opinion, even in his day, that such questions pertained exclusively to
an individual's private life. He affirms the need for Sunday rest so
that people may turn their thoughts to heavenly things and to the
worship which they owe to Almighty God. No one can take away this human
right, which is based on a commandment; in the words of the Pope: "no
man may with impunity violate that human dignity which God himself
treats with great reverence", and consequently, the State must
guarantee to the worker the exercise of this freedom.
It would not be mistaken to see in this clear statement a springboard
for the principle of the right to religious freedom, which was to
become the subject of many solemn International Declarations and
Conventions, as well as of the Second Vatican Council's well-known
Declaration and of my own repeated teaching. In this regard, one may
ask whether existing laws and the practice of industrialized societies
effectively ensure in our own day the exercise of this basic right to
Sunday rest.
10. Another important aspect, which has many applications to our own
day, is the concept of the relationship between the State and its
citizens. Rerum novarum criticizes two social and economic systems:
socialism and liberalism. The opening section, in which the right to
private property is reaffirmed, is devoted to socialism. Liberalism is
not the subject of a special section, but it is worth noting that
criticisms of it are raised in the treatment of the duties of the
State. The State cannot limit itself to "favouring one portion of the
citizens", namely the rich and prosperous, nor can it "neglect the
other", which clearly represents the majority of society. Otherwise,
there would be a violation of that law of justice which ordains that
every person should receive his due. "When there is question of
defending the rights of individuals, the defenceless and the poor have
a claim to special consideration. The richer class has many ways of
shielding itself, and stands less in need of help from the State;
whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall
back on, and must chiefly depend on the assistance of the State. It is
for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong to the
latter class, should be specially cared for and protected by the
Government".
These passages are relevant today, especially in the face of the new
forms of poverty in the world, and also because they are affirmations
which do not depend on a specific notion of the State or on a
particular political theory. Leo XIII is repeating an elementary
principle of sound political organization, namely, the more that
individuals are defenceless within a given society, the more they
require the care and concern of others, and in particular the
intervention of governmental authority.
In this way what we nowadays call the principle of solidarity, the
validity of which both in the internal order of each nation and in the
international order I have discussed in the Encyclical Sollicitudo rei
socialis, is clearly seen to be one of the fundamental principles of
the Christian view of social and political organization. This principle
is frequently stated by Pope Leo XIII, who uses the term "friendship",
a concept already found in Greek philosophy. Pope Pius XI refers to it
with the equally meaningful term "social charity". Pope Paul VI,
expanding the concept to cover the many modern aspects of the social
question, speaks of a "civilization of love".
11. Re-reading the Encyclical in the light of contemporary realities
enables us to appreciate the Church's constant concern for and
dedication to categories of people who are especially beloved to the
Lord Jesus. The content of the text is an excellent testimony to the
continuity within the Church of the so-called "preferential option for
the poor", an option which I defined as a "special form of primacy in
the exercise of Christian charity". Pope Leo's Encyclical on the
"condition of the workers" is thus an Encyclical on the poor and on the
terrible conditions to which the new and often violent process of
industrialization had reduced great multitudes of people. Today, in
many parts of the world, similar processes of economic, social and
political transformation are creating the same evils.
If Pope Leo XIII calls upon the State to remedy the condition of the
poor in accordance with justice, he does so because of his timely
awareness that the State has the duty of watching over the common good
and of ensuring that every sector of social life, not excluding the
economic one, contributes to achieving that good, while respecting the
rightful autonomy of each sector. This should not however lead us to
think that Pope Leo expected the State to solve every social problem.
On the contrary, he frequently insists on necessary limits to the
State's intervention and on its instrumental character, inasmuch as the
individual, the family and society are prior to the State, and inasmuch
as the State exists in order to protect their rights and not stifle
them.
The relevance of these reflections for our own day is inescapable. It
will be useful to return later to this important subject of the limits
inherent in the nature of the state. For now, the points which have
been emphasized (certainly not the only ones in the Encyclical) are
situated in continuity with the Church's social teaching, and in the
light of a sound view of private property, work, the economic process,
the reality of the State and, above all, of man himself. Other themes
will be mentioned later when we examine certain aspects of the
contemporary situation. From this point forward it will be necessary to
keep in mind that the main thread and, in a certain sense, the guiding
principle of Pope Leo's Encyclical, and of all of the Church's social
doctrine, is a correct view of the human person and of his unique
value, inasmuch as "man ... is the only creature on earth which God
willed for itself". God has imprinted his own image and likeness on man
(cf. Gen 1:26), conferring upon him an incomparable dignity, as the
Encyclical frequently insists. In effect, beyond the rights which man
acquires by his own work, there exist rights which do not correspond to
any work he performs, but which flow from his essential dignity as a
person.
II. TOWARDS THE "NEW THINGS" OF TODAY
12. The commemoration of Rerum novarum would be incomplete unless
reference were also made to the situation of the world today. The
document lends itself to such a reference, because the historical
picture and the prognosis which it suggests have proved to be
surprisingly accurate in the light of what has happened since then.
This is especially confirmed by the events which took place near the
end of 1989 and at the beginning of 1990. These events, and the radical
transformations which followed, can only be explained by the preceding
situations which, to a certain extent, crystallized or
institutionalized Leo XIII's predictions and the increasingly
disturbing signs noted by his Successors. Pope Leo foresaw the negative
consequences — political, social and economic — of
the
social order proposed by "socialism", which at that time was still only
a social philosophy and not yet a fully structured movement. It may
seem surprising that "socialism" appeared at the beginning of the
Pope's critique of solutions to the "question of the working class" at
a time when "socialism" was not yet in the form of a strong and
powerful State, with all the resources which that implies, as was later
to happen. However, he correctly judged the danger posed to the masses
by the attractive presentation of this simple and radical solution to
the "question of the working class" of the time — all the
more so
when one considers the terrible situation of injustice in which the
working classes of the recently industrialized nations found themselves.
Two things must be emphasized here: first, the great clarity in
perceiving, in all its harshness, the actual condition of the working
class — men, women and children; secondly, equal clarity in
recognizing the evil of a solution which, by appearing to reverse the
positions of the poor and the rich, was in reality detrimental to the
very people whom it was meant to help. The remedy would prove worse
than the sickness. By defining the nature of the socialism of his day
as the suppression of private property, Leo XIII arrived at the crux of
the problem.
His words deserve to be re-read attentively: "To remedy these wrongs
(the unjust distribution of wealth and the poverty of the workers), the
Socialists encourage the poor man's envy of the rich and strive to do
away with private property, contending that individual possessions
should become the common property of all...; but their contentions are
so clearly powerless to end the controversy that, were they carried
into effect, the working man himself would be among the first to
suffer. They are moreover emphatically unjust, for they would rob the
lawful possessor, distort the functions of the State, and create utter
confusion in the community". The evils caused by the setting up of this
type of socialism as a State system — what would later be
called
"Real Socialism" — could not be better expressed.
13. Continuing our reflections, and referring also to what has been
said in the Encyclicals Laborem exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis,
we have to add that the fundamental error of socialism is
anthropological in nature. Socialism considers the individual person
simply as an element, a molecule within the social organism, so that
the good of the individual is completely subordinated to the
functioning of the socio-economic mechanism. Socialism likewise
maintains that the good of the individual can be realized without
reference to his free choice, to the unique and exclusive
responsibility which he exercises in the face of good or evil. Man is
thus reduced to a series of social relationships, and the concept of
the person as the autonomous subject of moral decision disappears, the
very subject whose decisions build the social order. From this mistaken
conception of the person there arise both a distortion of law, which
defines the sphere of the exercise of freedom, and an opposition to
private property. A person who is deprived of something he can call
"his own", and of the possibility of earning a living through his own
initiative, comes to depend on the social machine and on those who
control it. This makes it much more difficult for him to recognize his
dignity as a person, and hinders progress towards the building up of an
authentic human community.
In contrast, from the Christian vision of the human person there
necessarily follows a correct picture of society. According to Rerum
novarum and the whole social doctrine of the Church, the social nature
of man is not completely fulfilled in the State, but is realized in
various intermediary groups, beginning with the family and including
economic, social, political and cultural groups which stem from human
nature itself and have their own autonomy, always with a view to the
common good. This is what I have called the "subjectivity" of society
which, together with the subjectivity of the individual, was cancelled
out by "Real Socialism".
If we then inquire as to the source of this mistaken concept of the
nature of the person and the "subjectivity" of society, we must reply
that its first cause is atheism. It is by responding to the call of God
contained in the being of things that man becomes aware of his
transcendent dignity. Every individual must give this response, which
constitutes the apex of his humanity, and no social mechanism or
collective subject can substitute for it. The denial of God deprives
the person of his foundation, and consequently leads to a
reorganization of the social order without reference to the person's
dignity and responsibility.
The atheism of which we are speaking is also closely connected with the
rationalism of the Enlightenment, which views human and social reality
in a mechanistic way. Thus there is a denial of the supreme insight
concerning man's true greatness, his transcendence in respect to
earthly realities, the contradiction in his heart between the desire
for the fullness of what is good and his own inability to attain it
and, above all, the need for salvation which results from this
situation.
14. From the same atheistic source, socialism also derives its choice
of the means of action condemned in Rerum novarum, namely, class
struggle. The Pope does not, of course, intend to condemn every
possible form of social conflict. The Church is well aware that in the
course of history conflicts of interest between different social groups
inevitably arise, and that in the face of such conflicts Christians
must often take a position, honestly and decisively. The Encyclical
Laborem exercens moreover clearly recognized the positive role of
conflict when it takes the form of a "struggle for social justice";
Quadragesimo anno had already stated that "if the class struggle
abstains from enmities and mutual hatred, it gradually changes into an
honest discussion of differences founded on a desire for justice".
However, what is condemned in class struggle is the idea that conflict
is not restrained by ethical or juridical considerations, or by respect
for the dignity of others (and consequently of oneself); a reasonable
compromise is thus excluded, and what is pursued is not the general
good of society, but a partisan interest which replaces the common good
and sets out to destroy whatever stands in its way. In a word, it is a
question of transferring to the sphere of internal conflict between
social groups the doctrine of "total war", which the militarism and
imperialism of that time brought to bear on international relations. As
a result of this doctrine, the search for a proper balance between the
interests of the various nations was replaced by attempts to impose the
absolute domination of one's own side through the destruction of the
other side's capacity to resist, using every possible means, not
excluding the use of lies, terror tactics against citizens, and weapons
of utter destruction (which precisely in those years were beginning to
be designed). Therefore class struggle in the Marxist sense and
militarism have the same root, namely, atheism and contempt for the
human person, which place the principle of force above that of reason
and law.
15. Rerum novarum is opposed to State control of the means of
production, which would reduce every citizen to being a "cog" in the
State machine. It is no less forceful in criticizing a concept of the
State which completely excludes the economic sector from the State's
range of interest and action. There is certainly a legitimate sphere of
autonomy in economic life which the State should not enter. The State,
however, has the task of determining the juridical framework within
which economic affairs are to be conducted, and thus of safeguarding
the prerequisites of a free economy, which presumes a certain equality
between the parties, such that one party would not be so powerful as
practically to reduce the other to subservience.
In this regard, Rerum novarum points the way to just reforms which can
restore dignity to work as the free activity of man. These reforms
imply that society and the State will both assume responsibility,
especially for protecting the worker from the nightmare of
unemployment. Historically, this has happened in two converging ways:
either through economic policies aimed at ensuring balanced growth and
full employment, or through unemployment insurance and retraining
programmes capable of ensuring a smooth transfer of workers from crisis
sectors to those in expansion.
Furthermore, society and the State must ensure wage levels adequate for
the maintenance of the worker and his family, including a certain
amount for savings. This requires a continuous effort to improve
workers' training and capability so that their work will be more
skilled and productive, as well as careful controls and adequate
legislative measures to block shameful forms of exploitation,
especially to the disadvantage of the most vulnerable workers, of
immigrants and of those on the margins of society. The role of trade
unions in negotiating minimum salaries and working conditions is
decisive in this area.
