|
Beyond the obvious
ways that this cavalier behavior is disconcerting, it has enhanced a
widely shared sense that Britain — famously rule-abiding — is now
operating without adult supervision. Public confidence has plummeted,
with more than half of respondents in a recent survey declaring the
government has botched its handling of the pandemic, up from 39 percent
in May.
(Washington
Post) The
White House continued to provide limited and contradictory information
about President Trump’s health on Sunday, saying that
he had begun a steroid treatment after twice suffering bouts of low
oxygen but also contending that he was doing well and could soon be
discharged from the hospital where he is being treated for the novel
coronavirus.
This continued what has been a days-long torrent of falsehoods,
obfuscation, evasion, misdirection and imprecision from those
surrounding Trump as he faces the greatest threat to a president’s
health in decades. From the chief White House doctor to the president’s
chief of staff, the inability to provide clear, direct and consistent
information about Trump’s condition has been widespread since the
coronavirus began rapidly circulating in the West Wing
SUNDAY CAR RIDE
Throughout
the weekend, Trump pushed to make some type of public appearance
demonstrating his continued health, though he met some resistance from
his medical team, according to a person familiar with the matter.
His drive
to be seen increased on Saturday afternoon and Sunday as he grew
frustrated by what he deemed overly fatalistic coverage of his
condition. He was furious when a quote emerged from a person familiar
with his health -- later attributed to Meadows -- suggesting his vital
signs were "concerning" on Friday.
Instead of
emerging in public on Saturday, Trump taped a four-minute video
thanking his supporters and sat for a set of photos at a round wooden
table and in a conference room appearing to review documents. The White
House released another set of photos on Sunday, this time depicting the
President sitting at his wood-paneled conference room while speaking by
phone with Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Chairman of the
Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley.
In both the
video and the photos, Trump wasn't wearing a mask; it wasn't clear what
steps were taken to protect the photographers who captured the images.
But his
seconds-long parade only underscored the relaxed attitude toward
transmission that appear to have landed Trump in the hospital to begin
with. The contained space inside the presidential limousine hardly
allowed for social distancing from the driver and agent. While Trump
wore a mask, his status as a Covid-positive hospital patient precluded
him from falling within anyone's recommendations for a public
appearance.
It was a
striking image for a President who claims to now "understand"
the virus after contracting it.
Afterward,
members of the Secret Service voiced escalating concern at what many of
the agency's personnel have determined is total disregard for their
well-being amid a deadly and highly contagious pandemic. Agents have
tested positive for the virus while traveling for the President's
political rallies, which he insisted on maintaining even against
federal health guidelines. As employees self-quarantine or isolate in
place, others have been forced to work longer hours to fill the void.
It's a
situation that has prompted growing and more vocal concern.
"That
should never have happened," one current Secret Service agent who
works on the presidential and first family detail said after Trump's
drive-by, adding that those agents who went along for the ride would
now be required to quarantine.
"I
mean, I wouldn't want to be around them," the agent said,
expressing a view that multiple people at the Secret Service also
voiced in the wake of Sunday's appearance. "The frustration with
how we're treated when it comes to decisions on this illness goes back
before this though. We're not disposable."
Medical
experts and physicians said the episode appeared anything but safe.
"That
Presidential SUV is not only bulletproof, but hermetically sealed
against chemical attack," Dr. James P. Phillips, who is affiliated
with Walter Reed, tweeted. "The risk of COVID19 transmission
inside is as high as it gets outside of medical procedures. The
irresponsibility is astounding. My thoughts are with the Secret Service
forced to play."
Dr. Leana
Wen, an ER physician and CNN medical analyst, tweeted that if Trump
were her patient, "in unstable condition + contagious illness,
& he suddenly left the hospital to go for a car ride that endangers
himself & others: I'd call security to restrain him then perform a
psychiatric evaluation to examine his decision-making capacity."
President Donald Trump's fight with Covid-19 has so far not convinced him to prioritize a
responsible approach to a pandemic that has killed 209,000 Americans
over his own political needs.
Trump staged an extraordinary drive-by photo-op Sunday in front of supporters gathered with
flags and banners outside Walter Reed National Military Medical Center.
The stunt, which risked exposing Secret Service agents riding in his armored SUV, amounted to a
familiar flouting of government recommendations to stop the spread of
the virus which has infected 7 million Americans. It was the latest
flagrant sign of politics superseding Trump's duties as a steward of the national well-being --
with Election Day only 29 days away and voting in many states already
underway.
Two
years ago, when my colleague Karen Attiah phoned to say that
our contributing columnist Jamal Khashoggi had gone missing after
entering the Saudi Consulate in Istanbul, I feared the worst — or what
I imagined to be the worst.
Jamal was a
courageous Saudi journalist living, reluctantly, in exile, and I knew
that the impulsive and imperious Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
(MBS)(great friend of Trump, praised by Trump) feared Jamal’s
truth-telling. I worried that the Saudis might be spiriting Jamal
against his wishes back to Saudi Arabia for some kind of phony trial.
As we soon learned,
my imagination was no match for MBS’s depravity. He had dispatched a
hit squad — complete with a “forensic expert” equipped with a bone saw
to dismember Jamal’s body. To this day, the regime hasn’t told the
world, or the family, what became of his remains.
To this day, too, the
cruelty of the crown prince has not abated, as our Editorial
Board makes clear. But to this day,
The Post remains committed to achieving accountability for this crime —
and, as these articles we published last week show,
many other people do as well.
Attiah, who was
Jamal’s editor, writes of continuing efforts in the courts. “Thanks
to determined Saudis and human rights organizations, the Saudi regime’s
murderous ways are still on trial,” she says.
Madawi Al-Rasheed and
Abdullah Alaoudh discuss last week’s formation
of a party in exile, “a party rooted in democratic principles seeking
to restore basic rights for Saudi society, such as freedom of speech,
accountability, elections and respect for international law.”
And Hatice Cengiz,
Jamal’s fiancée who waited, hour after hour, for Jamal to come out of
the consulate on that bleak day two years ago, has a clear-eyed
assessment of the Trump administration’s pitiful response to the
murder.
“How lucky that we
had his grace and insights, which were so original and important, for a
time,” she writes. “But how unlucky that we
now have leaders who cannot pass the test of humanity, and who are
ignoring all the human values and international law.”
Still Oct. 5, 2020
This encyclical just
came to me in English, from Pope Francis. It is loooong but I would
advise you to take it a little at a time. I think they said it is 60
pages. Take it two or three pages a day but don’t overstrain yourselves.
I lists topics, so you might want to look for a topic that interests
you first.
It is an attempt to reflect on the
challenges we face in our modern world that is so divisive, and how we might begin to think of how to
tackle some of these things in our own lives as well as in the
societies we live in. It is not meant just for Catholics but is
universal, for all of us who call the earth our common home.
ENCYCLICAL LETTER FRATELLI TUTTI OF THE HOLY
FATHER FRANCIS ON THE FRATERNITY AND SOCIAL FRIENDSHIP 1. “FRATELLI
TUTTI”.[1] With these words, Saint Francis of Assisi addressed his
brothers and sisters and proposed to them a way of life marked by the
flavour of the Gospel. Of the counsels Francis offered, I would like to
select the one in which he calls for a love that transcends the
barriers of geography and distance, and declares blessed all those who
love their brother “as much when he is far away from him as when he is
with him”.[2] In his simple and direct way, Saint Francis expressed the
essence of a fraternal openness that allows us to acknowledge,
appreciate and love each person, regardless of physical proximity,
regardless of where he or she was born or lives. 2. This saint of
fraternal love, simplicity and joy, who inspired me to write the Encyclical
Laudato Si’, prompts me once more to devote this new Encyclical to
fraternity and social friendship. Francis felt himself a brother to the
sun, the sea and the wind, yet he knew that he was even closer to those
of his own flesh. Wherever he went, he sowed seeds of peace and walked
alongside the poor, the abandoned, the infirm and the outcast, the
least of his brothers and sisters. WITHOUT BORDERS 3. There is an
episode in the life of Saint Francis that shows his openness of heart,
which knew no bounds and transcended differences of origin,
nationality, colour or religion. It was his visit to Sultan
Malik-el-Kamil, in Egypt, which entailed considerable hardship, given
Francis’ poverty, his scarce resources, the great distances to be
traveled and their differences of language, culture and religion. That
journey, undertaken at the time of the Crusades, further demonstrated
the breadth and grandeur of his love, which sought to embrace everyone.
Francis’ fidelity to his Lord was commensurate with his love for his
brothers and sisters. Unconcerned for the hardships and dangers
involved, Francis went to meet the Sultan with the same attitude that
he instilled in his disciples: if they found themselves “among the
Saracens and other nonbelievers”, without renouncing their own identity
they were not to “engage in arguments or disputes, but to be subject to
every human creature for God’s sake”.[3] In the context of the times,
this was an extraordinary recommendation. We are impressed that some
eight hundred years ago Saint Francis urged that all forms of hostility
or conflict be avoided and that a humble and fraternal “subjection” be
shown to those who did not share his faith. 4. Francis did not wage a
war of words aimed at imposing doctrines; he simply spread the love of
God. He understood that “God is love and those who abide in love abide
in God” (1 Jn 4:16). In this way, he became a father to all and
inspired the vision of a fraternal society. Indeed, “only the man who
approaches others, not to draw them into his own life, but to help them
become ever more fully themselves, can truly be called a father”.[4] In
the world of that time, bristling with watchtowers and defensive walls,
cities were a theatre of brutal wars between powerful families, even as
poverty was spreading through the countryside. Yet there Francis was
able to welcome true peace into his heart and free himself of the
desire to wield power over others. He became one of the poor and sought
to live in harmony with all. Francis has inspired these pages. 5.
Issues of human fraternity and social friendship have always been a
concern of mine. In recent years, I have spoken of them repeatedly and
in different settings. In this Encyclical, I have sought to bring
together many of those statements and to situate them in a broader
context of reflection. In the preparation of Laudato Si’, I had a
source of inspiration in my brother Bartholomew, the Orthodox
Patriarch, who has spoken forcefully of our need to care for creation.
In this case, I have felt particularly encouraged by the Grand Imam
Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, with whom I met in Abu Dhabi, where we declared that
“God has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity,
and has called them to live together as brothers and sisters”.[5] This
was no mere diplomatic gesture, but a reflection born of dialogue and
common commitment. The present Encyclical takes up and develops some of
the great themes raised in the Document that we both signed. I have
also incorporated, along with my own thoughts, a number of letters,
documents and considerations that I have received from many individuals
and groups throughout the world. 6. The following pages do not claim to
offer a complete teaching on fraternal love, but rather to consider its
universal scope, its openness to every man and woman. I offer this
social Encyclical as a modest contribution to continued reflection, in
the hope that in the face of present-day attempts to eliminate or
ignore others, we may prove capable of responding with a new vision of
fraternity and social friendship that will not remain at the level of
words. Although I have written it from the Christian convictions that
inspire and sustain me, I have sought to make this reflection an
invitation to dialogue among all people of good will. 7. As I was
writing this letter, the Covid-19 pandemic unexpectedly erupted,
exposing our false securities. Aside from the different ways that
various countries responded to the crisis, their 2 inability to work
together became quite evident. For all our hyper-connectivity, we
witnessed a fragmentation that made it more difficult to resolve
problems that affect us all. Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to
be learned was the need to improve what we were already doing, or to
refine existing systems and regulations, is denying reality. 8. It is
my desire that, in this our time, by acknowledging the dignity of each
human person, we can contribute to the rebirth of a universal
aspiration to fraternity. Fraternity between all men and women. “Here
we have a splendid secret that shows us how to dream and to turn our
life into a wonderful adventure. No one can face life in isolation… We
need a community that supports and helps us, in which we can help one
another to keep looking ahead. How important it is to dream together…
By ourselves, we risk seeing mirages, things that are not there.
Dreams, on the other hand, are built together”.[6] Let us dream, then,
as a single human family, as fellow travelers sharing the same flesh,
as children of the same earth which is our common home, each of us
bringing the richness of his or her beliefs and convictions, each of us
with his or her own voice, brothers and sisters all. CHAPTER ONE DARK
CLOUDS OVER A CLOSED WORLD 9. Without claiming to carry out an
exhaustive analysis or to study every aspect of our present-day
experience, I intend simply to consider certain trends in our world
that hinder the development of universal fraternity. SHATTERED DREAMS
10. For decades, it seemed that the world had learned a lesson from its
many wars and disasters, and was slowly moving towards various forms of
integration. For example, there was the dream of a united Europe,
capable of acknowledging its shared roots and rejoicing in its rich
diversity. We think of “the firm conviction of the founders of the
European Union, who envisioned a future based on the capacity to work
together in bridging divisions and in fostering peace and fellowship
between all the peoples of this continent”.[7] There was also a growing
desire for integration in Latin America, and several steps were taken
in this direction. In some countries and regions, attempts at
reconciliation and rapprochement proved fruitful, while others showed
great promise. 11. Our own days, however, seem to be showing signs of a
certain regression. Ancient conflicts thought long buried are breaking
out anew, while instances of a myopic, extremist, resentful and
aggressive nationalism are on the rise. In some countries, a concept of
popular and national unity influenced by various ideologies is creating
new forms of selfishness and a loss of the social sense under the guise
of defending national interests. Once more we are being reminded that
“each new generation must take up the struggles and attainments of past
generations, while 3 setting its sights even higher. This is the path.
Goodness, together with love, justice and solidarity, are not achieved
once and for all; they have to be realized each day. It is not possible
to settle for what was achieved in the past and complacently enjoy it,
as if we could somehow disregard the fact that many of our brothers and
sisters still endure situations that cry out for our attention”.[8] 12.
