Gaudium et Spes 80

Gaudium et Spes 80 addresses the concerns of the 60′s:

The horror and perversity of war is immensely magnified by the addition of scientific weapons. For acts of war involving these weapons can inflict massive and indiscriminate destruction, thus going far beyond the bounds of legitimate defense. Indeed, if the kind of instruments which can now be found in the armories of the great nations were to be employed to their fullest, an almost total and altogether reciprocal slaughter of each side by the other would follow, not to mention the widespread deviation that would take place in the world and the deadly after effects that would be spawned by the use of weapons of this kind.

The basis for the “intrusion” of the Church into matters of war and peace. Perhaps John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris is worthy of a separate examination. Still.

All these considerations compel us to undertake an evaluation of war with an entirely new attitude.(Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris, April 11, 1963: AAS 55 (1963), p. 291; “Therefore in this age of ours which prides itself on its atomic power, it is irrational to believe that war is still an apt means of vindicating violated rights.”) The (people) of our time must realize that they will have to give a somber reckoning of their deeds of war for the course of the future will depend greatly on the decisions they make today.

With these truths in mind, this most holy synod makes its own the condemnations of total war already pronounced by recent popes,(2. Cf. Pius XII, allocution of Sept. 30, 1954: AAS 46 (1954) p. 589; radio message of Dec. 24, 1954: AAS 47 (1955), pp. 15 ff, John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem in Terris: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 286-291; Paul VI, allocution to the United Nations, Oct. 4, 1965.) and issues the following declaration.

I don’t think a Church teaching can be put any more explicitly than this:

Any act of war aimed indiscriminately at the destruction of entire cities of extensive areas along with their population is a crime against God and (humankind it)self. It merits unequivocal and unhesitating condemnation.

So much for the hydrogen bomb. But there’s more:

The unique hazard of modern warfare consists in this: it provides those who possess modem scientific weapons with a kind of occasion for perpetrating just such abominations; moreover, through a certain inexorable chain of events, it can catapult (people) into the most atrocious decisions. That such may never truly happen in the future, the bishops of the whole world gathered together, beg all (people), especially government officials and military leaders, to give unremitting thought to their gigantic responsibility before God and the entire human race.

It seems undeniable that the combination of modern weaponry and personal sin will eventually come back to bite someone. On vacation, I was reading that the government’s persecution of Robert Oppenheimer was the occasion for serious breaches in security, not by scientists, but by government officials themselves. British scientists later conceded there was just enough material in the public record to close the gaps in their own hydrogen bomb research. Additionally, the US government’s endorsement of international atomic power gave many nations the means to produce necessary materials for atomic weaponry.

 

Gaudium et Spes 79

Gaudium et Spes turns to international considerations in this section entitled, “The Avoidance of War”

Even though recent wars have wrought physical and moral havoc on our world, the devastation of battle still goes on day by day in some part of the world. Indeed, now that every kind of weapon produced by modern science is used in war, the fierce character of warfare threatens to lead the combatants to a savagery far surpassing that of the past. Furthermore, the complexity of the modern world and the intricacy of international relations allow guerrilla warfare to be drawn out by new methods of deceit and subversion. In many causes the use of terrorism is regarded as a new way to wage war.

Terrorism was not an invention of the 90′s, clearly.

Contemplating this melancholy state of humanity, the council wishes, above all things else, to recall the permanent binding force of universal natural law and its all-embracing principles. (Human) conscience itself gives ever more emphatic voice to these principles. Therefore, actions which deliberately conflict with these same principles, as well as orders commanding such actions are criminal, and blind obedience cannot excuse those who yield to them. The most infamous among these are actions designed for the methodical extermination of an entire people, nation or ethnic minority. Such actions must be vehemently condemned as horrendous crimes. The courage of those who fearlessly and openly resist those who issue such commands merits supreme commendation.

The signature method of waging WWII explicitly condemned.

On the subject of war, quite a large number of nations have subscribed to international agreements aimed at making military activity and its consequences less inhuman. Their stipulations deal with such matters as the treatment of wounded soldiers and prisoners. Agreements of this sort must be honored. Indeed they should be improved upon so that the frightfulness of war can be better and more workably held in check. All (people), especially government officials and experts in these matters, are bound to do everything they can to effect these improvements.

The Bush case, as if the Supreme Court didn’t weaken it enough, finds it has no moral leg to stand on, at least in the eyes of the Magisterium.

Moreover, it seems right that laws make humane provisions for the case of those who for reasons of conscience refuse to bear arms, provided however, that they agree to serve the human community in some other way.

Conscientious objection to military service is a right, with a condition any serious CO would embrace.

Certainly, war has not been rooted out of human affairs. As long as the danger of war remains and there is no competent and sufficiently powerful authority at the international level, governments cannot be denied the right to legitimate defense once every means of peaceful settlement has been exhausted. State authorities and others who share public responsibility have the duty to conduct such grave matters soberly and to protect the welfare of the people entrusted to their care. But it is one thing to undertake military action for the just defense of the people, and something else again to seek the subjugation of other nations. Nor, by the same token, does the mere fact that war has unhappily begun mean that all is fair between the warring parties.

Traditional Catholic teaching here; no real novelty.