Finally, "humane" working hours and adequate free-time need to be
guaranteed, as well as the right to express one's own personality at
the work-place without suffering any affront to one's conscience or
personal dignity. This is the place to mention once more the role of
trade unions, not only in negotiating contracts, but also as "places"
where workers can express themselves. They serve the development of an
authentic culture of work and help workers to share in a fully human
way in the life of their place of employment.
The State must contribute to the achievement of these goals both
directly and indirectly. Indirectly and according to the principle of
subsidiarity, by creating favourable conditions for the free exercise
of economic activity, which will lead to abundant opportunities for
employment and sources of wealth. Directly and according to the
principle of solidarity, by defending the weakest, by placing certain
limits on the autonomy of the parties who determine working conditions,
and by ensuring in every case the necessary minimum support for the
unemployed worker.
The Encyclical and the related social teaching of the Church had
far-reaching influence in the years bridging the nineteenth and
twentieth centuries. This influence is evident in the numerous reforms
which were introduced in the areas of social security, pensions, health
insurance and compensation in the case of accidents, within the
framework of greater respect for the rights of workers.
16. These reforms were carried out in part by States, but in the
struggle to achieve them the role of the workers' movement was an
important one. This movement, which began as a response of moral
conscience to unjust and harmful situations, conducted a widespread
campaign for reform, far removed from vague ideology and closer to the
daily needs of workers. In this context its efforts were often joined
to those of Christians in order to improve workers' living conditions.
Later on, this movement was dominated to a certain extent by the
Marxist ideology against which Rerum novarum had spoken.
These same reforms were also partly the result of an open process by
which society organized itself through the establishment of effective
instruments of solidarity, which were capable of sustaining an economic
growth more respectful of the values of the person. Here we should
remember the numerous efforts to which Christians made a notable
contribution in establishing producers', consumers' and credit
cooperatives, in promoting general education and professional training,
in experimenting with various forms of participation in the life of the
work-place and in the life of society in general.
Thus, as we look at the past, there is good reason to thank God that
the great Encyclical was not without an echo in human hearts and indeed
led to a generous response on the practical level. Still, we must
acknowledge that its prophetic message was not fully accepted by people
at the time. Precisely for this reason there ensued some very serious
tragedies.
17. Reading the Encyclical within the context of Pope Leo's whole
magisterium,47 we see how it points essentially to the socio-economic
consequences of an error which has even greater implications. As has
been mentioned, this error consists in an understanding of human
freedom which detaches it from obedience to the truth, and consequently
from the duty to respect the rights of others. The essence of freedom
then becomes self-love carried to the point of contempt for God and
neighbour, a self-love which leads to an unbridled affirmation of
self-interest and which refuses to be limited by any demand of justice.
This very error had extreme consequences in the tragic series of wars
which ravaged Europe and the world between 1914 and 1945. Some of these
resulted from militarism and exaggerated nationalism, and from related
forms of totalitarianism; some derived from the class struggle; still
others were civil wars or wars of an ideological nature. Without the
terrible burden of hatred and resentment which had built up as a result
of so many injustices both on the international level and within
individual States, such cruel wars would not have been possible, in
which great nations invested their energies and in which there was no
hesitation to violate the most sacred human rights, with the
extermination of entire peoples and social groups being planned and
carried out. Here we recall the Jewish people in particular, whose
terrible fate has become a symbol of the aberration of which man is
capable when he turns against God.
However, it is only when hatred and injustice are sanctioned and
organized by the ideologies based on them, rather than on the truth
about man, that they take possession of entire nations and drive them
to act.49 Rerum novarum opposed ideologies of hatred and showed how
violence and resentment could be overcome by justice. May the memory of
those terrible events guide the actions of everyone, particularly the
leaders of nations in our own time, when other forms of injustice are
fuelling new hatreds and when new ideologies which exalt violence are
appearing on the horizon.
18. While it is true that since 1945 weapons have been silent on the
European continent, it must be remembered that true peace is never
simply the result of military victory, but rather implies both the
removal of the causes of war and genuine reconciliation between
peoples. For many years there has been in Europe and the world a
situation of non-war rather than genuine peace. Half of the continent
fell under the domination of a Communist dictatorship, while the other
half organized itself in defence against this threat. Many peoples lost
the ability to control their own destiny and were enclosed within the
suffocating boundaries of an empire in which efforts were made to
destroy their historical memory and the centuries-old roots of their
culture. As a result of this violent division of Europe, enormous
masses of people were compelled to leave their homeland or were
forcibly deported.
An insane arms race swallowed up the resources needed for the
development of national economies and for assistance to the less
developed nations. Scientific and technological progress, which should
have contributed to man's well-being, was transformed into an
instrument of war: science and technology were directed to the
production of ever more efficient and destructive weapons. Meanwhile,
an ideology, a perversion of authentic philosophy, was called upon to
provide doctrinal justification for the new war. And this war was not
simply expected and prepared for, but was actually fought with enormous
bloodshed in various parts of the world. The logic of power blocs or
empires, denounced in various Church documents and recently in the
Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, led to a situation in which
controversies and disagreements among Third World countries were
systematically aggravated and exploited in order to create difficulties
for the adversary.
Extremist groups, seeking to resolve such controversies through the use
of arms, found ready political and military support and were equipped
and trained for war; those who tried to find peaceful and humane
solutions, with respect for the legitimate interests of all parties,
remained isolated and often fell victim to their opponents. In
addition, the precariousness of the peace which followed the Second
World War was one of the principal causes of the militarization of many
Third World countries and the fratricidal conflicts which afflicted
them, as well as of the spread of terrorism and of increasingly
barbaric means of political and military conflict. Moreover, the whole
world was oppressed by the threat of an atomic war capable of leading
to the extinction of humanity. Science used for military purposes had
placed this decisive instrument at the disposal of hatred, strengthened
by ideology. But if war can end without winners or losers in a suicide
of humanity, then we must repudiate the logic which leads to it: the
idea that the effort to destroy the enemy, confrontation and war itself
are factors of progress and historical advancement. When the need for
this repudiation is understood, the concepts of "total war" and "class
struggle" must necessarily be called into question.
19. At the end of the Second World War, however, such a development was
still being formed in people's consciences. What received attention was
the spread of Communist totalitarianism over more than half of Europe
and over other parts of the world. The war, which should have
re-established freedom and restored the right of nations, ended without
having attained these goals. Indeed, in a way, for many peoples,
especially those which had suffered most during the war, it openly
contradicted these goals. It may be said that the situation which arose
has evoked different responses.
Following the destruction caused by the war, we see in some countries
and under certain aspects a positive effort to rebuild a democratic
society inspired by social justice, so as to deprive Communism of the
revolutionary potential represented by masses of people subjected to
exploitation and oppression. In general, such attempts endeavour to
preserve free market mechanisms, ensuring, by means of a stable
currency and the harmony of social relations, the conditions for steady
and healthy economic growth in which people through their own work can
build a better future for themselves and their families. At the same
time, these attempts try to avoid making market mechanisms the only
point of reference for social life, and they tend to subject them to
public control which upholds the principle of the common destination of
material goods. In this context, an abundance of work opportunities, a
solid system of social security and professional training, the freedom
to join trade unions and the effective action of unions, the assistance
provided in cases of unemployment, the opportunities for democratic
participation in the life of society — all these are meant to
deliver work from the mere condition of "a commodity", and to guarantee
its dignity.
Then there are the other social forces and ideological movements which
oppose Marxism by setting up systems of "national security", aimed at
controlling the whole of society in a systematic way, in order to make
Marxist infiltration impossible. By emphasizing and increasing the
power of the State, they wish to protect their people from Communism,
but in doing so they run the grave risk of destroying the freedom and
values of the person, the very things for whose sake it is necessary to
oppose Communism.
Another kind of response, practical in nature, is represented by the
affluent society or the consumer society. It seeks to defeat Marxism on
the level of pure materialism by showing how a free-market society can
achieve a greater satisfaction of material human needs than Communism,
while equally excluding spiritual values. In reality, while on the one
hand it is true that this social model shows the failure of Marxism to
contribute to a humane and better society, on the other hand, insofar
as it denies an autonomous existence and value to morality, law,
culture and religion, it agrees with Marxism, in the sense that it
totally reduces man to the sphere of economics and the satisfaction of
material needs.
20. During the same period a widespread process of "decolonization"
occurred, by which many countries gained or regained their independence
and the right freely to determine their own destiny. With the formal
re-acquisition of State sovereignty, however, these countries often
find themselves merely at the beginning of the journey towards the
construction of genuine independence. Decisive sectors of the economy
still remain de facto in the hands of large foreign companies which are
unwilling to commit themselves to the long-term development of the host
country. Political life itself is controlled by foreign powers, while
within the national boundaries there are tribal groups not yet
amalgamated into a genuine national community. Also lacking is a class
of competent professional people capable of running the State apparatus
in an honest and just way, nor are there qualified personnel for
managing the economy in an efficient and responsible manner.
Given this situation, many think that Marxism can offer a sort of
short-cut for building up the nation and the State; thus many variants
of socialism emerge with specific national characteristics. Legitimate
demands for national recovery, forms of nationalism and also of
militarism, principles drawn from ancient popular traditions (which are
sometimes in harmony with Christian social doctrine) and
Marxist-Leninist concepts and ideas — all these mingle in the
many ideologies which take shape in ways that differ from case to case.
21. Lastly, it should be remembered that after the Second World War,
and in reaction to its horrors, there arose a more lively sense of
human rights, which found recognition in a number of International
Documents and, one might say, in the drawing up of a new "right of
nations", to which the Holy See has constantly contributed. The focal
point of this evolution has been the United Nations Organization. Not
only has there been a development in awareness of the rights of
individuals, but also in awareness of the rights of nations, as well as
a clearer realization of the need to act in order to remedy the grave
imbalances that exist between the various geographical areas of the
world. In a certain sense, these imbalances have shifted the centre of
the social question from the national to the international level.
While noting this process with satisfaction, nevertheless one cannot
ignore the fact that the overall balance of the various policies of aid
for development has not always been positive. The United Nations,
moreover, has not yet succeeded in establishing, as alternatives to
war, effective means for the resolution of international conflicts.
This seems to be the most urgent problem which the international
community has yet to resolve.
III. THE YEAR 1989
22. It is on the basis of the world situation just described, and
already elaborated in the Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis, that the
unexpected and promising significance of the events of recent years can
be understood. Although they certainly reached their climax in 1989 in
the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, they embrace a longer
period of time and a wider geographical area. In the course of the 80s,
certain dictatorial and oppressive regimes fell one by one in some
countries of Latin America and also of Africa and Asia. In other cases
there began a difficult but productive transition towards more
participatory and more just political structures. An important, even
decisive, contribution was made by the Church's commitment to defend
and promote human rights. In situations strongly influenced by
ideology, in which polarization obscured the awareness of a human
dignity common to all, the Church affirmed clearly and forcefully that
every individual — whatever his or her personal convictions
— bears the image of God and therefore deserves respect.
Often,
the vast majority of people identified themselves with this kind of
affirmation, and this led to a search for forms of protest and for
political solutions more respectful of the dignity of the person.
From this historical process new forms of democracy have emerged which
offer a hope for change in fragile political and social structures
weighed down by a painful series of injustices and resentments, as well
as by a heavily damaged economy and serious social conflicts. Together
with the whole Church, I thank God for the often heroic witness borne
in such difficult circumstances by many Pastors, entire Christian
communities, individual members of the faithful, and other people of
good will; at the same time I pray that he will sustain the efforts
being made by everyone to build a better future. This is, in fact, a
responsibility which falls not only to the citizens of the countries in
question, but to all Christians and people of good will. It is a
question of showing that the complex problems faced by those peoples
can be resolved through dialogue and solidarity, rather than by a
struggle to destroy the enemy through war.