“Opening up to the world” is an expression that has been co-opted by
the economic and financial sector and is now used exclusively of
openness to foreign interests or to the freedom of economic powers to
invest without obstacles or complications in all countries. Local
conflicts and disregard for the common good are exploited by the global
economy in order to impose a single cultural model. This culture
unifies the world, but divides persons and nations, for “as society
becomes ever more globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not make
us brothers”.[9] We are more alone than ever in an increasingly
massified world that promotes individual interests and weakens the
communitarian dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets where
individuals become mere consumers or bystanders. As a rule, the advance
of this kind of globalism strengthens the identity of the more
powerful, who can protect themselves, but it tends to diminish the
identity of the weaker and poorer regions, making them more vulnerable
and dependent. In this way, political life becomes increasingly fragile
in the face of transnational economic powers that operate with the
principle of “divide and conquer”. The end of historical consciousness
13. As a result, there is a growing loss of the sense of history, which
leads to even further breakup. A kind of “deconstructionism”, whereby
human freedom claims to create everything starting from zero, is making
headway in today’s culture. The one thing it leaves in its wake is the
drive to limitless consumption and expressions of empty individualism.
Concern about this led me to offer the young some advice. “If someone
tells young people to ignore their history, to reject the experiences
of their elders, to look down on the past and to look forward to a
future that he himself holds out, doesn’t it then become easy to draw
them along so that they only do what he tells them? He needs the young
to be shallow, uprooted and distrustful, so that they can trust only in
his promises and act according to his plans. That is how various
ideologies operate: they destroy (or deconstruct) all differences so
that they can reign unopposed. To do so, however, they need young
people who have no use for history, who spurn the spiritual and human
riches inherited from past generations, and are ignorant of everything
that came before them”.[10] 14. These are the new forms of cultural
colonization. Let us not forget that “peoples that abandon their
tradition and, either from a craze to mimic others or to foment
violence, or from unpardonable negligence or apathy, allow others to
rob their very soul, end up losing not only their spiritual identity
but also their moral consistency and, in the end, their intellectual,
economic and political independence”.[11] One effective way to weaken
historical consciousness, critical thinking, the struggle for justice
and the processes of integration is to empty great words of their
meaning or to manipulate them. Nowadays, what do certain words like
democracy, freedom, justice or unity 4 really mean? They have been bent
and shaped to serve as tools for domination, as meaningless tags that
can be used to justify any action. LACKING A PLAN FOR EVERYONE 15. The
best way to dominate and gain control over people is to spread despair
and discouragement, even under the guise of defending certain values.
Today, in many countries, hyperbole, extremism and polarization have
become political tools. Employing a strategy of ridicule, suspicion and
relentless criticism, in a variety of ways one denies the right of
others to exist or to have an opinion. Their share of the truth and
their values are rejected and, as a result, the life of society is
impoverished and subjected to the hubris of the powerful. Political
life no longer has to do with healthy debates about long-term plans to
improve people’s lives and to advance the common good, but only with
slick marketing techniques primarily aimed at discrediting others. In
this craven exchange of charges and counter-charges, debate degenerates
into a permanent state of disagreement and confrontation. 16. Amid the
fray of conflicting interests, where victory consists in eliminating
one’s opponents, how is it possible to raise our sights to recognize
our neighbours or to help those who have fallen along the way? A plan
that would set great goals for the development of our entire human
family nowadays sounds like madness. We are growing ever more distant
from one another, while the slow and demanding march towards an
increasingly united and just world is suffering a new and dramatic
setback. 17. To care for the world in which we live means to care for
ourselves. Yet we need to think of ourselves more and more as a single
family dwelling in a common home. Such care does not interest those
economic powers that demand quick profits. Often the voices raised in
defence of the environment are silenced or ridiculed, using apparently
reasonable arguments that are merely a screen for special interests. In
this shallow, short-sighted culture that we have created, bereft of a
shared vision, “it is foreseeable that, once certain resources have
been depleted, the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under the guise
of noble claims”.[12] A “throwaway” world 18. Some parts of our human
family, it appears, can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others
considered worthy of a carefree existence. Ultimately, “persons are no
longer seen as a paramount value to be cared for and respected,
especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not yet useful’ – like the
unborn, or ‘no longer needed’ – like the elderly. We have grown
indifferent to all kinds of wastefulness, starting with the waste of
food, which is deplorable in the extreme”.[13] 19. A decline in the
birthrate, which leads to the aging of the population, together with
the relegation of the elderly to a sad and lonely existence, is a
subtle way of stating that it is all about 5 us, that our individual
concerns are the only thing that matters. In this way, “what is thrown
away are not only food and dispensable objects, but often human beings
themselves”.[14] We have seen what happened with the elderly in certain
places in our world as a result of the coronavirus. They did not have
to die that way. Yet something similar had long been occurring during
heat waves and in other situations: older people found themselves
cruelly abandoned. We fail to realize that, by isolating the elderly
and leaving them in the care of others without the closeness and
concern of family members, we disfigure and impoverish the family
itself. We also end up depriving young people of a necessary connection
to their roots and a wisdom that the young cannot achieve on their own.
20. This way of discarding others can take a variety of forms, such as
an obsession with reducing labour costs with no concern for its grave
consequences, since the unemployment that it directly generates leads
to the expansion of poverty.[15] In addition, a readiness to discard
others finds expression in vicious attitudes that we thought long past,
such as racism, which retreats underground only to keep reemerging.
Instances of racism continue to shame us, for they show that our
supposed social progress is not as real or definitive as we think. 21.
Some economic rules have proved effective for growth, but not for
integral human development.[16] Wealth has increased, but together with
inequality, with the result that “new forms of poverty are
emerging”.[17] The claim that the modern world has reduced poverty is
made by measuring poverty with criteria from the past that do not
correspond to present-day realities. In other times, for example, lack
of access to electric energy was not considered a sign of poverty, nor
was it a source of hardship. Poverty must always be understood and
gauged in the context of the actual opportunities available in each
concrete historical period. Insufficiently universal human rights 22.
It frequently becomes clear that, in practice, human rights are not
equal for all. Respect for those rights “is the preliminary condition
for a country’s social and economic development. When the dignity of
the human person is respected, and his or her rights recognized and
guaranteed, creativity and interdependence thrive, and the creativity
of the human personality is released through actions that further the
common good”.[18] Yet, “by closely observing our contemporary
societies, we see numerous contradictions that lead us to wonder
whether the equal dignity of all human beings, solemnly proclaimed
seventy years ago, is truly recognized, respected, protected and
promoted in every situation. In today’s world, many forms of injustice
persist, fed by reductive anthropological visions and by a profit-based
economic model that does not hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill
human beings. While one part of humanity lives in opulence, another
part sees its own dignity denied, scorned or trampled upon, and its
fundamental rights discarded or violated”.[19] What does this tell us
about the equality of rights grounded in innate human dignity? 23.
Similarly, the organization of societies worldwide is still far from
reflecting clearly that women 6 possess the same dignity and identical
rights as men. We say one thing with words, but our decisions and
reality tell another story. Indeed, “doubly poor are those women who
endure situations of exclusion, mistreatment and violence, since they
are frequently less able to defend their rights”.[20] 24. We should
also recognize that “even though the international community has
adopted numerous agreements aimed at ending slavery in all its forms,
and has launched various strategies to combat this phenomenon, millions
of people today – children, women and men of all ages – are deprived of
freedom and forced to live in conditions akin to slavery… Today, as in
the past, slavery is rooted in a notion of the human person that allows
him or her to be treated as an object… Whether by coercion, or
deception, or by physical or psychological duress, human persons
created in the image and likeness of God are deprived of their freedom,
sold and reduced to being the property of others. They are treated as
means to an end… [Criminal networks] are skilled in using modern means
of communication as a way of luring young men and women in various
parts of the world”.[21] A perversion that exceeds all limits when it
subjugates women and then forces them to abort. An abomination that
goes to the length of kidnapping persons for the sake of selling their
organs. Trafficking in persons and other contemporary forms of
enslavement are a worldwide problem that needs to be taken seriously by
humanity as a whole: “since criminal organizations employ global
networks to achieve their goals, efforts to eliminate this phenomenon
also demand a common and, indeed, a global effort on the part of
various sectors of society”.[22] Conflict and fear 25. War, terrorist
attacks, racial or religious persecution, and many other affronts to
human dignity are judged differently, depending on how convenient it
proves for certain, primarily economic, interests. What is true as long
as it is convenient for someone in power stops being true once it
becomes inconvenient. These situations of violence, sad to say, “have
become so common as to constitute a real ‘third world war’ fought
piecemeal”.[23] 26. This should not be surprising, if we realize that
we no longer have common horizons that unite us; indeed, the first
victim of every war is “the human family’s innate vocation to
fraternity”. As a result, “every threatening situation breeds mistrust
and leads people to withdraw into their own safety zone”.[24] Our world
is trapped in a strange contradiction: we believe that we can “ensure
stability and peace through a false sense of security sustained by a
mentality of fear and mistrust”.[25] 27. Paradoxically, we have certain
ancestral fears that technological development has not succeeded in
eliminating; indeed, those fears have been able to hide and spread
behind new technologies. Today too, outside the ancient town walls lies
the abyss, the territory of the unknown, the wilderness. Whatever comes
from there cannot be trusted, for it is unknown, unfamiliar, not part
of the village. It is the territory of the “barbarian”, from whom we
must defend 7 ourselves at all costs. As a result, new walls are
erected for self-preservation, the outside world ceases to exist and
leaves only “my” world, to the point that others, no longer considered
human beings possessed of an inalienable dignity, become only “them”.
Once more, we encounter “the temptation to build a culture of walls, to
raise walls, walls in the heart, walls on the land, in order to prevent
this encounter with other cultures, with other people. And those who
raise walls will end up as slaves within the very walls they have
built. They are left without horizons, for they lack this interchange
with others”.[26] 28. The loneliness, fear and insecurity experienced
by those who feel abandoned by the system creates a fertile terrain for
various “mafias”. These flourish because they claim to be defenders of
the forgotten, often by providing various forms of assistance even as
they pursue their criminal interests. There also exists a typically
“mafioso” pedagogy that, by appealing to a false communitarian
mystique, creates bonds of dependency and fealty from which it is very
difficult to break free. GLOBALIZATION AND PROGRESS WITHOUT A SHARED
ROADMAP 29. With the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, we do not ignore the
positive advances made in the areas of science, technology, medicine,
industry and welfare, above all in developed countries. Nonetheless,
“we wish to emphasize that, together with these historical advances,
great and valued as they are, there exists a moral deterioration that
influences international action and a weakening of spiritual values and
responsibility. This contributes to a general feeling of frustration,
isolation and desperation”. We see “outbreaks of tension and a buildup
of arms and ammunition in a global context dominated by uncertainty,
disillusionment, fear of the future, and controlled by narrow economic
interests”. We can also point to “major political crises, situations of
injustice and the lack of an equitable distribution of natural
resources… In the face of such crises that result in the deaths of
millions of children – emaciated from poverty and hunger – there is an
unacceptable silence on the international level”.[27] This panorama,
for all its undeniable advances, does not appear to lead to a more
humane future. 30. In today’s world, the sense of belonging to a single
human family is fading, and the dream of working together for justice
and peace seems an outdated utopia. What reigns instead is a cool,
comfortable and globalized indifference, born of deep disillusionment concealed
behind a deceptive illusion: thinking that we are all-powerful, while
failing to realize that we are all in the same boat. This illusion,
unmindful of the great fraternal values, leads to “a sort of cynicism.
For that is the temptation we face if we go down the road of
disenchantment and disappointment… Isolation and withdrawal into one’s
own interests are never the way to restore hope and bring about
renewal. Rather, it is closeness; it is the culture of encounter.
Isolation, no; closeness, yes. Culture clash, no; culture of encounter,
yes”.[28] 31. In this world that races ahead, yet lacks a shared
roadmap, we increasingly sense that “the 8 gap between concern for
one’s personal well-being and the prosperity of the larger human family
seems to be stretching to the point of complete division between
individuals and human community… It is one thing to feel forced to live
together, but something entirely different to value the richness and
beauty of those seeds of common life that need to be sought out and
cultivated”.[29] Technology is constantly advancing, yet “how wonderful
it would be if the growth of scientific and technological innovation
could come with more equality and social inclusion. How wonderful would
it be, even as we discover faraway planets, to rediscover the needs of
the brothers and sisters who orbit around us”.[30] PANDEMICS AND OTHER
CALAMITIES IN HISTORY 32. True, a worldwide tragedy like the Covid-19
pandemic momentarily revived the sense that we are a global community,
all in the same boat, where one person’s problems are the problems of
all. Once more we realized that no one is saved alone; we can only be
saved together. As I said in those days, “the storm has exposed our
vulnerability and uncovered those false and superfluous certainties
around which we constructed our daily schedules, our projects, our
habits and priorities… Amid this storm, the façade of those stereotypes
with which we camouflaged our egos, always worrying about appearances,
has fallen away, revealing once more the ineluctable and blessed
awareness that we are part of one another, that we are brothers and
sisters of one another”.[31] 33. The world was relentlessly moving
towards an economy that, thanks to technological progress, sought to
reduce “human costs”; there were those who would have had us believe
that freedom of the market was sufficient to keep everything secure.