Those too who devote themselves to the military service of their country should regard themselves as the agents of security and freedom of peoples. As long as they fulfill this role properly, they are making a genuine contribution to the establishment of peace.

… and a recognition of the role of military personnel. A careful wording, did you notice? Agents of security and freedom, but contributors to peace.

Thoughts?

 

Gaudium et Spes 78

If there was a subtitle for this section it would be “Peace: An Enterprise of Justice. ” Gaudium et Spes continues:

Peace is not merely the absence of war; nor can it be reduced solely to the maintenance of a balance of power between enemies; nor is it brought about by dictatorship Instead, it is rightly and appropriately called an enterprise of justice. Peace results from that order structured into human society by its divine Founder, and actualized by (human beings) as they thirst after ever greater justice. The common good of humanity finds its ultimate meaning in the eternal law. But since the concrete demands of this common good are constantly changing as time goes on, peace is never attained once and for all, but must be built up ceaselessly. Moreover, since the human will is unsteady and wounded by sin, the achievement of peace requires a constant mastering of passions and the vigilance of lawful authority.

Most serious peacemakers I’ve known are cognizant of this. They practice peace as a life’s discipline. They are aware of the role of sin as an opponent to peace. Yet GS also recognizes peace is not only a quality arising from personal commitment. It involves communal cooperation not just on a global scale, but a local one:

But this is not enough. This peace on earth cannot be obtained unless personal well-being is safeguarded and (people) freely and trustingly share with one another the riches of their inner spirits and their talents. A firm determination to respect other (individuals) and peoples and their dignity, as well as the studied practice of (community) are absolutely necessary for the establishment of peace. Hence peace is likewise the fruit of love, which goes beyond what justice can provide.

The following paragraph seems to contradict the oft-quoted words from the Lord’s mouth, “I have not come to bring peace …”

That earthly peace which arises from love of neighbor symbolizes and results from the peace of Christ which radiates from God the Father. For by the cross the incarnate Son, the prince of peace reconciled all (people) with God. By thus restoring all … to the unity of one people and one body, He slew hatred in His own flesh; and, after being lifted on high by His resurrection, He poured forth the spirit of love into the hearts of (people).

The council states peacemaking is a task for all Christians:

For this reason, all Christians are urgently summoned to do in love what the truth requires, and to join with all true peacemakers in pleading for peace and bringing it about.

Pacifism praised:

Motivated by this same spirit, we cannot fail to praise those who renounce the use of violence in the vindication of their rights and who resort to methods of defense which are otherwise available to weaker parties too, provided this can be done without injury to the rights and duties of others or of the community itself.

And the Scriptural basis for peace as an ideal, not just in the kingdom to come, but in the present.

Insofar as (people) are sinful, the threat of war hangs over them, and hang over them it will until the return of Christ. But insofar as (people) vanquish sin by a union of love, they will vanquish violence as well and make these words come true: “They shall turn their swords into plough-shares, and their spears into sickles. Nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war any more” (Isaias 2:4).

The charge to believers seems clear: peace is a fruit of sin. They who fail to work for peace in their personal lives have little or no hope for promoting peace on a greater level. They who fail to work for peace fail to struggle against sin. They who accept peace as an inevitable part of the world’s background noise might just as well be said to be acquiescent in the toleration of sin.

Do I have that about right?

 

Gaudium et Spes 77

Gaudium et Spes 77 finds us at the beginning of Section 2, Chapter V, “The Fostering of Peace and the Promotion of a Community of Nations.”

Maybe in academic spheres, people still talk about a “community of nations,” but I sense that economic and communication realities have made one world of us more rapidly than politics might have done–or would ever do. Since the time of this writing, the number of the world’s sovereign nations have doubled, and perhaps there is still more splintering yet to come. At any rate, diving into the text, we find:

In our generation when (people) continue to be afflicted by acute hardships and anxieties arising from the ravages of war or the threat of it, the whole human family faces an hour of supreme crisis in its advance toward maturity. Moving gradually together and everywhere more conscious already of its unity, this family cannot accomplish its task of constructing for all (people) everywhere a world more genuinely human unless each person devotes (her or)himself to the cause of peace with renewed vigor. Thus it happens that the Gospel message, which is in harmony with the loftier strivings and aspirations of the human race, takes on a new luster in our day as it declares that the artisans of peace are blessed “because they will be called the children of God” (Matt. 5:9).

Consequently, as it points out the authentic and noble meaning of peace and condemns the frightfulness of war, the Council wishes passionately to summon Christians to cooperate, under the help of Christ the author of peace, with all (people) in securing among themselves a peace based on justice and love and in setting up the instruments of peace.

Clearly, the world continues along these lines today. Total nuclear destruction is no longer a consideration, but violence pecks away at nations large and small. Even the world’s powers are not exempt from gadflies which poke at their way of life.

On the whole, Americans today are significantly safer than they were in the period of 1957-91, probably a bit less safe than 1991-2001. But the world and the Gospel aren’t about the safety and security of a single nation.

The council bishops urge every believer to work for peace. So, what have we (in our relative security) done for it lately? Does anyone bother to fast and abstain on non-Lenten Fridays for peace? Or does the association with a liberal view make it too much of a bother? If peace has gone out of style as a movement, consider that Jesus valued it highly, linking those who seek it with those who are members of his family.