23. Among the many factors involved in the fall of oppressive regimes,
some deserve special mention. Certainly, the decisive factor which gave
rise to the changes was the violation of the rights of workers. It
cannot be forgotten that the fundamental crisis of systems claiming to
express the rule and indeed the dictatorship of the working class began
with the great upheavals which took place in Poland in the name of
solidarity. It was the throngs of working people which foreswore the
ideology which presumed to speak in their name. On the basis of a hard,
lived experience of work and of oppression, it was they who recovered
and, in a sense, rediscovered the content and principles of the
Church's social doctrine.
Also worthy of emphasis is the fact that the fall of this kind of
"bloc" or empire was accomplished almost everywhere by means of
peaceful protest, using only the weapons of truth and justice. While
Marxism held that only by exacerbating social conflicts was it possible
to resolve them through violent confrontation, the protests which led
to the collapse of Marxism tenaciously insisted on trying every avenue
of negotiation, dialogue, and witness to the truth, appealing to the
conscience of the adversary and seeking to reawaken in him a sense of
shared human dignity.
It seemed that the European order resulting from the Second World War
and sanctioned by the Yalta Agreements could only be overturned by
another war. Instead, it has been overcome by the non-violent
commitment of people who, while always refusing to yield to the force
of power, succeeded time after time in finding effective ways of
bearing witness to the truth. This disarmed the adversary, since
violence always needs to justify itself through deceit, and to appear,
however falsely, to be defending a right or responding to a threat
posed by others. Once again I thank God for having sustained people's
hearts amid difficult trials, and I pray that this example will prevail
in other places and other circumstances. May people learn to fight for
justice without violence, renouncing class struggle in their internal
disputes, and war in international ones.
24. The second factor in the crisis was certainly the inefficiency of
the economic system, which is not to be considered simply as a
technical problem, but rather a consequence of the violation of the
human rights to private initiative, to ownership of property and to
freedom in the economic sector. To this must be added the cultural and
national dimension: it is not possible to understand man on the basis
of economics alone, nor to define him simply on the basis of class
membership. Man is understood in a more complete way when he is
situated within the sphere of culture through his language, history,
and the position he takes towards the fundamental events of life, such
as birth, love, work and death. At the heart of every culture lies the
attitude man takes to the greatest mystery: the mystery of God.
Different cultures are basically different ways of facing the question
of the meaning of personal existence. When this question is eliminated,
the culture and moral life of nations are corrupted. For this reason
the struggle to defend work was spontaneously linked to the struggle
for culture and for national rights.
But the true cause of the new developments was the spiritual void
brought about by atheism, which deprived the younger generations of a
sense of direction and in many cases led them, in the irrepressible
search for personal identity and for the meaning of life, to rediscover
the religious roots of their national cultures, and to rediscover the
person of Christ himself as the existentially adequate response to the
desire in every human heart for goodness, truth and life. This search
was supported by the witness of those who, in difficult circumstances
and under persecution, remained faithful to God. Marxism had promised
to uproot the need for God from the human heart, but the results have
shown that it is not possible to succeed in this without throwing the
heart into turmoil.
25. The events of 1989 are an example of the success of willingness to
negotiate and of the Gospel spirit in the face of an adversary
determined not to be bound by moral principles. These events are a
warning to those who, in the name of political realism, wish to banish
law and morality from the political arena. Undoubtedly, the struggle
which led to the changes of 1989 called for clarity, moderation,
suffering and sacrifice. In a certain sense, it was a struggle born of
prayer, and it would have been unthinkable without immense trust in
God, the Lord of history, who carries the human heart in his hands. It
is by uniting his own sufferings for the sake of truth and freedom to
the sufferings of Christ on the Cross that man is able to accomplish
the miracle of peace and is in a position to discern the often narrow
path between the cowardice which gives in to evil and the violence
which, under the illusion of fighting evil, only makes it worse.
Nevertheless, it cannot be forgotten that the manner in which the
individual exercises his freedom is conditioned in innumerable ways.
While these certainly have an influence on freedom, they do not
determine it; they make the exercise of freedom more difficult or less
difficult, but they cannot destroy it. Not only is it wrong from the
ethical point of view to disregard human nature, which is made for
freedom, but in practice it is impossible to do so. Where society is so
organized as to reduce arbitrarily or even suppress the sphere in which
freedom is legitimately exercised, the result is that the life of
society becomes progressively disorganized and goes into decline.
Moreover, man, who was created for freedom, bears within himself the
wound of original sin, which constantly draws him towards evil and puts
him in need of redemption. Not only is this doctrine an integral part
of Christian revelation; it also has great hermeneutical value insofar
as it helps one to understand human reality. Man tends towards good,
but he is also capable of evil. He can transcend his immediate interest
and still remain bound to it. The social order will be all the more
stable, the more it takes this fact into account and does not place in
opposition personal interest and the interests of society as a whole,
but rather seeks ways to bring them into fruitful harmony. In fact,
where self-interest is violently suppressed, it is replaced by a
burdensome system of bureaucratic control which dries up the
wellsprings of initiative and creativity. When people think they
possess the secret of a perfect social organization which makes evil
impossible, they also think that they can use any means, including
violence and deceit, in order to bring that organization into being.
Politics then becomes a "secular religion" which operates under the
illusion of creating paradise in this world. But no political society
— which possesses its own autonomy and laws55 — can
ever be
confused with the Kingdom of God. The Gospel parable of the weeds among
the wheat (cf. Mt 13:24-30; 36-43) teaches that it is for God alone to
separate the subjects of the Kingdom from the subjects of the Evil One,
and that this judgment will take place at the end of time. By presuming
to anticipate judgment here and now, man puts himself in the place of
God and sets himself against the patience of God.
Through Christ's sacrifice on the Cross, the victory of the Kingdom of
God has been achieved once and for all. Nevertheless, the Christian
life involves a struggle against temptation and the forces of evil.
Only at the end of history will the Lord return in glory for the final
judgment (cf. Mt 25:31) with the establishment of a new heaven and a
new earth (cf. 2 Pt 3:13; Rev 21:1); but as long as time lasts the
struggle between good and evil continues even in the human heart itself.
What Sacred Scripture teaches us about the prospects of the Kingdom of
God is not without consequences for the life of temporal societies,
which, as the adjective indicates, belong to the realm of time, with
all that this implies of imperfection and impermanence. The Kingdom of
God, being in the world without being of the world, throws light on the
order of human society, while the power of grace penetrates that order
and gives it life. In this way the requirements of a society worthy of
man are better perceived, deviations are corrected, the courage to work
for what is good is reinforced. In union with all people of good will,
Christians, especially the laity, are called to this task of imbuing
human realities with the Gospel.
26. The events of 1989 took place principally in the countries of
Eastern and Central Europe. However, they have worldwide importance
because they have positive and negative consequences which concern the
whole human family. These consequences are not mechanistic or
fatalistic in character, but rather are opportunities for human freedom
to cooperate with the merciful plan of God who acts within history.
The first consequence was an encounter in some countries between the
Church and the workers' movement, which came about as a result of an
ethical and explicitly Christian reaction against a widespread
situation of injustice. For about a century the workers' movement had
fallen in part under the dominance of Marxism, in the conviction that
the working class, in order to struggle effectively against oppression,
had to appropriate its economic and materialistic theories.
In the crisis of Marxism, the natural dictates of the consciences of
workers have re-emerged in a demand for justice and a recognition of
the dignity of work, in conformity with the social doctrine of the
Church. The worker movement is part of a more general movement among
workers and other people of good will for the liberation of the human
person and for the affirmation of human rights. It is a movement which
today has spread to many countries, and which, far from opposing the
Catholic Church, looks to her with interest.
The crisis of Marxism does not rid the world of the situations of
injustice and oppression which Marxism itself exploited and on which it
fed. To those who are searching today for a new and authentic theory
and praxis of liberation, the Church offers not only her social
doctrine and, in general, her teaching about the human person redeemed
in Christ, but also her concrete commitment and material assistance in
the struggle against marginalization and suffering.
In the recent past, the sincere desire to be on the side of the
oppressed and not to be cut off from the course of history has led many
believers to seek in various ways an impossible compromise between
Marxism and Christianity. Moving beyond all that was short-lived in
these attempts, present circumstances are leading to a reaffirmation of
the positive value of an authentic theology of integral human
liberation. Considered from this point of view, the events of 1989 are
proving to be important also for the countries of the Third World,
which are searching for their own path to development, just as they
were important for the countries of Central and Eastern Europe.
27. The second consequence concerns the peoples of Europe themselves.
Many individual, social, regional and national injustices were
committed during and prior to the years in which Communism dominated;
much hatred and ill-will have accumulated. There is a real danger that
these will re-explode after the collapse of dictatorship, provoking
serious conflicts and casualties, should there be a lessening of the
moral commitment and conscious striving to bear witness to the truth
which were the inspiration for past efforts. It is to be hoped that
hatred and violence will not triumph in people's hearts, especially
among those who are struggling for justice, and that all people will
grow in the spirit of peace and forgiveness.
What is needed are concrete steps to create or consolidate
international structures capable of intervening through appropriate
arbitration in the conflicts which arise between nations, so that each
nation can uphold its own rights and reach a just agreement and
peaceful settlement vis-à-vis the rights of others. This is
especially needed for the nations of Europe, which are closely united
in a bond of common culture and an ageold history. A great effort is
needed to rebuild morally and economically the countries which have
abandoned Communism. For a long time the most elementary economic
relationships were distorted, and basic virtues of economic life, such
as truthfulness, trustworthiness and hard work were denigrated. A
patient material and moral reconstruction is needed, even as people,
exhausted by longstanding privation, are asking their governments for
tangible and immediate results in the form of material benefits and an
adequate fulfilment of their legitimate aspirations.
The fall of Marxism has naturally had a great impact on the division of
the planet into worlds which are closed to one another and in jealous
competition. It has further highlighted the reality of interdependence
among peoples, as well as the fact that human work, by its nature, is
meant to unite peoples, not divide them. Peace and prosperity, in fact,
are goods which belong to the whole human race: it is not possible to
enjoy them in a proper and lasting way if they are achieved and
maintained at the cost of other peoples and nations, by violating their
rights or excluding them from the sources of well-being.
28. In a sense, for some countries of Europe the real post-war period
is just beginning. The radical reordering of economic systems, hitherto
collectivized, entails problems and sacrifices comparable to those
which the countries of Western Europe had to face in order to rebuild
after the Second World War. It is right that in the present
difficulties the formerly Communist countries should be aided by the
united effort of other nations. Obviously they themselves must be the
primary agents of their own development, but they must also be given a
reasonable opportunity to accomplish this goal, something that cannot
happen without the help of other countries. Moreover, their present
condition, marked by difficulties and shortages, is the result of an
historical process in which the formerly Communist countries were often
objects and not subjects. Thus they find themselves in the present
situation not as a result of free choice or mistakes which were made,
but as a consequence of tragic historical events which were violently
imposed on them, and which prevented them from following the path of
economic and social development.
Assistance from other countries, especially the countries of Europe
which were part of that history and which bear responsibility for it,
represents a debt in justice. But it also corresponds to the interest
and welfare of Europe as a whole, since Europe cannot live in peace if
the various conflicts which have arisen as a result of the past are to
become more acute because of a situation of economic disorder,
spiritual dissatisfaction and desperation.
This need, however, must not lead to a slackening of efforts to sustain
and assist the countries of the Third World, which often suffer even
more serious conditions of poverty and want.59 What is called for is a
special effort to mobilize resources, which are not lacking in the
world as a whole, for the purpose of economic growth and common
development, redefining the priorities and hierarchies of values on the
basis of which economic and political choices are made. Enormous
resources can be made available by disarming the huge military machines
which were constructed for the conflict between East and West. These
resources could become even more abundant if, in place of war, reliable
procedures for the resolution of conflicts could be set up, with the
resulting spread of the principle of arms control and arms reduction,
also in the countries of the Third World, through the adoption of
appropriate measures against the arms trade.60 But it will be necessary
above all to abandon a mentality in which the poor — as
individuals and as peoples — are considered a burden, as
irksome
intruders trying to consume what others have produced. The poor ask for
the right to share in enjoying material goods and to make good use of
their capacity for work, thus creating a world that is more just and
prosperous for all. The advancement of the poor constitutes a great
opportunity for the moral, cultural and even economic growth of all
humanity.