Yet the brutal and unforeseen blow of this uncontrolled pandemic forced
us to recover our concern for human beings, for everyone, rather than for
the benefit of a few. Today we can recognize that “we fed ourselves on
dreams of splendour and grandeur, and ended up consuming distraction,
insularity and solitude. We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost
the taste of fraternity. We looked for quick and safe results, only to
find ourselves overwhelmed by impatience and anxiety. Prisoners of a
virtual reality, we lost the taste and flavour of the truly real”.[32]
The pain, uncertainty and fear, and the realization of our own
limitations, brought on by the pandemic have only made it all the more
urgent that we rethink our styles of life, our relationships, the
organization of our societies and, above all, the meaning of our
existence. 34. If everything is connected, it is hard to imagine that
this global disaster is unrelated to our way of approaching reality,
our claim to be absolute masters of our own lives and of all that
exists. I do not want to speak of divine retribution, nor would it be
sufficient to say that the harm we do to nature is itself the
punishment for our offences. The world is itself crying out in
rebellion. We are reminded of the well-known verse of the poet Virgil
that evokes the “tears of things”, the misfortunes of life and
history.[33] 9 35. All too quickly, however, we forget the lessons of
history, “the teacher of life”.[34] Once this health crisis passes, our
worst response would be to plunge even more deeply into feverish
consumerism and new forms of egotistic self-preservation. God willing,
after all this, we will think no longer in terms of “them” and “those”,
but only “us”. If only this may prove not to be just another tragedy of
history from which we learned nothing. If only we might keep in mind
all those elderly persons who died for lack of respirators, partly as a
result of the dismantling, year after year, of healthcare systems. If
only this immense sorrow may not prove useless, but enable us to take a
step forward towards a new style of life. If only we might rediscover
once for all that we need one another, and that in this way our human
family can experience a rebirth, with all its faces, all its hands and
all its voices, beyond the walls that we have erected. 36. Unless we
recover the shared passion to create a community of belonging and
solidarity worthy of our time, our energy and our resources, the global
illusion that misled us will collapse and leave many in the grip of
anguish and emptiness. Nor should we naively refuse to recognize that
“obsession with a consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people are
capable of maintaining it, can only lead to violence and mutual
destruction”.[35] The notion of “every man for himself” will rapidly
degenerate into a free-for-all that would prove worse than any
pandemic. AN ABSENCE OF HUMAN DIGNITY ON THE BORDERS 37. Certain populist
political regimes, as well as certain liberal economic approaches,
maintain that an influx of migrants is to be prevented at all costs.
Arguments are also made for the propriety of limiting aid to poor
countries, so that they can hit rock bottom and find themselves forced
to take austerity measures. One fails to realize that behind such
statements, abstract and hard to support, great numbers of lives are at
stake. Many migrants have fled from war, persecution and natural
catastrophes. Others, rightly, “are seeking opportunities for
themselves and their families. They dream of a better future and they
want to create the conditions for achieving it”.[36] 38. Sadly, some
“are attracted by Western culture, sometimes with unrealistic
expectations that expose them to grave disappointments. Unscrupulous
traffickers, frequently linked to drug cartels or arms cartels, exploit
the weakness of migrants, who too often experience violence,
trafficking, psychological and physical abuse and untold sufferings on
their journey”.[37] Those who emigrate “experience separation from
their place of origin, and often a cultural and religious uprooting as
well. Fragmentation is also felt by the communities they leave behind,
which lose their most vigorous and enterprising elements, and by
families, especially when one or both of the parents migrates, leaving
the children in the country of origin”.[38] For this reason, “there is
also a need to reaffirm the right not to emigrate, that is, to remain
in one’s homeland”.[39] 39. Then too, “in some host countries,
migration causes fear and alarm, often fomented and exploited for
political purposes. This can lead to a xenophobic mentality, as people
close in on themselves, and it needs to be addressed decisively”.[40]
Migrants are not seen as entitled like 10 others to participate in the
life of society, and it is forgotten that they possess the same
intrinsic dignity as any person. Hence they ought to be “agents in
their own redemption”.[41] No one will ever openly deny that they are human
beings, yet in practice, by our decisions and the way we treat them, we
can show that we consider them less worthy, less important, less human.
For Christians, this way of thinking and acting is unacceptable, since
it sets certain political preferences above deep convictions of our
faith: the inalienable dignity of each human person regardless of
origin, race or religion, and the supreme law of fraternal love. 40.
“Migrations, more than ever before, will play a pivotal role in the
future of our world”.[42] At present, however, migration is affected by
the “loss of that sense of responsibility for our brothers and sisters
on which every civil society is based”.[43] Europe, for example,
seriously risks taking this path. Nonetheless, “aided by its great cultural
and religious heritage, it has the means to defend the centrality of
the human person and to find the right balance between its twofold
moral responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens and to
assure assistance and acceptance to migrants”.[44] 41. I realize that
some people are hesitant and fearful with regard to migrants. I
consider this part of our natural instinct of self-defence. Yet it is
also true that an individual and a people are only fruitful and
productive if they are able to develop a creative openness to others. I
ask everyone to move beyond those primal reactions because “there is a
problem when doubts and fears condition our way of thinking and acting
to the point of making us intolerant, closed and perhaps even – without
realizing it – racist. In this way, fear deprives us of the desire and
the ability to encounter the other”.[45] THE ILLUSION OF COMMUNICATION
42. Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant attitudes towards others
are on the rise, distances are otherwise shrinking or disappearing to
the point that the right to privacy scarcely exists. Everything has
become a kind of spectacle to be examined and inspected, and people’s
lives are now under constant surveillance. Digital communication wants
to bring everything out into the open; people’s lives are combed over,
laid bare and bandied about, often anonymously. Respect for others
disintegrates, and even as we dismiss, ignore or keep others distant,
we can shamelessly peer into every detail of their lives. 42. Digital campaigns
of hatred and destruction, for their part, are not – as some would have
us believe – a positive form of mutual support, but simply an
association of individuals united against a perceived common enemy.
“Digital media can also expose people to the risk of addiction,
isolation and a gradual loss of contact with concrete reality, blocking
the development of authentic interpersonal relationships”.[46] They
lack the physical gestures, facial expressions, moments of silence,
body language and even the smells, the trembling of hands, the blushes
and perspiration that speak to us and are a part of human
communication. Digital relationships, which do not 11 demand the slow
and gradual cultivation of friendships, stable interaction or the
building of a consensus that matures over time, have the appearance of
sociability. Yet they do not really build community; instead, they tend
to disguise and expand the very individualism that finds expression in
xenophobia and in contempt for the vulnerable. Digital connectivity is
not enough to build bridges. It is not capable of uniting humanity.
Shameless aggression 44. Even as individuals maintain their comfortable
consumerist isolation, they can choose a form of constant and febrile
bonding that encourages remarkable hostility, insults, abuse,
defamation and verbal violence destructive of others, and this with a
lack of restraint that could not exist in physical contact without
tearing us all apart. Social aggression has found unparalleled room for
expansion through computers and mobile devices. 45. This has now given
free rein to ideologies. Things that until a few years ago could not be
said by anyone without risking the loss of universal respect can now be
said with impunity, and in the crudest of terms, even by some political
figures. Nor should we forget that “there are huge economic interests
operating in the digital world, capable of exercising forms of control
as subtle as they are invasive, creating mechanisms for the
manipulation of consciences and of the democratic process. The way many
platforms work often ends up favouring encounter between persons who
think alike, shielding them from debate. These closed circuits
facilitate the spread of fake news and false information, fomenting
prejudice and hate”.[47] 46. We should also recognize that destructive
forms of fanaticism are at times found among religious believers,
including Christians; they too “can be caught up in networks of verbal
violence through the internet and the various forums of digital
communication. Even in Catholic media, limits can be overstepped,
defamation and slander can become commonplace, and all ethical
standards and respect for the good name of others can be
abandoned”.[48] How can this contribute to the fraternity that our
common Father asks of us? Information without wisdom 47. True wisdom
demands an encounter with reality. Today, however, everything can be
created, disguised and altered. A direct encounter even with the
fringes of reality can thus prove intolerable. A mechanism of selection
then comes into play, whereby I can immediately separate likes from
dislikes, what I consider attractive from what I deem distasteful. In
the same way, we can choose the people with whom we wish to share our
world. Persons or situations we find unpleasant or disagreeable are
simply deleted in today’s virtual networks; a virtual circle is then
created, isolating us from the real world in which we are living. 48.
The ability to sit down and listen to others, typical of interpersonal
encounters, is paradigmatic 12 of the welcoming attitude shown by those
who transcend narcissism and accept others, caring for them and
welcoming them into their lives. Yet “today’s world is largely a deaf
world… At times, the frantic pace of the modern world prevents us from
listening attentively to what another person is saying. Halfway
through, we interrupt him and want to contradict what he has not even
finished saying. We must not lose our ability to listen”. Saint Francis
“heard the voice of God, he heard the voice of the poor, he heard the
voice of the infirm and he heard the voice of nature. He made of them a
way of life. My desire is that the seed that Saint Francis planted may
grow in the hearts of many”.[49] 49. As silence and careful listening
disappear, replaced by a frenzy of texting, this basic structure of
sage human communication is at risk. A new lifestyle is emerging, where
we create only what we want and exclude all that we cannot control or
know instantly and superficially. This process, by its intrinsic logic,
blocks the kind of serene reflection that could lead us to a shared
wisdom. 50. Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue, in relaxed
conversation or in passionate debate. To do so calls for perseverance;
it entails moments of silence and suffering, yet it can patiently
embrace the broader experience of individuals and peoples. The flood of
information at our fingertips does not make for greater wisdom. Wisdom
is not born of quick searches on the internet nor is it a mass of
unverified data. That is not the way to mature in the encounter with
truth. Conversations revolve only around the latest data; they become
merely horizontal and cumulative. We fail to keep our attention
focused, to penetrate to the heart of matters, and to recognize what is
essential to give meaning to our lives. Freedom thus becomes an
illusion that we are peddled, easily confused with the ability to
navigate the internet. The process of building fraternity, be it local
or universal, can only be undertaken by spirits that are free and open
to authentic encounters. FORMS OF SUBJECTION AND OF SELF-CONTEMPT 51.
Certain economically prosperous countries tend to be proposed as
cultural models for less developed countries; instead, each of those
countries should be helped to grow in its own distinct way and to
develop its capacity for innovation while respecting the values of its
proper culture. A shallow and pathetic desire to imitate others leads
to copying and consuming in place of creating, and fosters low national
self-esteem. In the affluent sectors of many poor countries, and at
times in those who have recently emerged from poverty, there is a
resistance to native ways of thinking and acting, and a tendency to
look down on one’s own cultural identity, as if it were the sole cause
of every ill. 52. Destroying self-esteem is an easy way to dominate
others. Behind these trends that tend to level our world, there
flourish powerful interests that take advantage of such low
self-esteem, while attempting, through the media and networks, to create
a new culture in the service of the elite. This plays into the
opportunism of financial speculators and raiders, and the poor always
end up 13 the losers. Then too, ignoring the culture of their people
has led to the inability of many political leaders to devise an
effective development plan that could be freely accepted and sustained
over time. 53. We forget that “there is no worse form of alienation
than to feel uprooted, belonging to no one. A land will be fruitful,
and its people bear fruit and give birth to the future, only to the
extent that it can foster a sense of belonging among its members,
create bonds of integration between generations and different
communities, and avoid all that makes us insensitive to others and
leads to further alienation”.[50] HOPE 54. Despite these dark clouds,
which may not be ignored, I would like in the following pages to take
up and discuss many new paths of hope. For God continues to sow
abundant seeds of goodness in our human family. The recent pandemic
enabled us to recognize and appreciate once more all those around us
who, in the midst of fear, responded by putting their lives on the
line. We began to realize that our lives are interwoven with and
sustained by ordinary people valiantly shaping the decisive events of
our shared history: doctors, nurses, pharmacists, storekeepers and
supermarket workers, cleaning personnel, caretakers, transport workers,
men and women working to provide essential services and public safety,
volunteers, priests and religious… They understood that no one is saved
alone.[51] 55. I invite everyone to renewed hope, for hope “speaks to
us of something deeply rooted in every human heart, independently of
our circumstances and historical conditioning. Hope speaks to us of a
thirst, an aspiration, a longing for a life of fulfillment, a desire to
achieve great things, things that fill our heart and lift our spirit to
lofty realities like truth, goodness and beauty, justice and love… Hope
is bold; it can look beyond personal convenience, the petty securities
and compensations which limit our horizon, and it can open us up to
grand ideals that make life more beautiful and worthwhile”.[52] Let us
continue, then, to advance along the paths of hope. CHAPTER TWO A
STRANGER ON THE ROAD 56. The previous chapter should not be read as a
cool and detached description of today’s problems, for “the joys and
hopes, the grief and anguish of the people of our time, especially of
those who are poor or afflicted, are the joys and hopes, the grief and
anguish of the followers of Christ as well. Nothing that is genuinely
human fails to find an echo in their hearts”.[53] In the attempt to
search for a ray of light in the midst of what we are experiencing, and
before proposing a few lines of action, I now wish to devote a chapter
to a parable told by Jesus Christ two thousand years ago. Although this
Letter is addressed to all people of good will, regardless of their 14
religious convictions, the parable is one that any of us can relate to
and find challenging. “Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.
‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life?’ He said
to him, ‘What is written in the law? What do you read there?’ He
answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and
with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind;
and your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him, ‘You have given
the right answer; do this, and you will live.’ But wanting to justify
himself, he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus replied, ‘A
man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and fell into the hands
of robbers, who stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving him half
dead. Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw
him, he passed by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when he came
to the place and saw him, passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan
while traveling came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved with
pity. He went to him and bandaged his wounds, having poured oil and
wine on them. Then he put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn,
and took care of him. The next day he took out two denarii, gave them
to the innkeeper, and said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I
will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which of these three, do you
think, was a neighbour to the man who fell into the hands of the
robbers?” He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus said to him,
‘Go and do likewise.’”(Lk 10:25-37). The context 57. This parable has
to do with an age-old problem. Shortly after its account of the
creation of the world and of man, the Bible takes up the issue of human
relationships. Cain kills his brother Abel and then hears God ask:
“Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen 4:9). His answer is one that we
ourselves all too often give: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (ibid.). By
the very question he asks, God leaves no room for an appeal to
determinism or fatalism as a justification for our own indifference.