Thoughts?

 

Gaudium et Spes 76

Gaudium et Spes 76 treats a bit of the Church-State issue, starting with the need for people to know the separation between the two in mission:

It is very important, especially where a pluralistic society prevails, that there be a correct notion of the relationship between the political community and the Church, and a clear distinction between the tasks which Christians undertake, individually or as a group, on their own responsibility as citizens guided by the dictates of a Christian conscience, and the activities which, in union with their pastors, they carry out in the name of the Church.

The Church stands outside the realm of politics, holding up the ideal of the free and noble character of the human person, as intended by God:

The Church, by reason of her role and competence, is not identified in any way with the political community nor bound to any political system. She is at once a sign and a safeguard of the transcendent character of the human person.

Though separate in purpose and vocation, there are mutual goals shared:

The Church and the political community in their own fields are autonomous and independent from each other. Yet both, under different titles, are devoted to the personal and social vocation of the same (people). The more that both foster sounder cooperation between themselves with due consideration for the circumstances of time and place, the more effective will their service be exercised for the good of all.

The council bishops outline the goals of the Church, and remind readers that the People of God transcend nations and their particular values, shared and unshared. The Gospel is also meant to be applied in “all fields of human endeavor.” Doesn’t sound very weak to me:

For (human) horizons are not limited only to the temporal order; while living in the context of human history, (a person) preserves intact (an) eternal vocation. The Church, for her part, founded on the love of the Redeemer, contributes toward the reign of justice and charity within the borders of a nation and between nations. By preaching the truths of the Gospel, and bringing to bear on all fields of human endeavor the light of her doctrine and of a Christian witness, she respects and fosters the political freedom and responsibility of citizens.

The Apostles, their successors and those who cooperate with them, are sent to announce to mankind Christ, the Savior. Their apostolate is based on the power of God, Who very often shows forth the strength of the Gospel on the weakness of its witnesses. All those dedicated to the ministry of God’s Word must use the ways and means proper to the Gospel which in a great many respects differ from the means proper to the earthly city.

This chapter concludes by affirming the Church’s freedom to teach and to judge situations in the secular sphere:

There are, indeed, close links between earthly things and those elements of man’s condition which transcend the world. The Church herself makes use of temporal things insofar as her own mission requires it. She, for her part, does not place her trust in the privileges offered by civil authority. She will even give up the exercise of certain rights which have been legitimately acquired, if it becomes clear that their use will cast doubt on the sincerity of her witness or that new ways of life demand new methods. It is only right, however, that at all times and in all places, the Church should have true freedom to preach the faith, to teach her social doctrine, to exercise her role freely among (people), and also to pass moral judgment in those matters which regard public order when the fundamental rights of a person or the salvation of souls require it. In this, she should make use of all the means-but only those-which accord with the Gospel and which correspond to the general good according to the diversity oœ times and circumstances.
While faithfully adhering to the Gospel and fulfilling her mission to the world, the Church, whose duty it is to foster and elevate (Cf. Second Vatican Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, n. 13: AAS 57 (1965), p. 17.) all that is found to be true, good and beautiful in the human community, strengthens peace among (people) for the glory of God.(Cf. Luke 2:14.)

There are times when Gaudium et Spes rambles or fails to make a point succinctly or adequately. But passages like this give lie to the argument the document fails to be strong enough in staking out Gospel ground.

Comments?

 

Gaudium et Spes 75

Gaudium et Spes continues on the political front. Today’s section is a long one, so bear with it, if you can:

It is in full conformity with human nature that there should be juridico-political structures providing all citizens in an ever better fashion and without and discrimination the practical possibility of freely and actively taking part in the establishment of the juridical foundations of the political community and in the direction of public affairs, in fixing the terms of reference of the various public bodies and in the election of political leaders.(Cf. Pius XII, radio message, Dec. 24, 1942: AAS 35 (1943) pp. 9-24; Dec. 24, 1944: AAS 37 (1945), pp. 11-17; John XXIII encyclical letter Pacem In Terris: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 263, 271 277 and 278.) All citizens, therefore, should be mindful of the right and also the duty to use their free vote to further the common good. The Church praises and esteems the work of those who for the good of (society) devote themselves to the service of the state and take on the burdens of this office.

More optimism: citizen involvement not only as voters, but in policy-making. Note that voting is considered a duty, not a right one can opt to use. On a theoretical level, politicians are praised for the service they render and the burdens they undertake.

If the citizens’ responsible cooperation is to produce the good results which may be expected in the normal course of political life, there must be a statute of positive law providing for a suitable division of the functions and bodies of authority and an efficient and independent system for the protection of rights. The rights of all persons, families and groups, and their practical application, must be recognized, respected and furthered, together with the duties binding on all citizens.(Cf. Pius XII, radio message of June 7, 1941: AAS 33 (1941) p. 200: John XXIII, encyclical letter Pacem In Terris: 1.c., p. 273 and 274.)

A reiteration of the basic principle that leads to the seamless garment approach.