29. Finally, development must not be understood solely in economic
terms, but in a way that is fully human. It is not only a question of
raising all peoples to the level currently enjoyed by the richest
countries, but rather of building up a more decent life through united
labour, of concretely enhancing every individual's dignity and
creativity, as well as his capacity to respond to his personal
vocation, and thus to God's call. The apex of development is the
exercise of the right and duty to seek God, to know him and to live in
accordance with that knowledge. In the totalitarian and authoritarian
regimes, the principle that force predominates over reason was carried
to the extreme. Man was compelled to submit to a conception of reality
imposed on him by coercion, and not reached by virtue of his own reason
and the exercise of his own freedom. This principle must be overturned
and total recognition must be given to the rights of the human
conscience, which is bound only to the truth, both natural and
revealed. The recognition of these rights represents the primary
foundation of every authentically free political order. It is important
to reaffirm this latter principle for several reasons:
a) because the old forms of totalitarianism and authoritarianism are
not yet completely vanquished; indeed there is a risk that they will
regain their strength. This demands renewed efforts of cooperation and
solidarity between all countries;
b) because in the developed countries there is sometimes an excessive
promotion of purely utilitarian values, with an appeal to the appetites
and inclinations towards immediate gratification, making it difficult
to recognize and respect the hierarchy of the true values of human
existence;
c) because in some countries new forms of religious fundamentalism are
emerging which covertly, or even openly, deny to citizens of faiths
other than that of the majority the full exercise of their civil and
religious rights, preventing them from taking part in the cultural
process, and restricting both the Church's right to preach the Gospel
and the rights of those who hear this preaching to accept it and to be
converted to Christ. No authentic progress is possible without respect
for the natural and fundamental right to know the truth and live
according to that truth. The exercise and development of this right
includes the right to discover and freely to accept Jesus Christ, who
is man's true good.
IV. PRIVATE PROPERTY AND THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF MATERIAL GOODS
30. In Rerum novarum, Leo XIII strongly affirmed the natural character
of the right to private property, using various arguments against the
socialism of his time.65 This right, which is fundamental for the
autonomy and development of the person, has always been defended by the
Church up to our own day. At the same time, the Church teaches that the
possession of material goods is not an absolute right, and that its
limits are inscribed in its very nature as a human right.
While the Pope proclaimed the right to private ownership, he affirmed
with equal clarity that the "use" of goods, while marked by freedom, is
subordinated to their original common destination as created goods, as
well as to the will of Jesus Christ as expressed in the Gospel. Pope
Leo wrote: "those whom fortune favours are admonished ... that they
should tremble at the warnings of Jesus Christ ... and that a most
strict account must be given to the Supreme Judge for the use of all
they possess"; and quoting Saint Thomas Aquinas, he added: "But if the
question be asked, how must one's possessions be used? the Church
replies without hesitation that man should not consider his material
possessions as his own, but as common to all...", because "above the
laws and judgments of men stands the law, the judgment of Christ".
The Successors of Leo XIII have repeated this twofold affirmation: the
necessity and therefore the legitimacy of private ownership, as well as
the limits which are imposed on it. The Second Vatican Council likewise
clearly restated the traditional doctrine in words which bear
repeating: "In making use of the exterior things we lawfully possess,
we ought to regard them not just as our own but also as common, in the
sense that they can profit not only the owners but others too"; and a
little later we read: "Private property or some ownership of external
goods affords each person the scope needed for personal and family
autonomy, and should be regarded as an extension of human freedom ...
Of its nature private property also has a social function which is
based on the law of the common purpose of goods". I have returned to
this same doctrine, first in my address to the Third Conference of the
Latin American Bishops at Puebla, and later in the Encyclicals Laborem
exercens and Sollicitudo rei socialis.
31. Re-reading this teaching on the right to property and the common
destination of material wealth as it applies to the present time, the
question can be raised concerning the origin of the material goods
which sustain human life, satisfy people's needs and are an object of
their rights.
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). God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of
all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone. This is the
foundation of the universal destination of the earth's 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. But the
earth does not yield its fruits without a particular human response to
God's gift, that is to say, without work. It is through work that man,
using his intelligence and exercising his freedom, succeeds in
dominating the earth and making it a fitting home. In this way, he
makes part of the earth his own, precisely the part which he has
acquired through work; this is the origin of individual property.
Obviously, he also has the responsibility not to hinder others from
having their own part of God's gift; indeed, he must cooperate with
others so that together all can dominate the earth.
In history, these two factors — work and the land —
are to
be found at the beginning of every human society. However, they do not
always stand in the same relationship to each other. At one time the
natural fruitfulness of the earth appeared to be, and was in fact, the
primary factor of wealth, while work was, as it were, the help and
support for this fruitfulness. In our time, the role of human work is
becoming increasingly important as the productive factor both of
non-material and of material wealth. Moreover, it is becoming clearer
how a person's work is naturally interrelated with the work of others.
More than ever, work is work with others and work for others: it is a
matter of doing something for someone else. Work becomes ever more
fruitful and productive to the extent that people become more
knowledgeable of the productive potentialities of the earth and more
profoundly cognisant of the needs of those for whom their work is done.
32. In our time, in particular, there exists another form of ownership
which is becoming no less important than land: the possession of
know-how, technology and skill. The wealth of the industrialized
nations is based much more on this kind of ownership than on natural
resources.
Mention has just been made of the fact that people work with each
other, sharing in a "community of work" which embraces ever widening
circles. A person who produces something other than for his own use
generally does so in order that others may use it after they have paid
a just price, mutually agreed upon through free bargaining. It is
precisely the ability to foresee both the needs of others and the
combinations of productive factors most adapted to satisfying those
needs that constitutes another important source of wealth in modern
society. Besides, many goods cannot be adequately produced through the
work of an isolated individual; they require the cooperation of many
people in working towards a common goal. Organizing such a productive
effort, planning its duration in time, making sure that it corresponds
in a positive way to the demands which it must satisfy, and taking the
necessary risks — all this too is a source of wealth in
today's
society. In this way, the role of disciplined and creative human work
and, as an essential part of that work, initiative and entrepreneurial
ability becomes increasingly evident and decisive.70
This process, which throws practical light on a truth about the person
which Christianity has constantly affirmed, should be viewed carefully
and favourably. Indeed, besides the earth, man's principal resource is
man himself. His intelligence enables him to discover the earth's
productive potential and the many different ways in which human needs
can be satisfied. It is his disciplined work in close collaboration
with others that makes possible the creation of ever more extensive
working communities which can be relied upon to transform man's natural
and human environments. Important virtues are involved in this process,
such as diligence, industriousness, prudence in undertaking reasonable
risks, reliability and fidelity in interpersonal relationships, as well
as courage in carrying out decisions which are difficult and painful
but necessary, both for the overall working of a business and in
meeting possible set-backs.
The modern business economy has positive aspects. Its basis is human
freedom exercised in the economic field, just as it is exercised in
many other fields. Economic activity is indeed but one sector in a
great variety of human activities, and like every other sector, it
includes the right to freedom, as well as the duty of making
responsible use of freedom. But it is important to note that there are
specific differences between the trends of modern society and those of
the past, even the recent past. Whereas at one time the decisive factor
of production was the land, and later capital — understood as
a
total complex of the instruments of production — today the
decisive factor is increasingly man himself, that is, his knowledge,
especially his scientific knowledge, his capacity for interrelated and
compact organization, as well as his ability to perceive the needs of
others and to satisfy them.
33. However, the risks and problems connected with this kind of process
should be pointed out. The fact is that many people, perhaps the
majority today, do not have the means which would enable them to take
their place in an effective and humanly dignified way within a
productive system in which work is truly central. They have no
possibility of acquiring the basic knowledge which would enable them to
express their creativity and develop their potential. They have no way
of entering the network of knowledge and intercommunication which would
enable them to see their qualities appreciated and utilized. Thus, if
not actually exploited, they are to a great extent marginalized;
economic development takes place over their heads, so to speak, when it
does not actually reduce the already narrow scope of their old
subsistence economies. They are unable to compete against the goods
which are produced in ways which are new and which properly respond to
needs, needs which they had previously been accustomed to meeting
through traditional forms of organization. Allured by the dazzle of an
opulence which is beyond their reach, and at the same time driven by
necessity, these people crowd the cities of the Third World where they
are often without cultural roots, and where they are exposed to
situations of violent uncertainty, without the possibility of becoming
integrated. Their dignity is not acknowledged in any real way, and
sometimes there are even attempts to eliminate them from history
through coercive forms of demographic control which are contrary to
human dignity.
Many other people, while not completely marginalized, live in
situations in which the struggle for a bare minimum is uppermost. These
are situations in which the rules of the earliest period of capitalism
still flourish in conditions of "ruthlessness" in no way inferior to
the darkest moments of the first phase of industrialization. In other
cases the land is still the central element in the economic process,
but those who cultivate it are excluded from ownership and are reduced
to a state of quasi-servitude. In these cases, it is still possible
today, as in the days of Rerum novarum, to speak of inhuman
exploitation. In spite of the great changes which have taken place in
the more advanced societies, the human inadequacies of capitalism and
the resulting domination of things over people are far from
disappearing. In fact, for the poor, to the lack of material goods has
been added a lack of knowledge and training which prevents them from
escaping their state of humiliating subjection.
Unfortunately, the great majority of people in the Third World still
live in such conditions. It would be a mistake, however, to understand
this "world" in purely geographic terms. In some regions and in some
social sectors of that world, development programmes have been set up
which are centered on the use not so much of the material resources
available but of the "human resources".
Even in recent years it was thought that the poorest countries would
develop by isolating themselves from the world market and by depending
only on their own resources. Recent experience has shown that countries
which did this have suffered stagnation and recession, while the
countries which experienced development were those which succeeded in
taking part in the general interrelated economic activities at the
international level. It seems therefore that the chief problem is that
of gaining fair access to the international market, based not on the
unilateral principle of the exploitation of the natural resources of
these countries but on the proper use of human resources.
However, aspects typical of the Third World also appear in developed
countries, where the constant transformation of the methods of
production and consumption devalues certain acquired skills and
professional expertise, and thus requires a continual effort of
re-training and updating. Those who fail to keep up with the times can
easily be marginalized, as can the elderly, the young people who are
incapable of finding their place in the life of society and, in
general, those who are weakest or part of the so-called Fourth World.
The situation of women too is far from easy in these conditions.
34. It would appear that, on the level of individual nations and of
international relations, the free market is the most efficient
instrument for utilizing resources and effectively responding to needs.
But this is true only for those needs which are "solvent", insofar as
they are endowed with purchasing power, and for those resources which
are "marketable", insofar as they are capable of obtaining a
satisfactory price. But there are many human needs which find no place
on the market. It is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow
fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied, and not to allow those
burdened by such needs to perish. It is also necessary to help these
needy people to acquire expertise, to enter the circle of exchange, and
to develop their skills in order to make the best use of their
capacities and resources. Even prior to the logic of a fair exchange of
goods and the forms of justice appropriate to it, there exists
something which is due to man because he is man, by reason of his lofty
dignity. Inseparable from that required "something" is the possibility
to survive and, at the same time, to make an active contribution to the
common good of humanity.
In Third World contexts, certain objectives stated by Rerum novarum
remain valid, and, in some cases, still constitute a goal yet to be
reached, if man's work and his very being are not to be reduced to the
level of a mere commodity. These objectives include a sufficient wage
for the support of the family, social insurance for old age and
unemployment, and adequate protection for the conditions of employment.
35. Here we find a wide range of opportunities for commitment and
effort in the name of justice on the part of trade unions and other
workers' organizations. These defend workers' rights and protect their
interests as persons, while fulfilling a vital cultural role, so as to
enable workers to participate more fully and honourably in the life of
their nation and to assist them along the path of development.