Instead, he encourages us to create a different culture, in which we
resolve our conflicts and care for one another. 58. The Book of Job
sees our origin in the one Creator as the basis of certain common
rights: “Did not he who made me in the womb also make him? And did not
the same one fashion us in the womb?” (Job 31:15). Many centuries
later, Saint Irenaeus would use the image of a melody to make the same
point: “One who seeks the truth should not concentrate on the
differences between one note and another, thinking as if each was
created separately and apart from the others; instead, he should
realize that one and the same person composed the entire melody”.[54]
59. In earlier Jewish traditions, the imperative to love and care for
others appears to have been limited to relationships between members of
the same nation. The ancient commandment to “love your neighbour as
yourself” (Lev 19:18) was usually understood as referring to one’s
fellow citizens, yet the boundaries gradually expanded, especially in
the Judaism that developed outside of the land of Israel. We encounter
the command not to do to others what you would not want 15 them to do
to you (cf. Tob 4:15). In the first century before Christ, Rabbi Hillel
stated: “This is the entire Torah. Everything else is commentary”.[55]
The desire to imitate God’s own way of acting gradually replaced the
tendency to think only of those nearest us: “The compassion of man is
for his neighbour, but the compassion of the Lord is for all living
beings” (Sir 18:13). 60. In the New Testament, Hillel’s precept was
expressed in positive terms: “In everything, do to others as you would
have them do to you; for this is the law and the prophets” (Mt 7:12).
This command is universal in scope, embracing everyone on the basis of
our shared humanity, since the heavenly Father “makes his sun rise on
the evil and on the good” (Mt 5:45). Hence the summons to “be merciful,
just as your Father is merciful” (Lk 6:36). 61. In the oldest texts of
the Bible, we find a reason why our hearts should expand to embrace the
foreigner. It derives from the enduring memory of the Jewish people
that they themselves had once lived as foreigners in Egypt: “You shall
not wrong or oppress a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of
Egypt” (Ex 22:21). “You shall not oppress a stranger; you know the
heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex
23:9). “When a stranger resides with you in your land, you shall not do
him wrong. The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as the
citizen among you; you shall love the stranger as yourself, for you were
strangers in the land of Egypt” (Lev 19:33-34). “When you gather the
grapes of your vineyard, do not glean what is left; it shall be for the
sojourner, the orphan, and the widow. Remember that you were a slave in
the land of Egypt” (Deut 24:21-22). The call to fraternal love echoes
throughout the New Testament: “For the whole law is summed up in a
single commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as yourself’” (Gal
5:14). “Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the light, and in
such a person there is no cause for stumbling. But whoever hates
another believer is in the darkness” (1 Jn 2:10-11). “We know that we
have passed from death to life because we love one another. Whoever
does not love abides in death” (1 Jn 3:14). “Those who do not love a
brother or sister whom they have seen, cannot love God whom they 16
have not seen” (1 Jn 4:20). 62. Yet this call to love could be
misunderstood. Saint Paul, recognizing the temptation of the earliest
Christian communities to form closed and isolated groups, urged his
disciples to abound in love “for one another and for all” (1 Thess
3:12). In the Johannine community, fellow Christians were to be
welcomed, “even though they are strangers to you” (3 Jn 5). In this
context, we can better understand the significance of the parable of
the Good Samaritan: love does not care if a brother or sister in need
comes from one place or another. For “love shatters the chains that
keep us isolated and separate; in their place, it builds bridges. Love
enables us to create one great family, where all of us can feel at
home… Love exudes compassion and dignity”.[56] Abandoned on the wayside
63. Jesus tells the story of a man assaulted by thieves and lying
injured on the wayside. Several persons passed him by, but failed to
stop. These were people holding important social positions, yet lacking
in real concern for the common good. They would not waste a couple of
minutes caring for the injured man, or even in calling for help. Only
one person stopped, approached the man and cared for him personally,
even spending his own money to provide for his needs. He also gave him
something that in our frenetic world we cling to tightly: he gave him
his time. Certainly, he had his own plans for that day, his own needs,
commitments and desires. Yet he was able to put all that aside when
confronted with someone in need. Without even knowing the injured man,
he saw him as deserving of his time and attention. 64. Which of these
persons do you identify with? This question, blunt as it is, is direct
and incisive. Which of these characters do you resemble? We need to
acknowledge that we are constantly tempted to ignore others, especially
the weak. Let us admit that, for all the progress we have made, we are
still “illiterate” when it comes to accompanying, caring for and
supporting the most frail and vulnerable members of our developed
societies. We have become accustomed to looking the other way, passing
by, ignoring situations until they affect us directly. 65. Someone is
assaulted on our streets, and many hurry off as if they did not notice.
People hit someone with their car and then flee the scene. Their only
desire is to avoid problems; it does not matter that, through their
fault, another person could die. All these are signs of an approach to
life that is spreading in various and subtle ways. What is more, caught
up as we are with our own needs, the sight of a person who is suffering
disturbs us. It makes us uneasy, since we have no time to waste on
other people’s problems. These are symptoms of an unhealthy society. A
society that seeks prosperity but turns its back on suffering. 66. May
we not sink to such depths! Let us look to the example of the Good
Samaritan. Jesus’ parable summons us to rediscover our vocation as
citizens of our respective nations and of the entire world, builders of
a new social bond. This summons is ever new, yet it is grounded in a 17
fundamental law of our being: we are called to direct society to the
pursuit of the common good and, with this purpose in mind, to persevere
in consolidating its political and social order, its fabric of
relations, its human goals. By his actions, the Good Samaritan showed
that “the existence of each and every individual is deeply tied to that
of others: life is not simply time that passes; life is a time for
interactions”.[57] 67. The parable eloquently presents the basic
decision we need to make in order to rebuild our wounded world. In the
face of so much pain and suffering, our only course is to imitate the
Good Samaritan. Any other decision would make us either one of the
robbers or one of those who walked by without showing compassion for
the sufferings of the man on the roadside. The parable shows us how a
community can be rebuilt by men and women who identify with the
vulnerability of others, who reject the creation of a society of
exclusion, and act instead as neighbours, lifting up and rehabilitating
the fallen for the sake of the common good. At the same time, it warns
us about the attitude of those who think only of themselves and fail to
shoulder the inevitable responsibilities of life as it is. 68. The
parable clearly does not indulge in abstract moralizing, nor is its
message merely social and ethical. It speaks to us of an essential and
often forgotten aspect of our common humanity: we were created for a
fulfilment that can only be found in love. We cannot be indifferent to
suffering; we cannot allow anyone to go through life as an outcast.
Instead, we should feel indignant, challenged to emerge from our
comfortable isolation and to be changed by our contact with human
suffering. That is the meaning of dignity. A story constantly retold
69. The parable is clear and straightforward, yet it also evokes the
interior struggle that each of us experiences as we gradually come to
know ourselves through our relationships with our brothers and sisters.
Sooner or later, we will all encounter a person who is suffering. Today
there are more and more of them. The decision to include or exclude
those lying wounded along the roadside can serve as a criterion for
judging every economic, political, social and religious project. Each
day we have to decide whether to be Good Samaritans or indifferent
bystanders. And if we extend our gaze to the history of our own lives
and that of the entire world, all of us are, or have been, like each of
the characters in the parable. All of us have in ourselves something of
the wounded man, something of the robber, something of the passers-by,
and something of the Good Samaritan. 70. It is remarkable how the
various characters in the story change, once confronted by the painful
sight of the poor man on the roadside. The distinctions between Judean
and Samaritan, priest and merchant, fade into insignificance. Now there
are only two kinds of people: those who care for someone who is hurting
and those who pass by; those who bend down to help and those who look
the other way and hurry off. Here, all our distinctions, labels and
masks fall away: it is the moment of truth. Will we bend down to touch
and heal the wounds of others? Will we bend down and help 18 another to
get up? This is today’s challenge, and we should not be afraid to face
it. In moments of crisis, decisions become urgent. It could be said
that, here and now, anyone who is neither a robber nor a passer-by is
either injured himself or bearing an injured person on his shoulders.
71. The story of the Good Samaritan is constantly being repeated. We
can see this clearly as social and political inertia is turning many
parts of our world into a desolate byway, even as domestic and
international disputes and the robbing of opportunities are leaving
great numbers of the marginalized stranded on the roadside. In his
parable, Jesus does not offer alternatives; he does not ask what might
have happened had the injured man or the one who helped him yielded to
anger or a thirst for revenge. Jesus trusts in the best of the human
spirit; with this parable, he encourages us to persevere in love, to
restore dignity to the suffering and to build a society worthy of the
name. The characters of the story 72. The parable begins with the
robbers. Jesus chose to start when the robbery has already taken place,
lest we dwell on the crime itself or the thieves who committed it. Yet
we know them well. We have seen, descending on our world, the dark shadows
of neglect and violence in the service of petty interests of power,
gain and division. The real question is this: will we abandon the
injured man and run to take refuge from the violence, or will we pursue
the thieves? Will the wounded man end up being the justification for
our irreconcilable divisions, our cruel indifference, our intestine
conflicts? 73. The parable then asks us to take a closer look at the
passers-by. The nervous indifference that makes them pass to the other
side of the road – whether innocently or not, whether the result of
disdain or mere distraction – makes the priest and the Levite a sad
reflection of the growing gulf between ourselves and the world around
us. There are many ways to pass by at a safe distance: we can retreat inwards,
ignore others, or be indifferent to their plight. Or simply look
elsewhere, as in some countries, or certain sectors of them, where
contempt is shown for the poor and their culture, and one looks the
other way, as if a development plan imported from without could edge
them out. This is how some justify their indifference: the poor, whose
pleas for help might touch their hearts, simply do not exist. The poor
are beyond the scope of their interest. 74. One detail about the
passers-by does stand out: they were religious, devoted to the worship
of God: a priest and a Levite. This detail should not be overlooked. It
shows that belief in God and the worship of God are not enough to
ensure that we are actually living in a way pleasing to God. A believer
may be untrue to everything that his faith demands of him, and yet
think he is close to God and better than others. The guarantee of an
authentic openness to God, on the other hand, is a way of practising
the faith that helps open our hearts to our brothers and sisters. Saint
John Chrysostom expressed this pointedly when he challenged his
Christian hearers: “Do you wish to honour the body of the Saviour? Do
not despise it when it is naked. Do not honour it in church with 19
silk vestments while outside it is naked and numb with cold”.[58]
Paradoxically, those who claim to be unbelievers can sometimes put
God’s will into practice better than believers. 75. “Robbers” usually
find secret allies in those who “pass by and look the other way”. There
is a certain interplay between those who manipulate and cheat society,
and those who, while claiming to be detached and impartial critics,
live off that system and its benefits. There is a sad hypocrisy when
the impunity of crime, the use of institutions for personal or corporate
gain, and other evils apparently impossible to eradicate, are
accompanied by a relentless criticism of everything, a constant sowing
of suspicion that results in distrust and confusion. The complaint that
“everything is broken” is answered by the claim that “it can’t be
fixed”, or “what can I do?” This feeds into disillusionment and
despair, and hardly encourages a spirit of solidarity and generosity.
Plunging people into despair closes a perfectly perverse circle: such
is the agenda of the invisible dictatorship of hidden interests that
have gained mastery over both resources and the possibility of thinking
and expressing opinions. 76. Let us turn at last to the injured man.
There are times when we feel like him, badly hurt and left on side of
the road. We can also feel helpless because our institutions are
neglected and lack resources, or simply serve the interests of a few,
without and within. Indeed, “globalized society often has an elegant
way of shifting its gaze. Under the guise of being politically correct
or ideologically fashionable, we look at those who suffer without
touching them. We televise live pictures of them, even speaking about
them with euphemisms and with apparent tolerance”.[59] Starting anew
77. Each day offers us a new opportunity, a new possibility. We should
not expect everything from those who govern us, for that would be
childish. We have the space we need for co-responsibility in creating
and putting into place new processes and changes. Let us take an active
part in renewing and supporting our troubled societies. Today we have a
great opportunity to express our innate sense of fraternity, to be Good
Samaritans who bear the pain of other people’s troubles rather than
fomenting greater hatred and resentment. Like the chance traveller in
the parable, we need only have a pure and simple desire to be a people,
a community, constant and tireless in the effort to include, integrate
and lift up the fallen. We may often find ourselves succumbing to the
mentality of the violent, the blindly ambitious, those who spread
mistrust and lies. Others may continue to view politics or the economy
as an arena for their own power plays. For our part, let us foster what
is good and place ourselves at its service. 78. We can start from below
and, case by case, act at the most concrete and local levels, and then
expand to the farthest reaches of our countries and our world, with the
same care and concern that the Samaritan showed for each of the wounded
man’s injuries. Let us seek out others and embrace the world as it is,
without fear of pain or a sense of inadequacy, because there we will
discover all the goodness that God has planted in human hearts.
Difficulties that seem 20 overwhelming are opportunities for growth,
not excuses for a glum resignation that can lead only to acquiescence.
Yet let us not do this alone, as individuals. The Samaritan discovered
an innkeeper who would care for the man; we too are called to unite as
a family that is stronger than the sum of small individual members. For
“the whole is greater than the part, but it is also greater than the
sum of its parts”.[60] Let us renounce the pettiness and resentment of
useless in-fighting and constant confrontation. Let us stop feeling
sorry for ourselves and acknowledge our crimes, our apathy, our lies.