Among the latter, it will be well to recall the duty of rendering the political community such material and personal service as are required by the common good. Rulers must be careful not to hamper the development of family, social or cultural groups, nor that of intermediate bodies or organizations, and not to deprive them of opportunities for legitimate and constructive activity; they should willingly seek rather to promote the orderly pursuit of such activity. Citizens, for their part, either individually or collectively, must be careful not to attribute excessive power to public authority, not to make exaggerated and untimely demands upon it in their own interests, lessening in this way the responsible role of persons, families and social groups.

A commentary on the limits of political leadership, and the trap of abusing government for one’s own ends. This one seems to be more a condemnation of the principle of excesses in lobbying rather than so-called big government.

The complex circumstances of our day make it necessary for public authority to intervene more often in social, economic and cultural matters in order to bring about favorable conditions which will give more effective help to citizens and groups in their free pursuit of (a citizen’s) total well-being. The relations, however, between socialization and the autonomy and development of the person can be understood in different ways according to various regions and the evolution of peoples. But when the exercise of rights is restricted temporarily for the common good, freedom should be restored immediately upon change of circumstances. Moreover, it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on dictatonal systems or totalitarian methods which violate the rights of the person or social groups.

An attempt to strike a balance between individual rights and the good of the whole.

Citizens must cultivate a generous and loyal spirit of patriotism, but without being narrow-minded. This means that they will always direct their attention to the good of the whole human family, united by the different ties which bind together races, people and nations.

A challenge to consider that the “whole” for which one seeks good is larger than one’s circle of friends, neighbors, and citizens.

All Christians must be aware of their own specific vocation within the political community. It is for them to give an example by their sense of responsibility and their service of the common good. In this way they are to demonstrate concretely how authority can be compatible with freedom, personal initiative with the solidarity of the whole social organism, and the advantages of unity with fruitful diversity. They must recognize the legitimacy of different opinions with regard to temporal solutions, and respect citizens, who, even as a group, defend their points of view by honest methods. Political parties, for their part, must promote those things which in their judgement are required for the common good; it is never allowable to give their interests priority over the common good.

A difficult consideration to handle, especially when tempers run high.

Great care must be taken about civic and political formation, which is of the utmost necessity today for the population as a whole, and especially for youth, so that all citizens can play their part in the life of the political community. Those who are suited or can become suited should prepare themselves for the difficult, but at the same time, the very noble art of politics, and should seek to practice this art without regard for their own interests or for material advantages. With integrity and wisdom, they must take action against any form of injustice and tyranny, against arbitrary domination by an individual or a political party and any intolerance. They should dedicate themselves to the service of all with sincerity and fairness, indeed, with the charity and fortitude demanded by political life.

Imagine! Being a public servant to serve and not to enrich oneself or one’s allies.

Comments?

 

Gaudium et Spes 74

(People), families and the various groups which make up the civil community are aware that they cannot achieve a truly human life by their own unaided efforts.

Gaudium et Spes 74 treats the human reality of politics, which is broadly defined as follows:

They see the need for a wider community, within which each one makes his specific contribution every day toward an ever broader realization of the common good.(Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), p. 417.)

The Christian approach to politics moves a bit beyond that. For believers, politics implies the striving for perfection:

For this purpose they set up a political community according to various forms. The political community exists, consequently, for the sake of the common good, in which it finds its full justification and significance, and the source of its inherent legitimacy. Indeed, the common good embraces the sum of those conditions of the social life whereby men, families and associations more adequately and readily may attain their own perfection.(Cf. John XXIII, ibid.)

Leadership is an important quality to acknowledge, for it also benefits the common good:

Yet the people who come together in the political community are many and diverse, and they have every right to prefer divergent solutions. If the political community is not to be torn apart while everyone follows his own opinion, there must be an authority to direct the energies of all citizens toward the common good, not in a mechanical or despotic fashion, but by acting above all as a moral force which appeals to each one’s freedom and sense of responsibility.

A radical concept for Catholics of centuries past, namely that citizens are to rightfully determine the style of politics as well as specific leaders:

It is clear, therefore, that the political community and public authority are founded on human nature and hence belong to the order designed by God, even though the choice of a political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free will of citizens.(Cf. Rom. 13:1-5.)
It follows also that political authority, both in the community as such and in the representative bodies of the state, must always be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good-with a dynamic concept of that good-according to the juridical order legitimately established or due to be established. When authority is so exercised, citizens are bound in conscience to obey.(Cf. Rom. 13:5.)

Naturally, don’t throw the baby out with the bathwater:

Accordingly, the responsibility, dignity and importance of leaders are indeed clear.
But where citizens are oppressed by a public authority overstepping its competence, they should not protest against those things which are objectively required for the common good; but it is legitimate for them to defend their own rights and the rights of their fellow citizens against the abuse of this authority, while keeping within those limits drawn by the natural law and the Gospels.

But consider a multivalent approach, if it works to the aim of the common good.

According to the character of different peoples and their historic development, the political community can, however, adopt a variety of concrete solutions in its structures and the organization of public authority. For the benefit of the whole human family, these solutions must always contribute to the formation of a type of (person) who will be cultivated, peace-loving and well-disposed towards all (other people).