In this sense, it is right to speak of a struggle against an economic
system, if the latter is understood as a method of upholding the
absolute predominance of capital, the possession of the means of
production and of the land, in contrast to the free and personal nature
of human work. In the struggle against such a system, what is being
proposed as an alternative is not the socialist system, which in fact
turns out to be State capitalism, but rather a society of free work, of
enterprise and of participation. Such a society is not directed against
the market, but demands that the market be appropriately controlled by
the forces of society and by the State, so as to guarantee that the
basic needs of the whole of society are satisfied.
The Church acknowledges the legitimate role of profit as an indication
that a business is functioning well. When a firm makes a profit, this
means that productive factors have been properly employed and
corresponding human needs have been duly satisfied. But profitability
is not the only indicator of a firm's condition. It is possible for the
financial accounts to be in order, and yet for the people —
who
make up the firm's most valuable asset — to be humiliated and
their dignity offended. Besides being morally inadmissible, this will
eventually have negative repercussions on the firm's economic
efficiency. In fact, the purpose of a business firm is not simply to
make a profit, but is to be found in its very existence as a community
of persons who in various ways are endeavouring to satisfy their basic
needs, and who form a particular group at the service of the whole of
society. Profit is a regulator of the life of a business, but it is not
the only one; other human and moral factors must also be considered
which, in the long term, are at least equally important for the life of
a business.
We have seen that it is unacceptable to say that the defeat of
so-called "Real Socialism" leaves capitalism as the only model of
economic organization. It is necessary to break down the barriers and
monopolies which leave so many countries on the margins of development,
and to provide all individuals and nations with the basic conditions
which will enable them to share in development. This goal calls for
programmed and responsible efforts on the part of the entire
international community. Stronger nations must offer weaker ones
opportunities for taking their place in international life, and the
latter must learn how to use these opportunities by making the
necessary efforts and sacrifices and by ensuring political and economic
stability, the certainty of better prospects for the future, the
improvement of workers' skills, and the training of competent business
leaders who are conscious of their responsibilities.
At present, the positive efforts which have been made along these lines
are being affected by the still largely unsolved problem of the foreign
debt of the poorer countries. The principle that debts must be paid is
certainly just. However, it is not right to demand or expect payment
when the effect would be the imposition of political choices leading to
hunger and despair for entire peoples. It cannot be expected that the
debts which have been contracted should be paid at the price of
unbearable sacrifices. In such cases it is necessary to find
— as
in fact is partly happening — ways to lighten, defer or even
cancel the debt, compatible with the fundamental right of peoples to
subsistence and progress.
36. It would now be helpful to direct our attention to the specific
problems and threats emerging within the more advanced economies and
which are related to their particular characteristics. In earlier
stages of development, man always lived under the weight of necessity.
His needs were few and were determined, to a degree, by the objective
structures of his physical make-up. Economic activity was directed
towards satisfying these needs. It is clear that today the problem is
not only one of supplying people with a sufficient quantity of goods,
but also of responding to a demand for quality: the quality of the
goods to be produced and consumed, the quality of the services to be
enjoyed, the quality of the environment and of life in general.
To call for an existence which is qualitatively more satisfying is of
itself legitimate, but one cannot fail to draw attention to the new
responsibilities and dangers connected with this phase of history. The
manner in which new needs arise and are defined is always marked by a
more or less appropriate concept of man and of his true good. A given
culture reveals its overall understanding of life through the choices
it makes in production and consumption. It is here that the phenomenon
of consumerism arises. In singling out new needs and new means to meet
them, one must be guided by a comprehensive picture of man which
respects all the dimensions of his being and which subordinates his
material and instinctive dimensions to his interior and spiritual ones.
If, on the contrary, a direct appeal is made to his instincts
—
while ignoring in various ways the reality of the person as intelligent
and free — then consumer attitudes and life-styles can be
created
which are objectively improper and often damaging to his physical and
spiritual health. Of itself, an economic system does not possess
criteria for correctly distinguishing new and higher forms of
satisfying human needs from artificial new needs which hinder the
formation of a mature personality. Thus a great deal of educational and
cultural work is urgently needed, including the education of consumers
in the responsible use of their power of choice, the formation of a
strong sense of responsibility among producers and among people in the
mass media in particular, as well as the necessary intervention by
public authorities.
A striking example of artificial consumption contrary to the health and
dignity of the human person, and certainly not easy to control, is the
use of drugs. Widespread drug use is a sign of a serious malfunction in
the social system; it also implies a materialistic and, in a certain
sense, destructive "reading" of human needs. In this way the innovative
capacity of a free economy is brought to a one-sided and inadequate
conclusion. Drugs, as well as pornography and other forms of
consumerism which exploit the frailty of the weak, tend to fill the
resulting spiritual void.
It is not wrong to want to live better; what is wrong is a style of
life which is presumed to be better when it is directed towards
"having" rather than "being", and which wants to have more, not in
order to be more but in order to spend life in enjoyment as an end in
itself. It is therefore necessary to create life-styles in which the
quest for truth, beauty, goodness and communion with others for the
sake of common growth are the factors which determine consumer choices,
savings and investments. In this regard, it is not a matter of the duty
of charity alone, that is, the duty to give from one's "abundance", and
sometimes even out of one's needs, in order to provide what is
essential for the life of a poor person. I am referring to the fact
that even the decision to invest in one place rather than another, in
one productive sector rather than another, is always a moral and
cultural choice. Given the utter necessity of certain economic
conditions and of political stability, the decision to invest, that is,
to offer people an opportunity to make good use of their own labour, is
also determined by an attitude of human sympathy and trust in
Providence, which reveal the human quality of the person making such
decisions.
37. Equally worrying is the ecological question which accompanies the
problem of consumerism and which is closely connected to it. In his
desire to have and to enjoy rather than to be and to grow, man consumes
the resources of the earth and his own life in an excessive and
disordered way. At the root of the senseless destruction of the natural
environment lies an anthropological error, which unfortunately is
widespread in our day. Man, who discovers his capacity to transform and
in a certain sense create the world through his own work, forgets that
this is always based on God's prior and original gift of the things
that are. Man thinks that he can make arbitrary use of the earth,
subjecting it without restraint to his will, as though it did not have
its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose, which man can indeed
develop but must not betray. Instead of carrying out his role as a
co-operator with God in the work of creation, man sets himself up in
place of God and thus ends up provoking a rebellion on the part of
nature, which is more tyrannized than governed by him.
In all this, one notes first the poverty or narrowness of man's
outlook, motivated as he is by a desire to possess things rather than
to relate them to the truth, and lacking that disinterested, unselfish
and aesthetic attitude that is born of wonder in the presence of being
and of the beauty which enables one to see in visible things the
message of the invisible God who created them. In this regard, humanity
today must be conscious of its duties and obligations towards future
generations.
38. In addition to the irrational destruction of the natural
environment, we must also mention the more serious destruction of the
human environment, something which is by no means receiving the
attention it deserves. Although people are rightly worried —
though much less than they should be — about preserving the
natural habitats of the various animal species threatened with
extinction, because they realize that each of these species makes its
particular contribution to the balance of nature in general, too little
effort is made to safeguard the moral conditions for an authentic
"human ecology". Not only has God given the earth to man, who must use
it with respect for the original good purpose for which it was given to
him, but man too is God's gift to man. He must therefore respect the
natural and moral structure with which he has been endowed. In this
context, mention should be made of the serious problems of modern
urbanization, of the need for urban planning which is concerned with
how people are to live, and of the attention which should be given to a
"social ecology" of work.
Man receives from God his essential dignity and with it the capacity to
transcend every social order so as to move towards truth and goodness.
But he is also conditioned by the social structure in which he lives,
by the education he has received and by his environment. These elements
can either help or hinder his living in accordance with the truth. The
decisions which create a human environment can give rise to specific
structures of sin which impede the full realization of those who are in
any way oppressed by them. To destroy such structures and replace them
with more authentic forms of living in community is a task which
demands courage and patience.
39. The first and fundamental structure for "human ecology" is the
family, in which man receives his first formative ideas about truth and
goodness, and learns what it means to love and to be loved, and thus
what it actually means to be a person. Here we mean the family founded
on marriage, in which the mutual gift of self by husband and wife
creates an environment in which children can be born and develop their
potentialities, become aware of their dignity and prepare to face their
unique and individual destiny. But it often happens that people are
discouraged from creating the proper conditions for human reproduction
and are led to consider themselves and their lives as a series of
sensations to be experienced rather than as a work to be accomplished.
The result is a lack of freedom, which causes a person to reject a
commitment to enter into a stable relationship with another person and
to bring children into the world, or which leads people to consider
children as one of the many "things" which an individual can have or
not have, according to taste, and which compete with other
possibilities.
It is necessary to go back to seeing the family as the sanctuary of
life. The family is indeed sacred: it is the place in which life
— the gift of God — can be properly welcomed and
protected
against the many attacks to which it is exposed, and can develop in
accordance with what constitutes authentic human growth. In the face of
the so-called culture of death, the family is the heart of the culture
of life.
Human ingenuity seems to be directed more towards limiting, suppressing
or destroying the sources of life — including recourse to
abortion, which unfortunately is so widespread in the world —
than towards defending and opening up the possibilities of life. The
Encyclical Sollicitudo rei socialis denounced systematic
anti-childbearing campaigns which, on the basis of a distorted view of
the demographic problem and in a climate of "absolute lack of respect
for the freedom of choice of the parties involved", often subject them
"to intolerable pressures ... in order to force them to submit to this
new form of oppression". These policies are extending their field of
action by the use of new techniques, to the point of poisoning the
lives of millions of defenceless human beings, as if in a form of
"chemical warfare".
These criticisms are directed not so much against an economic system as
against an ethical and cultural system. The economy in fact is only one
aspect and one dimension of the whole of human activity. If economic
life is absolutized, if the production and consumption of goods become
the centre of social life and society's only value, not subject to any
other value, the reason is to be found not so much in the economic
system itself as in the fact that the entire socio-cultural system, by
ignoring the ethical and religious dimension, has been weakened, and
ends by limiting itself to the production of goods and services alone.
All of this can be summed up by repeating once more that economic
freedom is only one element of human freedom. When it becomes
autonomous, when man is seen more as a producer or consumer of goods
than as a subject who produces and consumes in order to live, then
economic freedom loses its necessary relationship to the human person
and ends up by alienating and oppressing him.80
40. It is the task of the State to provide for the defence and
preservation of common goods such as the natural and human
environments, which cannot be safeguarded simply by market forces. Just
as in the time of primitive capitalism the State had the duty of
defending the basic rights of workers, so now, with the new capitalism,
the State and all of society have the duty of defending those
collective goods which, among others, constitute the essential
framework for the legitimate pursuit of personal goals on the part of
each individual.
Here we find a new limit on the market: there are collective and
qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There
are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which
by their very nature cannot and must not be bought or sold. Certainly
the mechanisms of the market offer secure advantages: they help to
utilize resources better; they promote the exchange of products; above
all they give central place to the person's desires and preferences,
which, in a contract, meet the desires and preferences of another
person. Nevertheless, these mechanisms carry the risk of an "idolatry"
of the market, an idolatry which ignores the existence of goods which
by their nature are not and cannot be mere commodities.
41. Marxism criticized capitalist bourgeois societies, blaming them for
the commercialization and alienation of human existence. This rebuke is
of course based on a mistaken and inadequate idea of alienation,
derived solely from the sphere of relationships of production and
ownership, that is, giving them a materialistic foundation and moreover
denying the legitimacy and positive value of market relationships even
in their own sphere. Marxism thus ends up by affirming that only in a
collective society can alienation be eliminated. However, the
historical experience of socialist countries has sadly demonstrated
that collectivism does not do away with alienation but rather increases
it, adding to it a lack of basic necessities and economic inefficiency.