Reparation and reconciliation will give us new life and set us all free
from fear. 79. The Samaritan who stopped along the way departed without
expecting any recognition or gratitude. His effort to assist another
person gave him great satisfaction in life and before his God, and thus
became a duty. All of us have a responsibility for the wounded, those
of our own people and all the peoples of the earth. Let us care for the
needs of every man and woman, young and old, with the same fraternal
spirit of care and closeness that marked the Good Samaritan. Neighbours
without borders 80. Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan in
answer to the question: Who is my neighbour? The word “neighbour”, in
the society of Jesus’ time, usually meant those nearest us. It was felt
that help should be given primarily to those of one’s own group and
race. For some Jews of that time, Samaritans were looked down upon,
considered impure. They were not among those to be helped. Jesus,
himself a Jew, completely transforms this approach. He asks us not to
decide who is close enough to be our neighbour, but rather that we
ourselves become neighbours to all. 81. Jesus asks us to be present to
those in need of help, regardless of whether or not they belong to our social
group. In this case, the Samaritan became a neighbour to the wounded
Judean. By approaching and making himself present, he crossed all
cultural and historical barriers. Jesus concludes the parable by
saying: “Go and do likewise” (Lk 10:37). In other words, he challenges
us to put aside all differences and, in the face of suffering, to draw
near to others with no questions asked. I should no longer say that I
have neighbours to help, but that I must myself be a neighbour to
others. 82. The parable, though, is troubling, for Jesus says that that
the wounded man was a Judean, while the one who stopped and helped him
was a Samaritan. This detail is quite significant for our reflection on
a love that includes everyone. The Samaritans lived in a region where
pagan rites were practised. For the Jews, this made them impure,
detestable, dangerous. In fact, one ancient Jewish text referring to
nations that were hated, speaks of Samaria as “not even a people” (Sir
50:25); it also refers to “the foolish people that live in Shechem”
(50:26). 83. This explains why a Samaritan woman, when asked by Jesus
for a drink, answered curtly: “How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink
of me, a woman of Samaria?” (Jn 4:9). The most offensive charge that
those who sought to discredit Jesus could bring was that he was
“possessed” and “a 21 Samaritan” (Jn 8:48). So this encounter of mercy
between a Samaritan and a Jew is highly provocative; it leaves no room
for ideological manipulation and challenges us to expand our frontiers.
It gives a universal dimension to our call to love, one that transcends
all prejudices, all historical and cultural barriers, all petty
interests. The plea of the stranger 84. Finally, I would note that in
another passage of the Gospel Jesus says: “I was a stranger and you
welcomed me” (Mt 25:35). Jesus could speak those words because he had
an open heart, sensitive to the difficulties of others. Saint Paul
urges us to “rejoice with those who rejoice, weep with those who weep”
(Rom 12:15). When our hearts do this, they are capable of identifying
with others without worrying about where they were born or come from.
In the process, we come to experience others as our “own flesh” (Is
58:7). 85. For Christians, the words of Jesus have an even deeper
meaning. They compel us to recognize Christ himself in each of our
abandoned or excluded brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:40.45). Faith has
untold power to inspire and sustain our respect for others, for
believers come to know that God loves every man and woman with infinite
love and “thereby confers infinite dignity” upon all humanity.[61] We
likewise believe that Christ shed his blood for each of us and that no
one is beyond the scope of his universal love. If we go to the ultimate
source of that love which is the very life of the triune God, we
encounter in the community of the three divine Persons the origin and
perfect model of all life in society. Theology continues to be enriched
by its reflection on this great truth. 86. I sometimes wonder why, in
light of this, it took so long for the Church unequivocally to condemn
slavery and various forms of violence. Today, with our developed
spirituality and theology, we have no excuses. Still, there are those
who appear to feel encouraged or at least permitted by their faith to support
varieties of narrow and violent nationalism, xenophobia and contempt,
and even the mistreatment of those who are different. Faith, and the
humanism it inspires, must maintain a critical sense in the face of
these tendencies, and prompt an immediate response whenever they rear
their head. For this reason, it is important that catechesis and
preaching speak more directly and clearly about the social meaning of
existence, the fraternal dimension of spirituality, our conviction of
the inalienable dignity of each person, and our reasons for loving and
accepting all our brothers and sisters. CHAPTER THREE ENVISAGING AND
ENGENDERING AN OPEN WORLD 87. Human beings are so made that they cannot
live, develop and find fulfilment except “in the sincere gift of self
to others”.[62] Nor can they fully know themselves apart from an
encounter with 22 other persons: “I communicate effectively with myself
only insofar as I communicate with others”.[63] No one can experience
the true beauty of life without relating to others, without having real
faces to love. This is part of the mystery of authentic human
existence. “Life exists where there is bonding, communion, fraternity;
and life is stronger than death when it is built on true relationships
and bonds of fidelity. On the contrary, there is no life when we claim
to be selfsufficient and live as islands: in these attitudes, death
prevails”.[64] MOVING BEYOND OURSELVES 88. In the depths of every
heart, love creates bonds and expands existence, for it draws people
out of themselves and towards others.[65] Since we were made for love,
in each one of us “a law of ekstasis” seems to operate: “the lover
‘goes outside’ the self to find a fuller existence in another”.[66] For
this reason, “man always has to take up the challenge of moving beyond
himself”.[67] 89. Nor can I reduce my life to relationships with a
small group, even my own family; I cannot know myself apart from a
broader network of relationships, including those that have preceded me
and shaped my entire life. My relationship with those whom I respect
has to take account of the fact that they do not live only for me, nor
do I live only for them. Our relationships, if healthy and authentic,
open us to others who expand and enrich us. Nowadays, our noblest
social instincts can easily be thwarted by self-centred chats that give
the impression of being deep relationships. On the contrary, authentic
and mature love and true friendship can only take root in hearts open
to growth through relationships with others. As couples or friends, we
find that our hearts expand as we step out of ourselves and embrace
others. Closed groups and self-absorbed couples that define themselves
in opposition to others tend to be expressions of selfishness and mere
selfpreservation. 90. Significantly, many small communities living in
desert areas developed a remarkable system of welcoming pilgrims as an
exercise of the sacred duty of hospitality. The medieval monastic
communities did likewise, as we see from the Rule of Saint Benedict.
While acknowledging that it might detract from the discipline and
silence of monasteries, Benedict nonetheless insisted that “the poor
and pilgrims be treated with the utmost care and attention”.[68]
Hospitality was one specific way of rising to the challenge and the
gift present in an encounter with those outside one’s own circle. The
monks realized that the values they sought to cultivate had to be
accompanied by a readiness to move beyond themselves in openness to
others. The unique value of love 91. People can develop certain habits
that might appear as moral values: fortitude, sobriety, hard work and
similar virtues. Yet if the acts of the various moral virtues are to be
rightly directed, one needs to take into account the extent to which
they foster openness and union with others. That is 23 made possible by
the charity that God infuses. Without charity, we may perhaps possess
only apparent virtues, incapable of sustaining life in common. Thus,
Saint Thomas Aquinas could say – quoting Saint Augustine – that the temperance
of a greedy person is in no way virtuous.[69] Saint Bonaventure, for
his part, explained that the other virtues, without charity, strictly
speaking do not fulfil the commandments “the way God wants them to be
fulfilled”.[70] 92. The spiritual stature of a person’s life is
measured by love, which in the end remains “the criterion for the
definitive decision about a human life’s worth or lack thereof”.[71]
Yet some believers think that it consists in the imposition of their
own ideologies upon everyone else, or in a violent defence of the
truth, or in impressive demonstrations of strength. All of us, as
believers, need to recognize that love takes first place: love must
never be put at risk, and the greatest danger lies in failing to love
(cf. 1 Cor 13:1-13). 93. Saint Thomas Aquinas sought to describe the
love made possible by God’s grace as a movement outwards towards
another, whereby we consider “the beloved as somehow united to
ourselves”.[72] Our affection for others makes us freely desire to seek
their good. All this originates in a sense of esteem, an appreciation
of the value of the other. This is ultimately the idea behind the word
“charity”: those who are loved are “dear” to me; “they are considered
of great value”.[73] And “the love whereby someone becomes pleasing
(grata) to another is the reason why the latter bestows something on
him freely (gratis)”.[74] 94. Love, then, is more than just a series of
benevolent actions. Those actions have their source in a union
increasingly directed towards others, considering them of value,
worthy, pleasing and beautiful apart from their physical or moral
appearances. Our love for others, for who they are, moves us to seek
the best for their lives. Only by cultivating this way of relating to
one another will we make possible a social friendship that excludes no
one and a fraternity that is open to all. A LOVE EVER MORE OPEN 95.
Love also impels us towards universal communion. No one can mature or
find fulfilment by withdrawing from others. By its very nature, love
calls for growth in openness and the ability to accept others as part
of a continuing adventure that makes every periphery converge in a
greater sense of mutual belonging. As Jesus told us: “You are all
brothers” (Mt 23:8). 96. This need to transcend our own limitations
also applies to different regions and countries. Indeed, “the
ever-increasing number of interconnections and communications in
today’s world makes us powerfully aware of the unity and common destiny
of the nations. In the dynamics of history, and in the diversity of
ethnic groups, societies and cultures, we see the seeds of a vocation
to form a community composed of brothers and sisters who accept and
care for one another”.[75] 24 Open societies that integrate everyone
97. Some peripheries are close to us, in city centres or within our
families. Hence there is an aspect of universal openness in love that
is existential rather than geographical. It has to do with our daily
efforts to expand our circle of friends, to reach those who, even
though they are close to me, I do not naturally consider a part of my
circle of interests. Every brother or sister in need, when abandoned or
ignored by the society in which I live, becomes an existential
foreigner, even though born in the same country. They may be citizens
with full rights, yet they are treated like foreigners in their own
country. Racism is a virus that quickly mutates and, instead of
disappearing, goes into hiding, and lurks in waiting. 98. I would like
to mention some of those “hidden exiles” who are treated as foreign
bodies in society.[76] Many persons with disabilities “feel that they
exist without belonging and without participating”. Much still prevents
them from being fully enfranchised. Our concern should be not only to
care for them but to ensure their “active participation in the civil
and ecclesial community. That is a demanding and even tiring process,
yet one that will gradually contribute to the formation of consciences
capable of acknowledging each individual as a unique and unrepeatable
person”. I think, too, of “the elderly who, also due to their
disability, are sometimes considered a burden”. Yet each of them is
able to offer “a unique contribution to the common good through their
remarkable life stories”. Let me repeat: we need to have “the courage
to give a voice to those who are discriminated against due to their
disability, because sadly, in some countries even today, people find it
hard to acknowledge them as persons of equal dignity”.[77] Inadequate
understandings of universal love 99. A love capable of transcending
borders is the basis of what in every city and country can be called
“social friendship”. Genuine social friendship within a society makes
true universal openness possible. This is a far cry from the false
universalism of those who constantly travel abroad because they cannot
tolerate or love their own people. Those who look down on their own
people tend to create within society categories of first and second
class, people of greater or lesser dignity, people enjoying greater or
fewer rights. In this way, they deny that there is room for everybody.
100. I am certainly not proposing an authoritarian and abstract
universalism, devised or planned by a small group and presented as an
ideal for the sake of levelling, dominating and plundering. One model
of globalization in fact “consciously aims at a one-dimensional
uniformity and seeks to eliminate all differences and traditions in a
superficial quest for unity… If a certain kind of globalization claims
to make everyone uniform, to level everyone out, that globalization
destroys the rich gifts and uniqueness of each person and each
people”.[78] This false universalism ends up depriving the world of its
various colours, its beauty and, ultimately, its humanity. For “the
future is not monochrome; if we are courageous, we can contemplate it
in all the variety and diversity of 25 what each individual person has
to offer. How much our human family needs to learn to live together in
harmony and peace, without all of us having to be the same!”[79] BEYOND
A WORLD OF “ASSOCIATES” 101. Let us now return to the parable of the
Good Samaritan, for it still has much to say to us. An injured man lay
on the roadside. The people walking by him did not heed their interior
summons to act as neighbours; they were concerned with their duties,
their social status, their professional position within society. They
considered themselves important for the society of the time, and were
anxious to play their proper part. The man on the roadside, bruised and
abandoned, was a distraction, an interruption from all that; in any
event, he was hardly important. He was a “nobody”, undistinguished,
irrelevant to their plans for the future. The Good Samaritan
transcended these narrow classifications. He himself did not fit into
any of those categories; he was simply a foreigner without a place in
society. Free of every label and position, he was able to interrupt his
journey, change his plans, and unexpectedly come to the aid of an
injured person who needed his help. 102. What would be the reaction to
that same story nowadays, in a world that constantly witnesses the
emergence and growth of social groups clinging to an identity that
separates them from others? How would it affect those who organize themselves
in a way that prevents any foreign presence that might threaten their
identity and their closed and self-referential structures? There, even
the possibility of acting as a neighbour is excluded; one is a
neighbour only to those who serve their purpose. The word “neighbour”
loses all meaning; there can only be “associates”, partners in the
pursuit of particular interests.[80] Liberty, equality and fraternity
103. Fraternity is born not only of a climate of respect for individual
liberties, or even of a certain administratively guaranteed equality.
Fraternity necessarily calls for something greater, which in turn
enhances freedom and equality. What happens when fraternity is not
consciously cultivated, when there is a lack of political will to
promote it through education in fraternity, through dialogue and
through the recognition of the values of reciprocity and mutual
enrichment? Liberty becomes nothing more than a condition for living as
we will, completely free to choose to whom or what we will belong, or
simply to possess or exploit. This shallow understanding has little to
do with the richness of a liberty directed above all to love. 104. Nor
is equality achieved by an abstract proclamation that “all men and
women are equal”. Instead, it is the result of the conscious and
careful cultivation of fraternity. Those capable only of being
“associates” create closed worlds. Within that framework, what place is
there for those who are not part of one’s group of associates, yet long
for a better life for themselves and their families? 26 105.
Individualism does not make us more free, more equal, more fraternal.
The mere sum of individual interests is not capable of generating a
better world for the whole human family. Nor can it save us from the
many ills that are now increasingly globalized. Radical individualism
is a virus that is extremely difficult to eliminate, for it is clever.