GS 74 seems both vague as well as a bit uneasy over turning over the car keys to the citizenry. Being vague is also being wise in this context; I still think we have a considerable way to go to perfect our own democracy in the US, much less many other nations who suffer from more corruption, organized crime, elitism, and the like.

And on the second point, is there a way to transcend media-coddled mobs? That might not be what the council bishops had in mind with their awkward caveats about protesting against the good things bad leaders might provide.

Maybe you have more substantive comments. If so, have a go.

 

Gaudium et Spes 73

Gaudium et Spes now turns its gaze to politics. Chapter IV of Part II is titled, “The Life Of The Political Community,” and it begins by recognizing the upheaval in political structure of the 50′s and 60′s:

In our day, profound changes are apparent also in the structure and institutions of peoples. These result from their cultural, economic and social evolution. Such changes have a great influence on the life of the political community, especially regarding the rights and duties of all in the exercise of civil freedom and in the attainment of the common good, and in organizing the relations of citizens among themselves and with respect to public authority.

The end of European colonialism in Africa preceded Vatican II, that must have been one of the foremost considerations, along with the advance of Marxist-Socialism.

The council supports a generosity in the rights to public expression:

The present keener sense of human dignity has given rise in many parts of the world to attempts to bring about a politico-juridical order which will give better protection to the rights of the person in public life. These include the right freely to meet and form associations, the right to express one’s own opinion and to profess one’s religion both publicly and privately. The protection of the rights of a person is indeed a necessary condition so that citizens, individually or collectively, can take an active part in the life and government of the state.

A diagnosis of the increasing call for civil rights, and the increase of tolerance in some societies:

Along with cultural, economic and social development, there is a growing desire among many people to play a greater part in organizing the life of the political community. In the conscience of many arises an increasing concern that the rights of minorities be recognized, without any neglect for their duties toward the political community. In addition, there is a steadily growing respect for (people) of other opinions or other religions. At the same time, there is wider cooperation to guarantee the actual exercise of personal rights to all citizens, and not only to a few privileged individuals.

Yet the bishops recognize that in 1965, some political systems were not in compliance. Likewise the widespread corruption in the world (I can’t just say Third World anymore, can I?) damages human society on the local, national, and universal levels:

However, those political systems, prevailing in some parts of the world are to be reproved which hamper civic or religious freedom, victimize large numbers through avarice and political crimes, and divert the exercise of authority from the service of the common good to the interests of one or another faction or of the rulers themselves.

And an optimistic (some might say naive) hope:

There is no better way to establish political life on a truly human basis than by fostering an inward sense of justice and kindliness, and of service to the common good, and by strengthening basic convictions as to the true nature of the political community and the aim, right exercise, and sphere of action of public authority.

Thoughts?

 

Gaudium et Spes 72

Gaudium et Spes encourages a sterling example from J&P (not JPII) believers:

Christians who take an active part in present-day socio-economic development and fight for justice and charity should be convinced that they can make a great contribution to the prosperity of (humankind) and to the peace of the world. In these activities let them, either as individuals or as members of groups, give a shining example. Having acquired the absolutely necessary skill and experience, they should observe the right order in their earthly activities in faithfulness to Christ and His Gospel. Thus their whole life, both individual and social, will be permeated with the spirit of the beatitudes, notably with a spirit of poverty.

Whoever in obedience to Christ seeks first the Kingdom of God, takes therefrom a stronger and purer love for helping all (their sisters and brothers) and for perfecting the work of justice under the inspiration of charity.(For the right use of goods according to the doctrine of the New Testament, cf. Luke 3:11, 10:30 ff; 11:41; 1 Pet. 5:3, Mark 8:36; 12:39-41; Jas. 5:1-6; 1 Tim. 6:8; Eph. 1:28; a Cor. 8:13; 1 John 3:17 ff.)

I don’t have a problem with that; do you?

 

Gaudium et Spes 71

This section of Gaudium et Spes addresses property rights, starting on a sensible point:

Since property and other forms of private ownership of external goods contribute to the expression of the personality, and since, moreover, they furnish one an occasion to exercise his (or her) function in society and in the economy, it is very important that the access of both individuals and communities to some ownership of external goods be fostered.

Ownership is not just a legal and moral right, but it also presumes a responsibility:

Private property or some ownership of external goods confers on everyone a sphere wholly necessary for the autonomy of the person and the family, and it should be regarded as an extension of human freedom. Lastly, since it adds incentives for carrying on one’s function and charge, it constitutes one of the conditions for civil liberties.(Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical letter Rerum Novarum: AAS 23 (1890-91) pp. 643-646, Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931) p. 191; Pius XII, radio message of June 1, 1941: AAS 33 (1941), p. 199; Pius XII, radio message on Christmas Eve 1942: AAS 35 (1943), p. 17; Pius XII, radio message of Sept. 1, 1944: AAS 36 (1944) p. 253; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961) pp. 428-429.)

Despite modern legalities, and the recognition of non-physical realities as property, the same moral structure of rights and duties applies:

The forms of such ownership or property are varied today and are becoming increasingly diversified. They all remain, however, a cause of security not to be underestimated, in spite of social funds, rights, and services provided by society. This is true not only of material property but also of immaterial things such as professional capacities.