The historical experience of the West, for its part, shows that even if
the Marxist analysis and its foundation of alienation are false,
nevertheless alienation — and the loss of the authentic
meaning
of life — is a reality in Western societies too. This happens
in
consumerism, when people are ensnared in a web of false and superficial
gratifications rather than being helped to experience their personhood
in an authentic and concrete way. Alienation is found also in work,
when it is organized so as to ensure maximum returns and profits with
no concern whether the worker, through his own labour, grows or
diminishes as a person, either through increased sharing in a genuinely
supportive community or through increased isolation in a maze of
relationships marked by destructive competitiveness and estrangement,
in which he is considered only a means and not an end.
The concept of alienation needs to be led back to the Christian vision
of reality, by recognizing in alienation a reversal of means and ends.
When man does not recognize in himself and in others the value and
grandeur of the human person, he effectively deprives himself of the
possibility of benefitting from his humanity and of entering into that
relationship of solidarity and communion with others for which God
created him. Indeed, it is through the free gift of self that man truly
finds himself. This gift is made possible by the human person's
essential "capacity for transcendence". Man cannot give himself to a
purely human plan for reality, to an abstract ideal or to a false
utopia. As a person, he can give himself to another person or to other
persons, and ultimately to God, who is the author of his being and who
alone can fully accept his gift. A man is alienated if he refuses to
transcend himself and to live the experience of selfgiving and of the
formation of an authentic human community oriented towards his final
destiny, which is God. A society is alienated if its forms of social
organization, production and consumption make it more difficult to
offer this gift of self and to establish this solidarity between people.
Exploitation, at least in the forms analyzed and described by Karl
Marx, has been overcome in Western society. Alienation, however, has
not been overcome as it exists in various forms of exploitation, when
people use one another, and when they seek an ever more refined
satisfaction of their individual and secondary needs, while ignoring
the principal and authentic needs which ought to regulate the manner of
satisfying the other ones too.83 A person who is concerned solely or
primarily with possessing and enjoying, who is no longer able to
control his instincts and passions, or to subordinate them by obedience
to the truth, cannot be free: obedience to the truth about God and man
is the first condition of freedom, making it possible for a person to
order his needs and desires and to choose the means of satisfying them
according to a correct scale of values, so that the ownership of things
may become an occasion of growth for him. This growth can be hindered
as a result of manipulation by the means of mass communication, which
impose fashions and trends of opinion through carefully orchestrated
repetition, without it being possible to subject to critical scrutiny
the premises on which these fashions and trends are based.
42. Returning now to the initial question: can it perhaps be said that,
after the failure of Communism, capitalism is the victorious social
system, and that capitalism should be the goal of the countries now
making efforts to rebuild their economy and society? Is this the model
which ought to be proposed to the countries of the Third World which
are searching for the path to true economic and civil progress?
The answer is obviously complex. If by "capitalism" is meant an
economic system which recognizes the fundamental and positive role of
business, the market, private property and the resulting responsibility
for the means of production, as well as free human creativity in the
economic sector, then the answer is certainly in the affirmative, even
though it would perhaps be more appropriate to speak of a "business
economy", "market economy" or simply "free economy". But if by
"capitalism" is meant a system in which freedom in the economic sector
is not circumscribed within a strong juridical framework which places
it at the service of human freedom in its totality, and which sees it
as a particular aspect of that freedom, the core of which is ethical
and religious, then the reply is certainly negative.
The Marxist solution has failed, but the realities of marginalization
and exploitation remain in the world, especially the Third World, as
does the reality of human alienation, especially in the more advanced
countries. Against these phenomena the Church strongly raises her
voice. Vast multitudes are still living in conditions of great material
and moral poverty. The collapse of the Communist system in so many
countries certainly removes an obstacle to facing these problems in an
appropriate and realistic way, but it is not enough to bring about
their solution. Indeed, there is a risk that a radical capitalistic
ideology could spread which refuses even to consider these problems, in
the a priori belief that any attempt to solve them is doomed to
failure, and which blindly entrusts their solution to the free
development of market forces.
43. The Church has no models to present; models that are real and truly
effective can only arise within the framework of different historical
situations, through the efforts of all those who responsibly confront
concrete problems in all their social, economic, political and cultural
aspects, as these interact with one another.84 For such a task the
Church offers her social teaching as an indispensable and ideal
orientation, a teaching which, as already mentioned, recognizes the
positive value of the market and of enterprise, but which at the same
time points out that these need to be oriented towards the common good.
This teaching also recognizes the legitimacy of workers' efforts to
obtain full respect for their dignity and to gain broader areas of
participation in the life of industrial enterprises so that, while
cooperating with others and under the direction of others, they can in
a certain sense "work for themselves" through the exercise of their
intelligence and freedom.
The integral development of the human person through work does not
impede but rather promotes the greater productivity and efficiency of
work itself, even though it may weaken consolidated power structures. A
business cannot be considered only as a "society of capital goods"; it
is also a "society of persons" in which people participate in different
ways and with specific responsibilities, whether they supply the
necessary capital for the company's activities or take part in such
activities through their labour. To achieve these goals there is still
need for a broad associated workers' movement, directed towards the
liberation and promotion of the whole person.
In the light of today's "new things", we have re-read the relationship
between individual or private property and the universal destination of
material wealth. Man fulfils himself by using his intelligence and
freedom. In so doing he utilizes the things of this world as objects
and instruments and makes them his own. The foundation of the right to
private initiative and ownership is to be found in this activity. By
means of his work man commits himself, not only for his own sake but
also for others and with others. Each person collaborates in the work
of others and for their good. Man works in order to provide for the
needs of his family, his community, his nation, and ultimately all
humanity. Moreover, he collaborates in the work of his fellow
employees, as well as in the work of suppliers and in the customers'
use of goods, in a progressively expanding chain of solidarity.
Ownership of the means of production, whether in industry or
agriculture, is just and legitimate if it serves useful work. It
becomes illegitimate, however, when it is not utilized or when it
serves to impede the work of others, in an effort to gain a profit
which is not the result of the overall expansion of work and the wealth
of society, but rather is the result of curbing them or of illicit
exploitation, speculation or the breaking of solidarity among working
people. Ownership of this kind has no justification, and represents an
abuse in the sight of God and man.
The obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow also
presumes the right to do so. A society in which this right is
systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers
to reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an
ethical point of view, nor can that society attain social peace.88 Just
as the person fully realizes himself in the free gift of self, so too
ownership morally justifies itself in the creation, at the proper time
and in the proper way, of opportunities for work and human growth for
all.
V. STATE AND CULTURE
44. Pope Leo XIII was aware of the need for a sound theory of the State
in order to ensure the normal development of man's spiritual and
temporal activities, both of which are indispensable.89 For this
reason, in one passage of Rerum novarum he presents the organization of
society according to the three powers — legislative,
executive
and judicial — , something which at the time represented a
novelty in Church teaching. Such an ordering reflects a realistic
vision of man's social nature, which calls for legislation capable of
protecting the freedom of all. To that end, it is preferable that each
power be balanced by other powers and by other spheres of
responsibility which keep it within proper bounds. This is the
principle of the "rule of law", in which the law is sovereign, and not
the arbitrary will of individuals.
In modern times, this concept has been opposed by totalitarianism,
which, in its Marxist-Leninist form, maintains that some people, by
virtue of a deeper knowledge of the laws of the development of society,
or through membership of a particular class or through contact with the
deeper sources of the collective consciousness, are exempt from error
and can therefore arrogate to themselves the exercise of absolute
power. It must be added that totalitarianism arises out of a denial of
truth in the objective sense. If there is no transcendent truth, in
obedience to which man achieves his full identity, then there is no
sure principle for guaranteeing just relations between people. Their
self-interest as a class, group or nation would inevitably set them in
opposition to one another. If one does not acknowledge transcendent
truth, then the force of power takes over, and each person tends to
make full use of the means at his disposal in order to impose his own
interests or his own opinion, with no regard for the rights of others.
People are then respected only to the extent that they can be exploited
for selfish ends. Thus, the root of modern totalitarianism is to be
found in the denial of the transcendent dignity of the human person
who, as the visible image of the invisible God, is therefore by his
very nature the subject of rights which no one may violate —
no
individual, group, class, nation or State. Not even the majority of a
social body may violate these rights, by going against the minority, by
isolating, oppressing, or exploiting it, or by attempting to annihilate
it.
45. The culture and praxis of totalitarianism also involve a rejection
of the Church. The State or the party which claims to be able to lead
history towards perfect goodness, and which sets itself above all
values, cannot tolerate the affirmation of an objective criterion of
good and evil beyond the will of those in power, since such a
criterion, in given circumstances, could be used to judge their
actions. This explains why totalitarianism attempts to destroy the
Church, or at least to reduce her to submission, making her an
instrument of its own ideological apparatus.
Furthermore, the totalitarian State tends to absorb within itself the
nation, society, the family, religious groups and individuals
themselves. In defending her own freedom, the Church is also defending
the human person, who must obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29), as
well as defending the family, the various social organizations and
nations — all of which enjoy their own spheres of autonomy
and
sovereignty.
46. The Church values the democratic system inasmuch as it ensures the
participation of citizens in making political choices, guarantees to
the governed the possibility both of electing and holding accountable
those who govern them, and of replacing them through peaceful means
when appropriate.93 Thus she cannot encourage the formation of narrow
ruling groups which usurp the power of the State for individual
interests or for ideological ends.
Authentic democracy is possible only in a State ruled by law, and on
the basis of a correct conception of the human person. It requires that
the necessary conditions be present for the advancement both of the
individual through education and formation in true ideals, and of the
"subjectivity" of society through the creation of structures of
participation and shared responsibility. Nowadays there is a tendency
to claim that agnosticism and sceptical relativism are the philosophy
and the basic attitude which correspond to democratic forms of
political life. Those who are convinced that they know the truth and
firmly adhere to it are considered unreliable from a democratic point
of view, since they do not accept that truth is determined by the
majority, or that it is subject to variation according to different
political trends. It must be observed in this regard that if there is
no ultimate truth to guide and direct political activity, then ideas
and convictions can easily be manipulated for reasons of power. As
history demonstrates, a democracy without values easily turns into open
or thinly disguised totalitarianism.
Nor does the Church close her eyes to the danger of fanaticism or
fundamentalism among those who, in the name of an ideology which
purports to be scientific or religious, claim the right to impose on
others their own concept of what is true and good. Christian truth is
not of this kind. Since it is not an ideology, the Christian faith does
not presume to imprison changing socio-political realities in a rigid
schema, and it recognizes that human life is realized in history in
conditions that are diverse and imperfect. Furthermore, in constantly
reaffirming the transcendent dignity of the person, the Church's method
is always that of respect for freedom.
But freedom attains its full development only by accepting the truth.
In a world without truth, freedom loses its foundation and man is
exposed to the violence of passion and to manipulation, both open and
hidden. The Christian upholds freedom and serves it, constantly
offering to others the truth which he has known (cf. Jn 8:31-32), in
accordance with the missionary nature of his vocation. While paying
heed to every fragment of truth which he encounters in the life
experience and in the culture of individuals and of nations, he will
not fail to affirm in dialogue with others all that his faith and the
correct use of reason have enabled him to understand.
47. Following the collapse of Communist totalitarianism and of many
other totalitarian and "national security" regimes, today we are
witnessing a predominance, not without signs of opposition, of the
democratic ideal, together with lively attention to and concern for
human rights. But for this very reason it is necessary for peoples in
the process of reforming their systems to give democracy an authentic
and solid foundation through the explicit recognition of those rights.
Among the most important of these rights, mention must be made of 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; the right
to live in a united family and in a moral environment conducive to the
growth of the child's personality; the right to develop one's
intelligence and freedom in seeking and knowing the truth; the right to
share in the work which makes wise use of the earth's material
resources, and to derive from that work the means to support oneself
and one's dependents; and the right freely to establish a family, to
have and to rear children through the responsible exercise of one's
sexuality. 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.