It makes us believe that everything consists in giving free rein to our
own ambitions, as if by pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating
safety nets we would somehow be serving the common good. A UNIVERSAL
LOVE THAT PROMOTES PERSONS 106. Social friendship and universal
fraternity necessarily call for an acknowledgement of the worth of
every human person, always and everywhere. If each individual is of
such great worth, it must be stated clearly and firmly that “the mere
fact that some people are born in places with fewer resources or less
development does not justify the fact that they are living with less
dignity”.[81] This is a basic principle of social life that tends to be
ignored in a variety of ways by those who sense that it does not fit
into their worldview or serve their purposes. 107. Every human being
has the right to live with dignity and to develop integrally; this fundamental
right cannot be denied by any country. People have this right even if
they are unproductive, or were born with or developed limitations. This
does not detract from their great dignity as human persons, a dignity
based not on circumstances but on the intrinsic worth of their being.
Unless this basic principle is upheld, there will be no future either
for fraternity or for the survival of humanity. 108. Some societies
accept this principle in part. They agree that opportunities should be
available to everyone, but then go on to say that everything depends on
the individual. From this skewed perspective, it would be pointless “to
favour an investment in efforts to help the slow, the weak or the less
talented to find opportunities in life”.[82] Investments in assistance
to the vulnerable could prove unprofitable; they might make things less
efficient. No. What we need in fact are states and civil institutions
that are present and active, that look beyond the free and efficient
working of certain economic, political or ideological systems, and are
primarily concerned with individuals and the common good. 109. Some
people are born into economically stable families, receive a fine
education, grow up well nourished, or naturally possess great talent.
They will certainly not need a proactive state; they need only claim
their freedom. Yet the same rule clearly does not apply to a disabled
person, to someone born in dire poverty, to those lacking a good
education and with little access to adequate health care. If a society
is governed primarily by the criteria of market freedom and efficiency,
there is no place for such persons, and fraternity will remain just
another vague ideal. 110. Indeed, “to claim economic freedom while real
conditions bar many people from actual access to it, and while
possibilities for employment continue to shrink, is to practise 27
doublespeak”.[83] Words like freedom, democracy or fraternity prove
meaningless, for the fact is that “only when our economic and social
system no longer produces even a single victim, a single person cast
aside, will we be able to celebrate the feast of universal
fraternity”.[84] A truly human and fraternal society will be capable of
ensuring in an efficient and stable way that each of its members is
accompanied at every stage of life. Not only by providing for their
basic needs, but by enabling them to give the best of themselves, even
though their performance may be less than optimum, their pace slow or
their efficiency limited. 111. The human person, with his or her
inalienable rights, is by nature open to relationship. Implanted deep
within us is the call to transcend ourselves through an encounter with
others. For this reason, “care must be taken not to fall into certain
errors which can arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of human
rights and from its misuse. Today there is a tendency to claim ever
broader individual – I am tempted to say individualistic – rights.
Underlying this is a conception of the human person as detached from
all social and anthropological contexts, as if the person were a
“monad” (monás), increasingly unconcerned with others… Unless the
rights of each individual are harmoniously ordered to the greater good,
those rights will end up being considered limitless and consequently will
become a source of conflicts and violence”.[85] PROMOTING THE MORAL
GOOD 112. Nor can we fail to mention that seeking and pursuing the good
of others and of the entire human family also implies helping
individuals and societies to mature in the moral values that foster
integral human development. The New Testament describes one fruit of
the Holy Spirit (cf. Gal 5:22) as agathosyne; the Greek word expresses
attachment to the good, pursuit of the good. Even more, it suggests a
striving for excellence and what is best for others, their growth in
maturity and health, the cultivation of values and not simply material
wellbeing. A similar expression exists in Latin: benevolentia. This is
an attitude that “wills the good” of others; it bespeaks a yearning for
goodness, an inclination towards all that is fine and excellent, a
desire to fill the lives of others with what is beautiful, sublime and
edifying. 113. Here, regrettably, I feel bound to reiterate that “we
have had enough of immorality and the mockery of ethics, goodness,
faith and honesty. It is time to acknowledge that light-hearted
superficiality has done us no good. Once the foundations of social life
are corroded, what ensues are battles over conflicting interests”.[86]
Let us return to promoting the good, for ourselves and for the whole
human family, and thus advance together towards an authentic and
integral growth. Every society needs to ensure that values are passed
on; otherwise, what is handed down are selfishness, violence,
corruption in its various forms, indifference and, ultimately, a life
closed to transcendence and entrenched in individual interests. The
value of solidarity 28 114. I would like especially to mention
solidarity, which, “as a moral virtue and social attitude born of
personal conversion, calls for commitment on the part of those
responsible for education and formation. I think first of families,
called to a primary and vital mission of education. Families are the
first place where the values of love and fraternity, togetherness and
sharing, concern and care for others are lived out and handed on. They
are also the privileged milieu for transmitting the faith, beginning
with those first simple gestures of devotion which mothers teach their
children. Teachers, who have the challenging task of training children
and youth in schools or other settings, should be conscious that their
responsibility extends also to the moral, spiritual and social aspects
of life. The values of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity can be
handed on from a tender age… Communicators also have a responsibility
for education and formation, especially nowadays, when the means of
information and communication are so widespread”.[87] 115. At a time
when everything seems to disintegrate and lose consistency, it is good
for us to appeal to the “solidity”[88] born of the consciousness that
we are responsible for the fragility of others as we strive to build a
common future. Solidarity finds concrete expression in service, which
can take a variety of forms in an effort to care for others. And
service in great part means “caring for vulnerability, for the
vulnerable members of our families, our society, our people”. In
offering such service, individuals learn to “set aside their own wishes
and desires, their pursuit of power, before the concrete gaze of those
who are most vulnerable… Service always looks to their faces, touches
their flesh, senses their closeness and even, in some cases, ‘suffers’
that closeness and tries to help them. Service is never ideological,
for we do not serve ideas, we serve people”.[89] 116. The needy
generally “practise the special solidarity that exists among those who
are poor and suffering, and which our civilization seems to have
forgotten or would prefer in fact to forget. Solidarity is a word that
is not always well received; in certain situations, it has become a
dirty word, a word that dare not be said. Solidarity means much more
than engaging in sporadic acts of generosity. It means thinking and
acting in terms of community. It means that the lives of all are prior
to the appropriation of goods by a few. It also means combatting the
structural causes of poverty, inequality, the lack of work, land and
housing, the denial of social and labour rights. It means confronting
the destructive effects of the empire of money… Solidarity, understood
in its most profound meaning, is a way of making history, and this is
what popular movements are doing”.[90] 117. When we speak of the need
to care for our common home, our planet, we appeal to that spark of
universal consciousness and mutual concern that may still be present in
people’s hearts. Those who enjoy a surplus of water yet choose to
conserve it for the sake of the greater human family have attained a
moral stature that allows them to look beyond themselves and the group
to which they belong. How marvellously human! The same attitude is
demanded if we are to recognize the rights of all people, even those
born beyond our own borders. RE-ENVISAGING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PROPERTY
29 118. The world exists for everyone, because all of us were born with
the same dignity. Differences of colour, religion, talent, place of
birth or residence, and so many others, cannot be used to justify the
privileges of some over the rights of all. As a community, we have an
obligation to ensure that every person lives with dignity and has
sufficient opportunities for his or her integral development. 119. In
the first Christian centuries, a number of thinkers developed a
universal vision in their reflections on the common destination of
created goods.[91] This led them to realize that if one person lacks
what is necessary to live with dignity, it is because another person is
detaining it. Saint John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not to
share our wealth with the poor is to rob them and take away their
livelihood. The riches we possess are not our own, but theirs as
well”.[92] In the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we provide
the needy with their basic needs, we are giving them what belongs to
them, not to us”.[93] 120. Once more, I would like to echo a statement
of Saint John Paul II whose forcefulness has perhaps been
insufficiently recognized: “God gave the earth to the whole human race
for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring
anyone”.[94] For my part, I would observe that “the Christian tradition
has never recognized the right to private property as absolute or
inviolable, and has stressed the social purpose of all forms of private
property”.[95] The principle of the common use of created goods is the
“first principle of the whole ethical and social order”;[96] it is a
natural and inherent right that takes priority over others.[97] All
other rights having to do with the goods necessary for the integral
fulfilment of persons, including that of private property or any other
type of property, should – in the words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way
hinder [this right], but should actively facilitate its
implementation”.[98] The right to private property can only be
considered a secondary natural right, derived from the principle of the
universal destination of created goods. This has concrete consequences
that ought to be reflected in the workings of society. Yet it often
happens that secondary rights displace primary and overriding rights, in
practice making them irrelevant. Rights without borders 121. No one,
then, can remain excluded because of his or her place of birth, much
less because of privileges enjoyed by others who were born in lands of
greater opportunity. The limits and borders of individual states cannot
stand in the way of this. As it is unacceptable that some have fewer
rights by virtue of being women, it is likewise unacceptable that the
mere place of one’s birth or residence should result in his or her
possessing fewer opportunities for a developed and dignified life. 122.
Development must not aim at the amassing of wealth by a few, but must
ensure “human rights – personal and social, economic and political,
including the rights of nations and of peoples”.[99] The right of some
to free enterprise or market freedom cannot supersede the rights of
peoples and the dignity of the poor, or, for that matter, respect for
the natural environment, for “if 30 we make something our own, it is
only to administer it for the good of all”.[100] 123. Business activity
is essentially “a noble vocation, directed to producing wealth and
improving our world”.[101] God encourages us to develop the talents he
gave us, and he has made our universe one of immense potential. In
God’s plan, each individual is called to promote his or her own
development,[102] and this includes finding the best economic and
technological means of multiplying goods and increasing wealth.
Business abilities, which are a gift from God, should always be clearly
directed to the development of others and to eliminating poverty,
especially through the creation of diversified work opportunities. The
right to private property is always accompanied by the primary and
prior principle of the subordination of all private property to the universal
destination of the earth’s goods, and thus the right of all to their
use.[103] The rights of peoples 124. Nowadays, a firm belief in the
common destination of the earth’s goods requires that this principle
also be applied to nations, their territories and their resources. Seen
from the standpoint not only of the legitimacy of private property and
the rights of its citizens, but also of the first principle of the
common destination of goods, we can then say that each country also
belongs to the foreigner, inasmuch as a territory’s goods must not be
denied to a needy person coming from elsewhere. As the Bishops of the
United States have taught, there are fundamental rights that “precede
any society because they flow from the dignity granted to each person
as created by God”.[104] 125. This presupposes a different way of
understanding relations and exchanges between countries. If every human
being possesses an inalienable dignity, if all people are my brothers
and sisters, and if the world truly belongs to everyone, then it
matters little whether my neighbour was born in my country or
elsewhere. My own country also shares responsibility for his or her
development, although it can fulfil that responsibility in a variety of
ways. It can offer a generous welcome to those in urgent need, or work
to improve living conditions in their native lands by refusing to
exploit those countries or to drain them of natural resources, backing
corrupt systems that hinder the dignified development of their peoples.
What applies to nations is true also for different regions within each
country, since there too great inequalities often exist. At times, the
inability to recognize equal human dignity leads the more developed
regions in some countries to think that they can jettison the “dead
weight” of poorer regions and so increase their level of consumption.