A slightly more explicit rendering of the importance of the common good:

The right of private ownership, however, is not opposed to the right inherent in various forms of public property. Goods can be transferred to the public domain only by the competent authority, according to the demands and within the limits of the common good, and with fair compensation. Furthermore, it is the right of public authority to prevent anyone from abusing his private property to the detriment of the common good.(Cf. Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931) p. 214; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), p. 429.)

And more on community considerations:

By its very nature private property has a social quality which is based on the law of the common destination of earthly goods.(Cf. Pius XII, radio message of Pentecost 1941: AAS 44 (1941) p. 199, John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961) p. 430.) If this social quality is overlooked, property often becomes an occasion of passionate desires for wealth and serious disturbances, so that a pretext is given to the attackers for calling the right itself into question.

I’m thinking of my experiences in American suburbia. I let one thistle grow in my Chicagoland backyard once, and my next door neighbor complained: even “one weed” was offensive. My housemate planted a small US flag next to the walk on Memorial Day. He left it out Tuesday and that evening we found it in our mailbox. And that was during Gulf War I, mind you. The American take on this portion would be mainly on property (such as real estate) that affects the economic value of other people’s property. The council bishops, naturally, are more concerned about the exploitation angle:

In many underdeveloped regions there are large or even extensive rural estates which are only slightly cultivated or lie completely idle for the sake of profit, while the majority of the people either are without land or have only very small fields, and, on the other hand, it is evidently urgent to increase the productivity of the fields. Not infrequently those who are hired to work for the landowners or who till a portion of the land as tenants receive a wage or income unworthy of a human being, lack decent housing and are exploited by middlemen. Deprived of all security, they live under such personal servitude that almost every opportunity of acting on their own initiative and responsibility is denied to them and all advancement in human culture and all sharing in social and political life is forbidden to them. According to the different cases, therefore, reforms are necessary: that income may grow, working conditions should be improved, security in employment increased, and an incentive to working on one’s own initiative given. Indeed, insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful; in this case, the necessary things and means, especially educational aids and the right facilities for cooperative organization, must be supplied. Whenever, nevertheless, the common good requires expropriation, compensation must be reckoned in equity after all the circumstances have been weighed.

Comments?

 

Gaudium et Spes 70

A quickie Gaudium et Spes look at investments:

Investments, for their part, must be directed toward procuring employment and sufficient income for the people both now and in the future. Whoever makes decisions concerning these investments and the planning of the economy-whether they be individuals or groups of public authorities-are bound to keep these objectives in mind and to recognize their serious obligation of watching, on the one hand, that provision be made for the necessities required for a decent life both of individuals and of the whole community and, on the other, of looking out for the future and of establishing a right balance between the needs of present-day consumption, both individual and collective, and the demands of investing for the generation to come. They should also always bear in mind the urgent needs of underdeveloped countries or regions. In monetary matters they should beware of hurting the welfare of their own country or of other countries. Care should also be taken lest the economically weak countries unjustly suffer any loss from a change in the value of money.

Any economic experts willing to chime in?

 

Gaudium et Spes 69

Our look at Gaudium et Spes continues, heavily fortified by Scripture, the saints, and a few popes:

God intended the earth with everything contained in it for the use of all human beings and peoples. Thus, under the leadership of justice and in the company of charity, created goods should be in abundance for all in like manner.(Cf. Pius XII, encyclical Sertum Laetitiae: AAS 31 (1939), p. 642, John XXIII, consistorial allocution: AAS 52 (1960), pp. 5-11; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), p. 411.) Whatever the forms of property may be, as adapted to the legitimate institutions of peoples, according to diverse and changeable circumstances, attention must always be paid to this universal destination of earthly goods. In using them, therefore, (human beings) should regard the external things that (they) legitimately possess not only as (their) own but also as common in the sense that they should be able to benefit not only (individuals) but also others.(Cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica: II-II, q. 32, a. 5 ad 2; Ibid. q. 66, a. 2: cf. explanation in Leo XIII, encyclical letter Rerum Novarum: AAS 23 (1890-91) p. 651; cf. also Pius XII allocution of June 1, 1941: AAS 33 (1941), p. 199; Pius XII, birthday radio address 1954: AAS 47 (1955), p. 27.) On the other hand, the right of having a share of earthly goods sufficient for oneself and one’s family belongs to everyone. The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that (people) are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10. Cf. St. Basil, Hom. in illud Lucae “Destruam horrea mea,” n. 2 (PG 31, 263); Lactantius, Divinarum institutionum, lib. V. on justice (PL 6, 565 B); St. Augustine, In Ioann. Ev. tr. 50, n. 6 (PL 35, 1760); St. Augustine, Enarratio in Ps. CXLVII, 12 (PL 37, 192); St. Gregory the Great, Homiliae in Ev., hom. 20 (PL 76, 1165); St. Gregory the Great, Regulae Pastoralis liber, pars III c. 21 (PL 77 87); St. Bonaventure, In III Sent. d. 33, dub. 1 (ed Quacracchi, III, 728); St. Bonaventure, In IV Sent. d. 15, p. II, a. a q. 1 (ed. cit. IV, 371 b ); q. de superfluo (ms. Assisi Bibl. Comun. 186, ff. 112a-113a); St. Albert the Great, In III Sent., d. 33, a.3, sol. 1 (ed. Borgnet XXVIII, 611); Id. In IV Sent. d. 15, a. 1 (ed. cit. XXIX, 494-497). As for the determination of what is superfluous in our day and age, cf. John XXIII, radio-television message of Sept. 11, 1962: AAS 54 (1962) p. 682: “The obligation of every(one), the urgent obligation of the Christian (person), is to reckon what is superfluous by the measure of the needs of others, and to see to it that the administration and the distribution of created goods serve the common good.”) If one is in extreme necessity, (that person) has the right to procure … what (is needed) out of the riches of others.(In that case, the old principle holds true: “In extreme necessity all goods are common, that is, all goods are to be shared.” On the other hand, for the order, extension, and manner by which the principle is appplied in the proposed text, besides the modern authors: cf. St. Thomas, Summa Theologica II-II, q. 66, a. 7. obviously, for the correct application of the principle, all the conditions that are morally required must be met.) Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, “Feed the (person) dying of hunger, because if you have not fed (that person), you have killed (that person),”(Cf. Gratiam, Decretum, C. 21, dist. LXXXVI (ed. Friedberg I, 302). This axiom is also found already in PL 54, 591 A (cf. in Antonianum 27 (1952) 349-366)i.) and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.