Even in countries with democratic forms of government, these rights are
not always fully respected. Here we are referring not only to the
scandal of abortion, but also to different aspects of a crisis within
democracies themselves, which seem at times to have lost the ability to
make decisions aimed at the common good. Certain demands which arise
within society are sometimes not examined in accordance with criteria
of justice and morality, but rather on the basis of the electoral or
financial power of the groups promoting them. With time, such
distortions of political conduct create distrust and apathy, with a
subsequent decline in the political participation and civic spirit of
the general population, which feels abused and disillusioned. As a
result, there is a growing inability to situate particular interests
within the framework of a coherent vision of the common good. The
latter is not simply the sum total of particular interests; rather it
involves an assessment and integration of those interests on the basis
of a balanced hierarchy of values; ultimately, it demands a correct
understanding of the dignity and the rights of the person.
The Church respects the legitimate autonomy of the democratic order and
is not entitled to express preferences for this or that institutional
or constitutional solution. Her contribution to the political order is
precisely her vision of the dignity of the person revealed in all its
fulness in the mystery of the Incarnate Word.
48. These general observations also apply to the role of the State in
the economic sector. Economic activity, especially the activity of a
market economy, cannot be conducted in an institutional, juridical or
political vacuum. On the contrary, it presupposes sure guarantees of
individual freedom and private property, as well as a stable currency
and efficient public services. Hence the principle task of the State is
to guarantee this security, so that those who work and produce can
enjoy the fruits of their labours and thus feel encouraged to work
efficiently and honestly. The absence of stability, together with the
corruption of public officials and the spread of improper sources of
growing rich and of easy profits deriving from illegal or purely
speculative activities, constitutes one of the chief obstacles to
development and to the economic order.
Another task of the State is that of overseeing and directing the
exercise of human rights in the economic sector. However, primary
responsibility in this area belongs not to the State but to individuals
and to the various groups and associations which make up society. The
State could not directly ensure the right to work for all its citizens
unless it controlled every aspect of economic life and restricted the
free initiative of individuals. This does not mean, however, that the
State has no competence in this domain, as was claimed by those who
argued against any rules in the economic sphere. Rather, the State has
a duty to sustain business activities by creating conditions which will
ensure job opportunities, by stimulating those activities where they
are lacking or by supporting them in moments of crisis.
The State has the further right to intervene when particular monopolies
create delays or obstacles to development. In addition to the tasks of
harmonizing and guiding development, in exceptional circumstances the
State can also exercise a substitute function, when social sectors or
business systems are too weak or are just getting under way, and are
not equal to the task at hand. Such supplementary interventions, which
are justified by urgent reasons touching the common good, must be as
brief as possible, so as to avoid removing permanently from society and
business systems the functions which are properly theirs, and so as to
avoid enlarging excessively the sphere of State intervention to the
detriment of both economic and civil freedom.
In recent years the range of such intervention has vastly expanded, to
the point of creating a new type of State, the so-called "Welfare
State". This has happened in some countries in order to respond better
to many needs and demands, by remedying forms of poverty and
deprivation unworthy of the human person. However, excesses and abuses,
especially in recent years, have provoked very harsh criticisms of the
Welfare State, dubbed the "Social Assistance State". Malfunctions and
defects in the Social Assistance State are the result of an inadequate
understanding of the tasks proper to the State. Here again the
principle of subsidiarity must be respected: a community of a higher
order should not interfere in the internal life of a community of a
lower order, depriving the latter of its functions, but rather should
support it in case of need and help to coordinate its activity with the
activities of the rest of society, always with a view to the common
good.100
By intervening directly and depriving society of its responsibility,
the Social Assistance State leads to a loss of human energies and an
inordinate increase of public agencies, which are dominated more by
bureaucratic ways of thinking than by concern for serving their
clients, and which are accompanied by an enormous increase in spending.
In fact, it would appear that needs are best understood and satisfied
by people who are closest to them and who act as neighbours to those in
need. It should be added that certain kinds of demands often call for a
response which is not simply material but which is capable of
perceiving the deeper human need. One thinks of the condition of
refugees, immigrants, the elderly, the sick, and all those in
circumstances which call for assistance, such as drug abusers: all
these people can be helped effectively only by those who offer them
genuine fraternal support, in addition to the necessary care.
49. Faithful to the mission received from Christ her Founder, the
Church has always been present and active among the needy, offering
them material assistance in ways that neither humiliate nor reduce them
to mere objects of assistance, but which help them to escape their
precarious situation by promoting their dignity as persons. With
heartfelt gratitude to God it must be pointed out that active charity
has never ceased to be practised in the Church; indeed, today it is
showing a manifold and gratifying increase. In this regard, special
mention must be made of volunteer work, which the Church favours and
promotes by urging everyone to cooperate in supporting and encouraging
its undertakings.
In order to overcome today's widespread individualistic mentality, what
is required is a concrete commitment to solidarity and charity,
beginning in the family with the mutual support of husband and wife and
the care which the different generations give to one another. In this
sense the family too can be called a community of work and solidarity.
It can happen, however, that when a family does decide to live up fully
to its vocation, it finds itself without the necessary support from the
State and without sufficient resources. It is urgent therefore to
promote not only family policies, but also those social policies which
have the family as their principle object, policies which assist the
family by providing adequate resources and efficient means of support,
both for bringing up children and for looking after the elderly, so as
to avoid distancing the latter from the family unit and in order to
strengthen relations between generations.
Apart from the family, other intermediate communities exercise primary
functions and give life to specific networks of solidarity. These
develop as real communities of persons and strengthen the social
fabric, preventing society from becoming an anonymous and impersonal
mass, as unfortunately often happens today. It is in interrelationships
on many levels that a person lives, and that society becomes more
"personalized". The individual today is often suffocated between two
poles represented by the State and the marketplace. At times it seems
as though he exists only as a producer and consumer of goods, or as an
object of State administration. People lose sight of the fact that life
in society has neither the market nor the State as its final purpose,
since life itself has a unique value which the State and the market
must serve. Man remains above all a being who seeks the truth and
strives to live in that truth, deepening his understanding of it
through a dialogue which involves past and future generations.
50. From this open search for truth, which is renewed in every
generation, the culture of a nation derives its character. Indeed, the
heritage of values which has been received and handed down is always
challenged by the young. To challenge does not necessarily mean to
destroy or reject a priori, but above all to put these values to the
test in one's own life, and through this existential verification to
make them more real, relevant and personal, distinguishing the valid
elements in the tradition from false and erroneous ones, or from
obsolete forms which can be usefully replaced by others more suited to
the times.
In this context, it is appropriate to recall that evangelization too
plays a role in the culture of the various nations, sustaining culture
in its progress towards the truth, and assisting in the work of its
purification and enrichment. However, when a culture becomes inward
looking, and tries to perpetuate obsolete ways of living by rejecting
any exchange or debate with regard to the truth about man, then it
becomes sterile and is heading for decadence.
51. All human activity takes place within a culture and interacts with
culture. For an adequate formation of a culture, the involvement of the
whole man is required, whereby he exercises his creativity,
intelligence, and knowledge of the world and of people. Furthermore, he
displays his capacity for self-control, personal sacrifice, solidarity
and readiness to promote the common good. Thus the first and most
important task is accomplished within man's heart. The way in which he
is involved in building his own future depends on the understanding he
has of himself and of his own destiny. It is on this level that the
Church's specific and decisive contribution to true culture is to be
found. The Church promotes those aspects of human behaviour which
favour a true culture of peace, as opposed to models in which the
individual is lost in the crowd, in which the role of his initiative
and freedom is neglected, and in which his greatness is posited in the
arts of conflict and war. The Church renders this service to human
society by preaching the truth about the creation of the world, which
God has placed in human hands so that people may make it fruitful and
more perfect through their work; and by preaching the truth about the
Redemption, whereby the Son of God has saved mankind and at the same
time has united all people, making them responsible for one another.
Sacred Scripture continually speaks to us of an active commitment to
our neighbour and demands of us a shared responsibility for all of
humanity.
This duty is not limited to one's own family, nation or State, but
extends progressively to all mankind, since no one can consider himself
extraneous or indifferent to the lot of another member of the human
family. No one can say that he is not responsible for the well-being of
his brother or sister (cf. Gen 4:9; Lk 10:29-37; Mt 25:31-46).
Attentive and pressing concern for one's neighbour in a moment of need
— made easier today because of the new means of communication
which have brought people closer together — is especially
important with regard to in the search for ways to resolve
international conflicts other than by war. It is not hard to see that
the terrifying power of the means of destruction — to which
even
medium and small-sized countries have access — and the ever
closer links between the peoples of the whole world make it very
difficult or practically impossible to limit the consequences of a
conflict.
52. Pope Benedict XV and his Successors clearly understood this danger.
I myself, on the occasion of the recent tragic war in the Persian Gulf,
repeated the cry: "Never again war!". No, never again war, which
destroys the lives of innocent people, teaches how to kill, throws into
upheaval even the lives of those who do the killing and leaves behind a
trail of resentment and hatred, thus making it all the more difficult
to find a just solution of the very problems which provoked the war.
Just as the time has finally come when in individual States a system of
private vendetta and reprisal has given way to the rule of law, so too
a similar step forward is now urgently needed in the international
community. Furthermore, it must not be forgotten that at the root of
war there are usually real and serious grievances: injustices suffered,
legitimate aspirations frustrated, poverty, and the exploitation of
multitudes of desperate people who see no real possibility of improving
their lot by peaceful means.
For this reason, another name for peace is development. Just as there
is a collective responsibility for avoiding war, so too there is a
collective responsibility for promoting development. Just as within
individual societies it is possible and right to organize a solid
economy which will direct the functioning of the market to the common
good, so too there is a similar need for adequate interventions on the
international level. For this to happen, a great effort must be made to
enhance mutual understanding and knowledge, and to increase the
sensitivity of consciences. This is the culture which is hoped for, one
which fosters trust in the human potential of the poor, and
consequently in their ability to improve their condition through work
or to make a positive contribution to economic prosperity. But to
accomplish this, the poor — be they individuals or nations
— need to be provided with realistic opportunities. Creating
such
conditions calls for a concerted worldwide effort to promote
development, an effort which also involves sacrificing the positions of
income and of power enjoyed by the more developed economies.
This may mean making important changes in established life-styles, in
order to limit the waste of environmental and human resources, thus
enabling every individual and all the peoples of the earth to have a
sufficient share of those resources. In addition, the new material and
spiritual resources must be utilized which are the result of the work
and culture of peoples who today are on the margins of the
international community, so as to obtain an overall human enrichment of
the family of nations.
VI. MAN IS THE WAY OF THE CHURCH
53. Faced with the poverty of the working class, Pope Leo XIII wrote:
"We approach this subject with confidence, and in the exercise of the
rights which manifestly pertain to us ... By keeping silence we would
seem to neglect the duty incumbent on us". During the last hundred
years the Church has repeatedly expressed her thinking, while closely
following the continuing development of the social question. She has
certainly not done this in order to recover former privileges or to
impose her own vision. Her sole purpose has been care and
responsibility for man, who has been entrusted to her by Christ
himself: for this man, whom, as the Second Vatican Council recalls, is
the only creature on earth which God willed for its own sake, and for
which God has his plan, that is, a share in eternal salvation. We are
not dealing here with man in the "abstract", but with the real,
"concrete", "historical" man. We are dealing with each individual,
since each one is included in the mystery of Redemption, and through
this mystery Christ has united himself with each one for ever. It
follows that the Church cannot abandon man, and that "this man is the
primary route that the Church must travel in fulfilling her mission ...
the way traced out by Christ himself, the way that leads invariably
through the mystery of the Incarnation and the Redemption".
This, and this alone, is the principle which inspires the Church's
social doctrine. The Church has gradually developed that doctrine in a
systematic way, above all in the century that has followed the date we
are commemorating, precisely because the horizon of the Church's whole
wealth of doctrine is man in his concrete reality as sinful and
righteous.