126. We are really speaking about a new network of international
relations, since there is no way to resolve the serious problems of our
world if we continue to think only in terms of mutual assistance
between individuals or small groups. Nor should we forget that
“inequity affects not only individuals but entire countries; it compels
us to consider an ethics of international relations”.[105] Indeed,
justice requires recognizing and respecting not only the rights of 31
individuals, but also social rights and the rights of peoples.[106]
This means finding a way to ensure “the fundamental right of peoples to
subsistence and progress”,[107] a right which is at times severely restricted
by the pressure created by foreign debt. In many instances, debt
repayment not only fails to promote development but gravely limits and
conditions it. While respecting the principle that all legitimately
acquired debt must be repaid, the way in which many poor countries
fulfil this obligation should not end up compromising their very
existence and growth. 127. Certainly, all this calls for an alternative
way of thinking. Without an attempt to enter into that way of thinking,
what I am saying here will sound wildly unrealistic. On the other hand,
if we accept the great principle that there are rights born of our
inalienable human dignity, we can rise to the challenge of envisaging a
new humanity. We can aspire to a world that provides land, housing and
work for all. This is the true path of peace, not the senseless and
myopic strategy of sowing fear and mistrust in the face of outside
threats. For a real and lasting peace will only be possible “on the
basis of a global ethic of solidarity and cooperation in the service of
a future shaped by interdependence and shared responsibility in the
whole human family”.[108] CHAPTER FOUR A HEART OPEN TO THE WHOLE WORLD
128. If the conviction that all human beings are brothers and sisters
is not to remain an abstract idea but to find concrete embodiment, then
numerous related issues emerge, forcing us to see things in a new light
and to develop new responses. BORDERS AND THEIR LIMITS 129. Complex
challenges arise when our neighbour happens to be an immigrant.[109] Ideally,
unnecessary migration ought to be avoided; this entails creating in
countries of origin the conditions needed for a dignified life and
integral development. Yet until substantial progress is made in
achieving this goal, we are obliged to respect the right of all
individuals to find a place that meets their basic needs and those of
their families, and where they can find personal fulfilment. Our
response to the arrival of migrating persons can be summarized by four
words: welcome, protect, promote and integrate. For “it is not a case
of implementing welfare programmes from the top down, but rather of
undertaking a journey together, through these four actions, in order to
build cities and countries that, while preserving their respective
cultural and religious identity, are open to differences and know how
to promote them in the spirit of human fraternity”.[110] 130. This
implies taking certain indispensable steps, especially in response to
those who are fleeing grave humanitarian crises. As examples, we may
cite: increasing and simplifying the granting of visas; adopting
programmes of individual and community sponsorship; opening 32
humanitarian corridors for the most vulnerable refugees; providing
suitable and dignified housing; guaranteeing personal security and
access to basic services; ensuring adequate consular assistance and the
right to retain personal identity documents; equitable access to the
justice system; the possibility of opening bank accounts and the
guarantee of the minimum needed to survive; freedom of movement and the
possibility of employment; protecting minors and ensuring their regular
access to education; providing for programmes of temporary guardianship
or shelter; guaranteeing religious freedom; promoting integration into
society; supporting the reuniting of families; and preparing local
communities for the process of integration.[111] 131. For those who are
not recent arrivals and already participate in the fabric of society,
it is important to apply the concept of “citizenship”, which “is based
on the equality of rights and duties, under which all enjoy justice. It
is therefore crucial to establish in our societies the concept of full
citizenship and to reject the discriminatory use of the term
minorities, which engenders feelings of isolation and inferiority. Its
misuse paves the way for hostility and discord; it undoes any successes
and takes away the religious and civil rights of some citizens who are
thus discriminated against”.[112] 132. Even when they take such
essential steps, states are not able, on their own, to implement
adequate solutions, “since the consequences of the decisions made by
each inevitably have repercussions on the entire international
community”. As a result, “our response can only be the fruit of a common
effort”[113] to develop a form of global governance with regard to
movements of migration. Thus, there is “a need for mid-term and
long-term planning which is not limited to emergency responses. Such
planning should include effective assistance for integrating migrants
in their receiving countries, while also promoting the development of
their countries of origin through policies inspired by solidarity, yet
not linking assistance to ideological strategies and practices alien or
contrary to the cultures of the peoples being assisted”.[114]
RECIPROCAL GIFTS 133. The arrival of those who are different, coming
from other ways of life and cultures, can be a gift, for “the stories
of migrants are always stories of an encounter between individuals and
between cultures. For the communities and societies to which they come,
migrants bring an opportunity for enrichment and the integral human
development of all”.[115] For this reason, “I especially urge young
people not to play into the hands of those who would set them against
other young people, newly arrived in their countries, and who would
encourage them to view the latter as a threat, and not possessed of the
same inalienable dignity as every other human being”.[116] 134. Indeed,
when we open our hearts to those who are different, this enables them,
while continuing to be themselves, to develop in new ways. The
different cultures that have flourished over the centuries need to be
preserved, lest our world be impoverished. At the same time, those
cultures should be encouraged to be open to new experiences through
their encounter with other 33 realities, for the risk of succumbing to
cultural sclerosis is always present. That is why “we need to
communicate with each other, to discover the gifts of each person, to
promote that which unites us, and to regard our differences as an
opportunity to grow in mutual respect. Patience and trust are called
for in such dialogue, permitting individuals, families and communities
to hand on the values of their own culture and welcome the good that
comes from others’ experiences”.[117] 135. Here I would mention some
examples that I have used in the past. Latino culture is “a ferment of
values and possibilities that can greatly enrich the United States”,
for “intense immigration always ends up influencing and transforming
the culture of a place… In Argentina, intense immigration from Italy
has left a mark on the culture of the society, and the presence of some
200,000 Jews has a great effect on the cultural ‘style’ of Buenos
Aires. Immigrants, if they are helped to integrate, are a blessing, a
source of enrichment and new gift that encourages a society to
grow”.[118] 136. On an even broader scale, Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb
and I have observed that “good relations between East and West are
indisputably necessary for both. They must not be neglected, so that
each can be enriched by the other’s culture through fruitful exchange
and dialogue. The West can discover in the East remedies for those
spiritual and religious maladies that are caused by a prevailing
materialism. And the East can find in the West many elements that can
help free it from weakness, division, conflict and scientific,
technical and cultural decline. It is important to pay attention to
religious, cultural and historical differences that are a vital
component in shaping the character, culture and civilization of the
East. It is likewise important to reinforce the bond of fundamental
human rights in order to help ensure a dignified life for all the men
and women of East and West, avoiding the politics of double
standards”.[119] A fruitful exchange 137. Mutual assistance between
countries proves enriching for each. A country that moves forward while
remaining solidly grounded in its original cultural substratum is a
treasure for the whole of humanity. We need to develop the awareness
that nowadays we are either all saved together or no one is saved.
Poverty, decadence and suffering in one part of the earth are a silent
breeding ground for problems that will end up affecting the entire
planet. If we are troubled by the extinction of certain species, we
should be all the more troubled that in some parts of our world
individuals or peoples are prevented from developing their potential
and beauty by poverty or other structural limitations. In the end, this
will impoverish us all. 138. Although this has always been true, never
has it been more evident than in our own day, when the world is
interconnected by globalization. We need to attain a global juridical,
political and economic order “which can increase and give direction to
international cooperation for the development of all peoples in
solidarity”.[120] Ultimately, this will benefit the entire world, since
“development aid for poor countries” implies “creating wealth for
all”.[121] From the standpoint of 34 integral development, this
presupposes “giving poorer nations an effective voice in shared
decision-making”[122] and the capacity to “facilitate access to the
international market on the part of countries suffering from poverty and
underdevelopment”.[123] A gratuitousness open to others 139. Even so, I
do not wish to limit this presentation to a kind of utilitarian
approach. There is always the factor of “gratuitousness”: the ability
to do some things simply because they are good in themselves, without
concern for personal gain or recompense. Gratuitousness makes it
possible for us to welcome the stranger, even though this brings us no
immediate tangible benefit. Some countries, though, presume to accept
only scientists or investors. 140. Life without fraternal
gratuitousness becomes a form of frenetic commerce, in which we are
constantly weighing up what we give and what we get back in return.
God, on the other hand, gives freely, to the point of helping even
those who are unfaithful; he “makes his sun rise on the evil and on the
good” (Mt 5:45). There is a reason why Jesus told us: “When you give
alms, do not let your right hand know what your left hand is doing, so
that your alms may be in secret” (Mt 6:3- 4). We received life freely;
we paid nothing for it. Consequently, all of us are able to give
without expecting anything in return, to do good to others without
demanding that they treat us well in return. As Jesus told his
disciples: “Without cost you have received, without cost you are to
give” (Mt 10:8). 141. The true worth of the different countries of our
world is measured by their ability to think not simply as a country but
also as part of the larger human family. This is seen especially in
times of crisis. Narrow forms of nationalism are an extreme expression
of an inability to grasp the meaning of this gratuitousness. They err
in thinking that they can develop on their own, heedless of the ruin of
others, that by closing their doors to others they will be better
protected. Immigrants are seen as usurpers who have nothing to offer.
This leads to the simplistic belief that the poor are dangerous and
useless, while the powerful are generous benefactors. Only a social and
political culture that readily and “gratuitously” welcomes others will
have a future. LOCAL AND UNIVERSAL 142. It should be kept in mind that
“an innate tension exists between globalization and localization. We
need to pay attention to the global so as to avoid narrowness and
banality. Yet we also need to look to the local, which keeps our feet
on the ground. Together, the two prevent us from falling into one of
two extremes. In the first, people get caught up in an abstract,
globalized universe… In the other, they turn into a museum of local
folklore, a world apart, doomed to doing the same things over and over,
incapable of being challenged by novelty or appreciating the beauty
which God bestows beyond their borders”.[124] We need to have a global
outlook to save ourselves from petty provincialism. When our house
stops being a home and starts to become an enclosure, a 35 cell, then
the global comes to our rescue, like a “final cause” that draws us
towards our fulfilment. At the same time, though, the local has to be
eagerly embraced, for it possesses something that the global does not:
it is capable of being a leaven, of bringing enrichment, of sparking
mechanisms of subsidiarity. Universal fraternity and social friendship
are thus two inseparable and equally vital poles in every society. To
separate them would be to disfigure each and to create a dangerous
polarization. Local flavour 143. The solution is not an openness that
spurns its own richness. Just as there can be no dialogue with “others”
without a sense of our own identity, so there can be no openness between
peoples except on the basis of love for one’s own land, one’s own
people, one’s own cultural roots. I cannot truly encounter another
unless I stand on firm foundations, for it is on the basis of these
that I can accept the gift the other brings and in turn offer an
authentic gift of my own. I can welcome others who are different, and
value the unique contribution they have to make, only if I am firmly
rooted in my own people and culture. Everyone loves and cares for his
or her native land and village, just as they love and care for their
home and are personally responsible for its upkeep. The common good
likewise requires that we protect and love our native land. Otherwise,
the consequences of a disaster in one country will end up affecting the
entire planet. All this brings out the positive meaning of the right to
property: I care for and cultivate something that I possess, in such a
way that it can contribute to the good of all. 144. It also gives rise
to healthy and enriching exchanges. The experience of being raised in a
particular place and sharing in a particular culture gives us insight
into aspects of reality that others cannot so easily perceive.
Universal does not necessarily mean bland, uniform and standardized,
based on a single prevailing cultural model, for this will ultimately
lead to the loss of a rich palette of shades and colours, and result in
utter monotony. Such was the temptation referred to in the ancient
account of the Tower of Babel. The attempt to build a tower that would
reach to heaven was not an expression of unity between various peoples
speaking to one another from their diversity. Instead, it was a
misguided attempt, born of pride and ambition, to create a unity other
than that willed by God in his providential plan for the nations (cf.
Gen 11:1-9). 145. There can be a false openness to the universal, born
of the shallowness of those lacking insight into the genius of their
native land or harbouring unresolved resentment towards their own
people. Whatever the case, “we constantly have to broaden our horizons
and see the greater good which will benefit us all. But this has to be
done without evasion or uprooting. We need to sink our roots deeper
into the fertile soil and history of our native place, which is a gift
of God. We can work on a small scale, in our own neighbourhood, but
with a larger perspective… The global need not stifle, nor the
particular prove barren”;[125] our model must be that of a polyhedron,
in which the value of each individual is respected, where “the whole is
greater than the part, but it is also greater than the sum of its
parts”.[126] 36 A universal horizon 146. There is a kind of “local”
narcissism unrelated to a healthy love of one’s own people and culture.
It is born of a certain insecurity and fear of the other that leads to
rejection and the desire to erect walls for self-defence. Yet it is
impossible to be “local” in a healthy way without being sincerely open
to the universal, without feeling challenged by what is happening in
other places, without openness to enrichment by other cultures, and
without solidarity and concern for the tragedies affecting other
peoples. A “local narcissism” instead frets over a limited number of
ideas, customs and forms of security; incapable of admiring the vast
potential and beauty offered by the larger world, it lacks an authentic
and generous spirit of solidarity. Life on the local level thus becomes
less and less welcoming, people less open to complementarity. Its
possibilities for development narrow; it grows weary and infirm. A
healthy culture, on the other hand, is open and welcoming by its very
nature; indeed, “a culture without universal values is not truly a
culture”.[127] 147. Let us realize that as our minds and hearts narrow,
the less capable we become of understanding the world around us.
Without encountering and relating to differences, it is hard to achieve
a clear and complete understanding even of ourselves and of our native
land. Other cultures are not “enemies” from which we need to protect
ourselves, but differing reflections of the inexhaustible richness of
human life. Seeing ourselves from the perspective of another, of one
who is different, we can better recognize our own unique features and
those of our culture: its richness, its possibilities and its
limitations. Our local experience needs to develop “in contrast to” and
“in harmony with” the experiences of others living in diverse cultural
contexts.[128] 148. In fact, a healthy openness never threatens one’s
own identity. A living culture, enriched by elements from other places,
does not import a mere carbon copy of those new elements, but
integrates them in its own unique way. The result is a new synthesis
that is ultimately beneficial to all, since the original culture itself
ends up being nourished. That is why I have urged indigenous peoples to
cherish their roots and their ancestral cultures. At the same time,
though, I have wanted to stress that I have no intention of proposing
“a completely enclosed, a-historic, static ‘indigenism’ that would reject
any kind of blending (mestizaje)”. For “our own cultural identity is
strengthened and enriched as a result of dialogue with those unlike
ourselves. Nor is our authentic identity preserved by an impoverished
isolation”.[129] The world grows and is filled with new beauty, thanks
to the successive syntheses produced between cultures that are open and
free of any form of cultural imposition. 149. For a healthy
relationship between love of one’s native land and a sound sense of
belonging to our larger human family, it is helpful to keep in mind
that global society is not the sum total of different countries, but
rather the communion that exists among them. The mutual sense of
belonging is prior to the emergence of individual groups. Each
particular group becomes part of the fabric of universal communion and
there discovers its own beauty. All individuals, whatever their origin,
know that they are part of the greater human family, without which they
will not be able 37 to understand themselves fully. 150. To see things
in this way brings the joyful realization that no one people, culture
or individual can achieve everything on its own: to attain fulfilment
in life we need others. An awareness of our own limitations and
incompleteness, far from being a threat, becomes the key to envisaging
and pursuing a common project. For “man is a limited being who is
himself limitless”.[130] Starting with our own region 151. Thanks to
regional exchanges, by which poorer countries become open to the wider
world, universality does not necessarily water down their distinct
features. An appropriate and authentic openness to the world
presupposes the capacity to be open to one’s neighbour within a family
of nations. Cultural, economic and political integration with
neighbouring peoples should therefore be accompanied by a process of
education that promotes the value of love for one’s neighbour, the
first indispensable step towards attaining a healthy universal
integration. 152. In some areas of our cities, there is still a lively sense
of neighbourhood. Each person quite spontaneously perceives a duty to
accompany and help his or her neighbour. In places where these
community values are maintained, people experience a closeness marked
by gratitude, solidarity and reciprocity. The neighbourhood gives them
a sense of shared identity.[131] Would that neighbouring countries were
able to encourage a similar neighbourly spirit between their peoples!
Yet the spirit of individualism also affects relations between
countries. The danger of thinking that we have to protect ourselves
from one another, of viewing others as competitors or dangerous
enemies, also affects relations between peoples in the same region.
Perhaps we were trained in this kind of fear and mistrust. 153. There
are powerful countries and large businesses that profit from this
isolation and prefer to negotiate with each country separately. On the
other hand, small or poor countries can sign agreements with their
regional neighbours that will allow them to negotiate as a bloc and
thus avoid being cut off, isolated and dependent on the great powers.