These principles are well-founded in Scripture and tradition. The Christian would insist that our possessions are not totally our own; that we and these possessions together have a call to labor on behalf of the gospel. That labor would include an option, preferential, if you will, to serve the poor.

In economically less advanced societies the common destination of earthly goods is partly satisfied by means of the customs and traditions proper to the community, by which the absolutely necessary things are furnished to each member. An effort must be made, however, to avoid regarding certain customs as altogether unchangeable, if they no longer answer the new needs of this age. On the other hand, imprudent action should not be taken against respectable customs which, provided they are suitably adapted to present-day circumstances, do not cease to be very useful. Similarly, in highly developed nations a body of social institutions dealing with protection and security can, for its own part, bring to reality the common destination of earthly goods. Family and social services, especially those that provide for culture and education, should be further promoted. When all these things are being organized, vigilance is necessary to present the citizens from being led into a certain inactivity vis-a-vis society or from rejecting the burden of taking up office or from refusing to serve.

No support for the charity-alone approach. The big question for the US today, as I would see it, is how to move people off dependency while at the same time protect those who are substantially endangered. One might argue that bureaucracy moves against a preferred trend, but church agencies are not immune to the fumbling of bureaucracy.

Other comments?

 

Gaudium et Spes 68

Gaudium et Spes continues on an economic theme:

In economic enterprises it is persons who are joined together, that is, free and independent human beings created in the image of God. Therefore, with attention to the functions of each-owners or employers, management or labor-and without doing harm to the necessary unity of management, the active sharing of all in the administration and profits of these enterprises in ways to be properly determined is to be promoted.(Cf. John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), pp. 408, 424, 427; however, the word “curatione” has been taken from the Latin text of the encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (1931) p. 199. Under the aspect of the evolution of the question cf. also: Pius XII, allocution of June 3, 1950: AAS 42 (1950) pp. 485-488; Paul VI, allocution of June 8, 1964: AAS 56 (1964), pp. 573-579.)

A radical kind of corporate democracy is hinted at: the strange notion that worker might have something positive to contribute to the policies and direction of the business for which they work.

Since more often, however, decisions concerning economic and social conditions, on which the future lot of the workers and of their children depends, are made not within the business itself but by institutions on a higher level, the workers themselves should have a share also in determining these conditions-in person or through freely elected delegates.

As we know, investors often usurp this preference.

Among the basic rights of the human person is to be numbered the right of freely founding unions for working people. These should be able truly to represent them and to contribute to the organizing of economic life in the right way. Included is the right of freely taking part in the activity of these unions without risk of reprisal. Through this orderly participation joined to progressive economic and social formation, all will grow day by day in the awareness of their own function and responsibility, and thus they will be brought to feel that they are comrades in the whole task of economic development and in the attainment of the universal common good according to their capacities and aptitudes.

And in speaking of unions, the Church is speaking of the ideal groupings of workers who actively promote both the rights and responsibilities of employees and cultivate good relations with management.

When, however, socio-economic disputes arise, efforts must be made to come to a peaceful settlement. Although recourse must always be had first to a sincere dialogue between the parties, a strike, nevertheless, can remain even in present day circumstances a necessary, though ultimate, aid for the defense of the workers’ own rights and the fulfillment of their just desires. As soon as possible, however, ways should be sought to resume negotiation and the discussion of reconciliation.

Comments? Are some troubled by church teaching on unions? Or on a more democratic participation of workers in business policy?

 

Gaudium et Spes 67

Remaining on the economic train, Gaudium et Spes moves to a new section entitled, “Certain Principles Governing Socio-Economic Life as a Whole.” Let’s tune in:

Human labor which is expended in the production and exchange of goods or in the performance of economic services is superior to the other elements of economic life, for the latter have only the nature of tools.