54. Today, the Church's social doctrine focuses especially on man as he
is involved in a complex network of relationships within modern
societies. The human sciences and philosophy are helpful for
interpreting man's central place within society and for enabling him to
understand himself better as a "social being". However, man's true
identity is only fully revealed to him through faith, and it is
precisely from faith that the Church's social teaching begins. While
drawing upon all the contributions made by the sciences and philosophy,
her social teaching is aimed at helping man on the path of salvation.
The Encyclical Rerum novarum can be read as a valid contribution to
socio-economic analysis at the end of the nineteenth century, but its
specific value derives from the fact that it is a document of the
Magisterium and is fully a part of the Church's evangelizing mission,
together with many other documents of this nature. Thus the Church's
social teaching is itself a valid instrument of evangelization. As
such, it proclaims God and his mystery of salvation in Christ to every
human being, and for that very reason reveals man to himself. In this
light, and only in this light, does it concern itself with everything
else: the human rights of the individual, and in particular of the
"working class", the family and education, the duties of the State, the
ordering of national and international society, economic life, culture,
war and peace, and respect for life from the moment of conception until
death.
55. The Church receives "the meaning of man" from Divine Revelation.
"In order to know man, authentic man, man in his fullness, one must
know God", said Pope Paul VI, and he went on to quote Saint Catherine
of Siena, who, in prayer, expressed the same idea: "In your nature, O
eternal Godhead, I shall know my own nature".
Christian anthropology therefore is really a chapter of theology, and
for this reason, the Church's social doctrine, by its concern for man
and by its interest in him and in the way he conducts himself in the
world, "belongs to the field ... of theology and particularly of moral
theology". The theological dimension is needed both for interpreting
and solving present-day problems in human society. It is worth noting
that this is true in contrast both to the "atheistic" solution, which
deprives man of one of his basic dimensions, namely the spiritual one,
and to permissive and consumerist solutions, which under various
pretexts seek to convince man that he is free from every law and from
God himself, thus imprisoning him within a selfishness which ultimately
harms both him and others.
When the Church proclaims God's salvation to man, when she offers and
communicates the life of God through the sacraments, when she gives
direction to human life through the commandments of love of God and
neighbour, she contributes to the enrichment of human dignity. But just
as the Church can never abandon her religious and transcendent mission
on behalf of man, so too she is aware that today her activity meets
with particular difficulties and obstacles. That is why she devotes
herself with ever new energies and methods to an evangelization which
promotes the whole human being. Even on the eve of the third Millennium
she continues to be "a sign and safeguard of the transcendence of the
human person",112 as indeed she has always sought to be from the
beginning of her existence, walking together with man through history.
The Encyclical Rerum novarum itself is a significant sign of this.
56. On the hundredth anniversary of that Encyclical I wish to thank all
those who have devoted themselves to studying, expounding and making
better known Christian social teaching. To this end, the cooperation of
the local Churches is indispensable, and I would hope that the present
anniversary will be a source of fresh enthusiasm for studying,
spreading and applying that teaching in various contexts.
In particular, I wish this teaching to be made known and applied in the
countries which, following the collapse of "Real Socialism", are
experiencing a serious lack of direction in the work of rebuilding. The
Western countries, in turn, run the risk of seeing this collapse as a
one-sided victory of their own economic system, and thereby failing to
make necessary corrections in that system. Meanwhile, the countries of
the Third World are experiencing more than ever the tragedy of
underdevelopment, which is becoming more serious with each passing day.
After formulating principles and guidelines for the solution of the
worker question, Pope Leo XIII made this incisive statement: "Everyone
should put his hand to the work which falls to his share, and that at
once and straightway, lest the evil which is already so great become
through delay absolutely beyond remedy", and he added, "in regard to
the Church, her cooperation will never be found lacking".
57. As far as the Church is concerned, the social message of the Gospel
must not be considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a
motivation for action. Inspired by this message, some of the first
Christians distributed their goods to the poor, bearing witness to the
fact that, despite different social origins, it was possible for people
to live together in peace and harmony. Through the power of the Gospel,
down the centuries monks tilled the land, men and women Religious
founded hospitals and shelters for the poor, Confraternities as well as
individual men and women of all states of life devoted themselves to
the needy and to those on the margins of society, convinced as they
were that Christ's words "as you did it to one of the least of these my
brethren, you did it to me" (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a
pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment.
Today more than ever, the Church is aware that her social message will
gain credibility more immediately from the witness of actions than as a
result of its internal logic and consistency. This awareness is also a
source of her preferential option for the poor, which is never
exclusive or discriminatory towards other groups. This option is not
limited to material poverty, since it is well known that there are many
other forms of poverty, especially in modern society—not only
economic but cultural and spiritual poverty as well. The Church's love
for the poor, which is essential for her and a part of her constant
tradition, impels her to give attention to a world in which poverty is
threatening to assume massive proportions in spite of technological and
economic progress. In the countries of the West, different forms of
poverty are being experienced by groups which live on the margins of
society, by the elderly and the sick, by the victims of consumerism,
and even more immediately by so many refugees and migrants. In the
developing countries, tragic crises loom on the horizon unless
internationally coordinated measures are taken before it is too late.
58. Love for others, and in the first place love for the poor, in whom
the Church sees Christ himself, is made concrete in the promotion of
justice. Justice will never be fully attained unless people see in the
poor person, who is asking for help in order to survive, not an
annoyance or a burden, but an opportunity for showing kindness and a
chance for greater enrichment. Only such an awareness can give the
courage needed to face the risk and the change involved in every
authentic attempt to come to the aid of another. It is not merely a
matter of "giving from one's surplus", but of helping entire peoples
which are presently excluded or marginalized to enter into the sphere
of economic and human development. For this to happen, it is not enough
to draw on the surplus goods which in fact our world abundantly
produces; it requires above all a change of life-styles, of models of
production and consumption, and of the established structures of power
which today govern societies. Nor is it a matter of eliminating
instruments of social organization which have proved useful, but rather
of orienting them according to an adequate notion of the common good in
relation to the whole human family. Today we are facing the so-called
"globalization" of the economy, a phenomenon which is not to be
dismissed, since it can create unusual opportunities for greater
prosperity. There is a growing feeling, however, that this increasing
internationalization of the economy ought to be accompanied by
effective international agencies which will oversee and direct the
economy to the common good, something that an individual State, even if
it were the most powerful on earth, would not be in a position to do.
In order to achieve this result, it is necessary that there be
increased coordination among the more powerful countries, and that in
international agencies the interests of the whole human family be
equally represented. It is also necessary that in evaluating the
consequences of their decisions, these agencies always give sufficient
consideration to peoples and countries which have little weight in the
international market, but which are burdened by the most acute and
desperate needs, and are thus more dependent on support for their
development. Much remains to be done in this area.
59. Therefore, in order that the demands of justice may be met, and
attempts to achieve this goal may succeed, what is needed is the gift
of grace, a gift which comes from God. Grace, in cooperation with human
freedom, constitutes that mysterious presence of God in history which
is Providence.
The newness which is experienced in following Christ demands to be
communicated to other people in their concrete difficulties, struggles,
problems and challenges, so that these can then be illuminated and made
more human in the light of faith. Faith not only helps people to find
solutions; it makes even situations of suffering humanly bearable, so
that in these situations people will not become lost or forget their
dignity and vocation.
In addition, the Church's social teaching has an important
interdisciplinary dimension. In order better to incarnate the one truth
about man in different and constantly changing social, economic and
political contexts, this teaching enters into dialogue with the various
disciplines concerned with man. It assimilates what these disciplines
have to contribute, and helps them to open themselves to a broader
horizon, aimed at serving the individual person who is acknowledged and
loved in the fullness of his or her vocation.
Parallel with the interdisciplinary aspect, mention should also be made
of the practical and as it were experiential dimension of this
teaching, which is to be found at the crossroads where Christian life
and conscience come into contact with the real world. This teaching is
seen in the efforts of individuals, families, people involved in
cultural and social life, as well as politicians and statesmen to give
it a concrete form and application in history.
60. In proclaiming the principles for a solution of the worker
question, Pope Leo XIII wrote: "This most serious question demands the
attention and the efforts of others".114 He was convinced that the
grave problems caused by industrial society could be solved only by
cooperation between all forces. This affirmation has become a permanent
element of the Church's social teaching, and also explains why Pope
John XXIII addressed his Encyclical on peace to "all people of good
will".
Pope Leo, however, acknowledged with sorrow that the ideologies of his
time, especially Liberalism and Marxism, rejected such cooperation.
Since then, many things have changed, especially in recent years. The
world today is ever more aware that solving serious national and
international problems is not just a matter of economic production or
of juridical or social organization, but also calls for specific
ethical and religious values, as well as changes of mentality,
behaviour and structures. The Church feels a particular responsibility
to offer this contribution and, as I have written in the Encyclical
Sollicitudo rei socialis, there is a reasonable hope that the many
people who profess no religion will also contribute to providing the
social question with the necessary ethical foundation.
In that same Encyclical I also addressed an appeal to the Christian
Churches and to all the great world religions, inviting them to offer
the unanimous witness of our common convictions regarding the dignity
of man, created by God.116 In fact I am convinced that the various
religions, now and in the future, will have a preeminent role in
preserving peace and in building a society worthy of man.
Indeed, openness to dialogue and to cooperation is required of all
people of good will, and in particular of individuals and groups with
specific responsibilities in the areas of politics, economics and
social life, at both the national and international levels.
61. At the beginning of industrialized society, it was "a yoke little
better than that of slavery itself" which led my Predecessor to speak
out in defence of man. Over the past hundred years the Church has
remained faithful to this duty. Indeed, she intervened in the turbulent
period of class struggle after the First World War in order to defend
man from economic exploitation and from the tyranny of the totalitarian
systems. After the Second World War, she put the dignity of the person
at the centre of her social messages, insisting that material goods
were meant for all, and that the social order ought to be free of
oppression and based on a spirit of cooperation and solidarity. The
Church has constantly repeated that the person and society need not
only material goods but spiritual and religious values as well.
Furthermore, as she has become more aware of the fact that too many
people live, not in the prosperity of the Western world, but in the
poverty of the developing countries amid conditions which are still "a
yoke little better than that of slavery itself", she has felt and
continues to feel obliged to denounce this fact with absolute clarity
and frankness, although she knows that her call will not always win
favour with everyone.
One hundred years after the publication of Rerum novarum, the Church
finds herself still facing "new things" and new challenges. The
centenary celebration should therefore confirm the commitment of all
people of good will and of believers in particular.
62. The present Encyclical has looked at the past, but above all it is
directed to the future. Like Rerum novarum, it comes almost at the
threshold of a new century, and its intention, with God's help, is to
prepare for that moment.
In every age the true and perennial "newness of things" comes from the
infinite power of God, who says: "Behold, I make all things new" (Rev
21:5). These words refer to the fulfilment of history, when Christ
"delivers the Kingdom to God the Father ... that God may be everything
to everyone" (1 Cor 15:24,28). But the Christian well knows that the
newness which we await in its fulness at the Lord's second coming has
been present since the creation of the world, and in a special way
since the time when God became man in Jesus Christ and brought about a
"new creation" with him and through him (2 Cor 5:17; Gal 6:15).
In concluding this Encyclical I again give thanks to Almighty God, who
has granted his Church the light and strength to accompany humanity on
its earthly journey towards its eternal destiny. In the third
Millennium too, the Church will be faithful in making man's way her
own, knowing that she does not walk alone, but with Christ her Lord. It
is Christ who made man's way his own, and who guides him, even when he
is unaware of it.
Mary, the Mother of the Redeemer, constantly remained beside Christ in
his journey towards the human family and in its midst, and she goes
before the Church on the pilgrimage of faith. May her maternal
intercession accompany humanity towards the next Millennium, in
fidelity to him who "is the same yesterday and today and for ever" (cf.
Heb 13:8), Jesus Christ our Lord, in whose name I cordially impart my
blessing to all.
Given in Rome, at Saint Peter's, on 1 May, the Memorial of Saint Joseph
the Worker, in the year 1991, the thirteenth of my Pontificate.
JOHN PAUL II