This labor, whether it is engaged in independently or hired by someone else, comes immediately from the person, who as it were stamps the things of nature with his seal and subdues them to his will. By (their) labor (people) ordinarily support (themselves) and (their) family, is joined to (other people) and serves them, and can exercise genuine charity and be a partner in the work of bringing divine creation to perfection. Indeed, we hold that through labor offered to God (people are) associated with the redemptive work of Jesus Christ, who conferred an eminent dignity on labor when at Nazareth He worked with His own hands. From this there follows for every (person) the duty of working faithfully and also the right to work.

A sanctification of work as an act of God, hallowed by Christ’s participation in it.

It is the duty of society, moreover, according to the circumstances prevailing in it, and in keeping with its role, to help the citizens to find sufficient employment. Finally, remuneration for labor is to be such that (people) may be furnished the means to cultivate worthily (their) own material, social, cultural, and spiritual life and that of (their) dependents, in view of the function and productiveness of each one, the conditions of the factory or workshop, and the common good.(Cf. Leo XIII, encyclical letter Rerum Novarum: AAS 23 (1890-91), p. 649, p. 662; Pius XI, encyclical letter Quadragesimo Anno: AAS 23 (193-1), pp. 200-201; Pius XI, encyclical letter Divini Redemptoris: AAS 29 (1937), p. 92; Pius XII, radio address on Christmas Eve 1942: AAS 35 (1943) p. 20; Pius XII, allocution of June 13, 1943: AAS 35 (1943), p. 172; Pius XII, radio address to the workers of Spain, March 11, 1951: AAS 43 (1951), p. 215; John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961), p. 419.)
Since economic activity for the most part implies the associated work of human beings, any way of organizing and directing it which may be detrimental to any working men and women would be wrong and inhuman. It happens too often, however, even in our days, that workers are reduced to the level of being slaves to their own work. This is by no means justified by the so-called economic laws. The entire process of productive work, therefore, must be adapted to the needs of the person and to (that person’s) way of life, above all to … domestic life, especially in respect to mothers of families, always with due regard for sex and age. The opportunity, moreover, should be granted to workers to unfold their own abilities and personality through the performance of their work. Applying their time and strength to their employment with a due sense of responsibility, they should also all enjoy sufficient rest and leisure to cultivate their familial, cultural, social and religious life. They should also have the opportunity freely to develop the energies and potentialities which perhaps they cannot bring to much fruition in their professional work.

In summary, a dim view of “laws” which reinforce injustice and inhumanity, a direction of work for the good (including the holiness) of the worker, the importance of exercising one’s personal gifts, and the value of leisure, indeed its indispensability for family life, among other things. I’m not reading anything out-of-date or out-of-touch theologically with this. Are you?

 

Gaudium et Spes 66

Gaudium et Spes comes down hard on “immense” inequalities. Read, if you please:

To satisfy the demands of justice and equity, strenuous efforts must be made, without disregarding the rights of persons or the natural qualities of each country, to remove as quickly as possible the immense economic inequalities, which now exist and in many cases are growing and which are connected with individual and social discrimination.

Discrimination, individual and social, a plague then and now.

Likewise, in many areas, in view of the special difficulties of agriculture relative to the raising and selling of produce, country people must be helped both to increase and to market what they produce, and to introduce the necessary development and renewal and also obtain a fair income. Otherwise, as too often happens, they will remain in the condition of lower-class citizens. Let farmers themselves, especially young ones, apply themselves to perfecting their professional skill, for without it, there can be no agricultural advance.(In reference to agricultural problems cf. especially John XXIII, encyclical letter Mater et Magistra: AAS 53 (1961))

An allusion to the onset of the so-called Green Revolution of the late 20th century. The council bishops did not foresee the rise of corporate agriculture, and seem also to have overlooked the role of scientific research, especially in botany and genetics to address the problems of feeding the world’s peoples.

Justice and equity likewise require that the mobility, which is necessary in a developing economy, be regulated in such a way as to keep the life of individuals and their families from becoming insecure and precarious. When workers come from another country or district and contribute to the economic advancement of a nation or region by their labor, all discrimination as regards wages and working conditions must be carefully avoided. All the people, moreover, above all the public authorities, must treat them not as mere tools of production but as persons, and must help them to bring their families to live with them and to provide themselves with a decent dwelling; they must also see to it that these workers are incorporated into the social life of the country or region that receives them. Employment opportunities, however, should be created in their own areas as far as possible.

Catholics in congress might need this as a primer. Clearly, Latin American workers contribute to the American economy, making life better for us citizens as a result. The Catholic response includes the need for outreach to families. I do not think any Christian can deny the unity of the family separated by work opportunity plus an international border. GS does not present a one-sided consideration, however. Catch this:

Employment opportunities, however, should be created in their own areas as far as possible.

In economic affairs which today are subject to change, as in the new forms of industrial society in which automation, for example, is advancing, care must be taken that sufficient and suitable work and the possibility of the appropriate technical and professional formation are furnished. The livelihood and the human dignity especially of those who are in very difficult conditions because of illness or old age must be guaranteed.

And, of course, who would be responsible for this formation? It is not in the economic interests of particular businesses to retrain workers for another employer. Education is often beyond the means of lowere-middle class people and those poorer. It is an undeniable benefit to the government to have well-trained workers producing tax income.

Comments?