Today, no state can ensure the common good of its population if it
remains isolated. CHAPTER FIVE A BETTER KIND OF POLITICS 154. The
development of a global community of fraternity based on the practice
of social friendship on the part of peoples and nations calls for a
better kind of politics, one truly at the service of the common good.
Sadly, politics today often takes forms that hinder progress towards a
different world. 38 FORMS OF POPULISM AND LIBERALISM 155. Lack of
concern for the vulnerable can hide behind a populism that exploits
them demagogically for its own purposes, or a liberalism that serves
the economic interests of the powerful. In both cases, it becomes
difficult to envisage an open world that makes room for everyone,
including the most vulnerable, and shows respect for different
cultures. Popular vs. populist 156. In recent years, the words
“populism” and “populist” have invaded the communications media and
everyday conversation. As a result, they have lost whatever value they
might have had, and have become another source of polarization in an
already divided society. Efforts are made to classify entire peoples,
groups, societies and governments as “populist” or not. Nowadays it has
become impossible for someone to express a view on any subject without
being categorized one way or the other, either to be unfairly
discredited or to be praised to the skies. 157. The attempt to see
populism as a key for interpreting social reality is problematic in
another way: it disregards the legitimate meaning of the word “people”.
Any effort to remove this concept from common parlance could lead to
the elimination of the very notion of democracy as “government by the
people”. If we wish to maintain that society is more than a mere
aggregate of individuals, the term “people” proves necessary. There are
social phenomena that create majorities, as well as megatrends and
communitarian aspirations. Men and women are capable of coming up with
shared goals that transcend their differences and can thus engage in a
common endeavour. Then too, it is extremely difficult to carry out a
long-term project unless it becomes a collective aspiration. All these
factors lie behind our use of the words “people” and “popular”. Unless
they are taken into account – together with a sound critique of
demagoguery – a fundamental aspect of social reality would be
overlooked. 158. Here, there can be a misunderstanding. “‘People’ is
not a logical category, nor is it a mystical category, if by that we
mean that everything the people does is good, or that the people is an
‘angelic’ reality. Rather, it is a mythic category… When you have to
explain what you mean by people, you use logical categories for the
sake of explanation, and necessarily so. Yet in that way you cannot
explain what it means to belong to a people. The word ‘people’ has a
deeper meaning that cannot be set forth in purely logical terms. To be
part of a people is to be part of a shared identity arising from social
and cultural bonds. And that is not something automatic, but rather a
slow, difficult process… of advancing towards a common project”.[132]
159. “Popular” leaders, those capable of interpreting the feelings and
cultural dynamics of a people, and significant trends in society, do
exist. The service they provide by their efforts to unite and lead can
become the basis of an enduring vision of transformation and growth
that would also include making room for others in the pursuit of the
common good. But this can degenerate into an 39 unhealthy “populism”
when individuals are able to exploit politically a people’s culture,
under whatever ideological banner, for their own personal advantage or
continuing grip on power. Or when, at other times, they seek popularity
by appealing to the basest and most selfish inclinations of certain
sectors of the population. This becomes all the more serious when,
whether in cruder or more subtle forms, it leads to the usurpation of
institutions and laws. 160. Closed populist groups distort the word
“people”, since they are not talking about a true people. The concept
of “people” is in fact open-ended. A living and dynamic people, a
people with a future, is one constantly open to a new synthesis through
its ability to welcome differences. In this way, it does not deny its
proper identity, but is open to being mobilized, challenged, broadened
and enriched by others, and thus to further growth and development.
161. Another sign of the decline of popular leadership is concern for
short-term advantage. One meets popular demands for the sake of gaining
votes or support, but without advancing in an arduous and constant
effort to generate the resources people need to develop and earn a
living by their own efforts and creativity. In this regard, I have made
it clear that “I have no intention of proposing an irresponsible
populism”.[133] Eliminating inequality requires an economic growth that
can help to tap each region’s potential and thus guarantee a
sustainable equality.[134] At the same time, it follows that “welfare
projects, which meet certain urgent needs, should be considered merely
temporary responses”.[135] 162. The biggest issue is employment. The
truly “popular” thing – since it promotes the good of the people – is
to provide everyone with the opportunity to nurture the seeds that God
has planted in each of us: our talents, our initiative and our innate
resources. This is the finest help we can give to the poor, the best
path to a life of dignity. Hence my insistence that, “helping the poor
financially must always be a provisional solution in the face of
pressing needs. The broader objective should always be to allow them a
dignified life through work”.[136] Since production systems may change,
political systems must keep working to structure society in such a way
that everyone has a chance to contribute his or her own talents and
efforts. For “there is no poverty worse than that which takes away work
and the dignity of work”.[137] In a genuinely developed society, work
is an essential dimension of social life, for it is not only a means of
earning one’s daily bread, but also of personal growth, the building of
healthy relationships, self-expression and the exchange of gifts. Work
gives us a sense of shared responsibility for the development of the
world, and ultimately, for our life as a people. The benefits and
limits of liberal approaches 163. The concept of a “people”, which
naturally entails a positive view of community and cultural bonds, is
usually rejected by individualistic liberal approaches, which view
society as merely the sum of coexisting interests. One speaks of
respect for freedom, but without roots in a shared narrative; in
certain contexts, those who defend the rights of the most vulnerable
members of 40 society tend to be criticized as populists. The notion of
a people is considered an abstract construct, something that does not
really exist. But this is to create a needless dichotomy. Neither the
notion of “people” nor that of “neighbour” can be considered purely
abstract or romantic, in such a way that social organization, science
and civic institutions can be rejected or treated with contempt.[138]
164. Charity, on the other hand, unites both dimensions – the abstract
and the institutional – since it calls for an effective process of
historical change that embraces everything: institutions, law,
technology, experience, professional expertise, scientific analysis,
administrative procedures, and so forth. For that matter, “private life
cannot exist unless it is protected by public order. A domestic hearth
has no real warmth unless it is safeguarded by law, by a state of
tranquillity founded on law, and enjoys a minimum of wellbeing ensured
by the division of labour, commercial exchange, social justice and
political citizenship”.[139] 165. True charity is capable of
incorporating all these elements in its concern for others. In the case
of personal encounters, including those involving a distant or
forgotten brother or sister, it can do so by employing all the resources
that the institutions of an organized, free and creative society are
capable of generating. Even the Good Samaritan, for example, needed to
have a nearby inn that could provide the help that he was personally
unable to offer. Love of neighbour is concrete and squanders none of
the resources needed to bring about historical change that can benefit
the poor and disadvantaged. At times, however, leftist ideologies or
social doctrines linked to individualistic ways of acting and
ineffective procedures affect only a few, while the majority of those
left behind remain dependent on the goodwill of others. This
demonstrates the need for a greater spirit of fraternity, but also a
more efficient worldwide organization to help resolve the problems
plaguing the abandoned who are suffering and dying in poor countries.
It also shows that there is no one solution, no single acceptable
methodology, no economic recipe that can be applied indiscriminately to
all. Even the most rigorous scientific studies can propose different
courses of action. 166. Everything, then, depends on our ability to see
the need for a change of heart, attitudes and lifestyles. Otherwise,
political propaganda, the media and the shapers of public opinion will
continue to promote an individualistic and uncritical culture
subservient to unregulated economic interests and societal institutions
at the service of those who already enjoy too much power. My criticism
of the technocratic paradigm involves more than simply thinking that if
we control its excesses everything will be fine. The bigger risk does
not come from specific objects, material realities or institutions, but
from the way that they are used. It has to do with human weakness, the
proclivity to selfishness that is part of what the Christian tradition
refers to as “concupiscence”: the human inclination to be concerned
only with myself, my group, my own petty interests. Concupiscence is
not a flaw limited to our own day. It has been present from the
beginning of humanity, and has simply changed and taken on different
forms down the ages, using whatever means each moment of history can
provide. Concupiscence, however, can be overcome with the 41 help of
God. 167. Education and upbringing, concern for others, a
well-integrated view of life and spiritual growth: all these are
essential for quality human relationships and for enabling society
itself to react against injustices, aberrations and abuses of economic,
technological, political and media power. Some liberal approaches
ignore this factor of human weakness; they envisage a world that
follows a determined order and is capable by itself of ensuring a
bright future and providing solutions for every problem. 168. The
marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve every problem, however much we
are asked to believe this dogma of neoliberal faith. Whatever the
challenge, this impoverished and repetitive school of thought always
offers the same recipes. Neoliberalism simply reproduces itself by
resorting to the magic theories of “spillover” or “trickle” – without
using the name – as the only solution to societal problems. There is
little appreciation of the fact that the alleged “spillover” does not
resolve the inequality that gives rise to new forms of violence
threatening the fabric of society. It is imperative to have a proactive
economic policy directed at “promoting an economy that favours
productive diversity and business creativity”[140] and makes it
possible for jobs to be created and not cut. Financial speculation
fundamentally aimed at quick profit continues to wreak havoc. Indeed,
“without internal forms of solidarity and mutual trust, the market
cannot completely fulfil its proper economic function. And today this
trust has ceased to exist”.[141] The story did not end the way it was
meant to, and the dogmatic formulae of prevailing economic theory
proved not to be infallible. The fragility of world systems in the face
of the pandemic has demonstrated that not everything can be resolved by
market freedom. It has also shown that, in addition to recovering a
sound political life that is not subject to the dictates of finance,
“we must put human dignity back at the centre and on that pillar build
the alternative social structures we need”.[142] 169. In some closed
and monochrome economic approaches, for example, there seems to be no
place for popular movements that unite the unemployed, temporary and
informal workers and many others who do not easily find a place in
existing structures. Yet those movements manage various forms of
popular economy and of community production. What is needed is a model
of social, political and economic participation “that can include
popular movements and invigorate local, national and international
governing structures with that torrent of moral energy that springs
from including the excluded in the building of a common destiny”, while
also ensuring that “these experiences of solidarity which grow up from
below, from the subsoil of the planet – can come together, be more
coordinated, keep on meeting one another”.[143] This, however, must
happen in a way that will not betray their distinctive way of acting as
“sowers of change, promoters of a process involving millions of
actions, great and small, creatively intertwined like words in a
poem”.[144] In that sense, such movements are “social poets” that, in
their own way, work, propose, promote and liberate. They help make
possible an integral human development that goes beyond “the idea of
social policies being a policy for the poor, but never with the poor
and never of the poor, much less part of a project that reunites
peoples”.[145] They may be 42 troublesome, and certain “theorists” may
find it hard to classify them, yet we must find the courage to
acknowledge that, without them, “democracy atrophies, turns into a mere
word, a formality; it loses its representative character and becomes
disembodied, since it leaves out the people in their daily struggle for
dignity, in the building of their future”.[146] INTERNATIONAL POWER
170. I would once more observe that “the financial crisis of 2007-08
provided an opportunity to develop a new economy, more attentive to
ethical principles, and new ways of regulating speculative financial
practices and virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis did not
include rethinking the outdated criteria which continue to rule the
world”.[147] Indeed, it appears that the actual strategies developed
worldwide in the wake of the crisis fostered greater individualism,
less integration and increased freedom for the truly powerful, who
always find a way to escape unscathed. 171. I would also insist that
“to give to each his own – to cite the classic definition of justice –
means that no human individual or group can consider itself absolute,
entitled to bypass the dignity and the rights of other individuals or
their social groupings. The effective distribution of power (especially
political, economic, defence-related and technological power) among a
plurality of subjects, and the creation of a juridical system for
regulating claims and interests, are one concrete way of limiting
power. Yet today’s world presents us with many false rights and – at
the same time – broad sectors which are vulnerable, victims of power
badly exercised”.[148] 172. The twenty-first century “is witnessing a
weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly because the economic
and financial sectors, being transnational, tend to prevail over the
political. Given this situation, it is essential to devise stronger and
more efficiently organized international institutions, with functionaries
who are appointed fairly by agreement among national governments, and
empowered to impose sanctions”.[149] When we talk about the possibility
of some form of world authority regulated by law,[150] we need not
necessarily think of a personal authority. Still, such an authority
ought at least to promote more effective world organizations, equipped
with the power to provide for the global common good, the elimination
of hunger and poverty and the sure defence of fundamental human rights.
173. In this regard, I would also note the need for a reform of “the
United Nations Organization, and likewise of economic institutions and
international finance, so that the concept of the family of nations can
acquire real teeth”.[151] Needless to say, this calls for clear legal
limits to avoid power being co-opted only by a few countries and to
prevent cultural impositions or a restriction of the basic freedoms of
weaker nations on the basis of ideological differences. For “the
international community is a juridical community founded on the
sovereignty of each member state, without bonds of subordination that
deny or limit its independence”.[152] At the same time, “the work of
the United Nations, according to the principles set forth in the
Preamble and the first Articles of its 43 founding Charter, can be seen
as the development and promotion of the rule of law, based on the
realization that justice is an essential condition for achieving the
ideal of universal fraternity… There is a need to ensure the
uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to negotiation, mediation
and arbitration, as proposed by the Charter of the United Nations,
which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical norm”.[153] There is
need to prevent this Organization from being delegitimized, since its problems
and shortcomings are capable of being jointly addressed and resolved.
174. Courage and generosity are needed in order freely to establish
shared goals and to ensure the worldwide observance of certain
essential norms. For this to be truly useful, it is essential to uphold
“the need to be faithful to agreements undertaken (pacta sunt
servanda)”,[154] and to avoid the “temptation to appeal to the law of
force rather than to the force of law”.[155] This means reinforcing the
“normative instruments for the peaceful resolution of controversies...
so as to strengthen their scope and binding force”.[156] Among these
normative instruments, preference should be given to multilateral
agreements between states, because, more than bilateral agreements,
they guarantee the promotion of a truly universal common good and the
protection of weaker states. 175. Providentially, many groups and
organizations within civil society help to compensate for the
shortcomings of the international community, its lack of coordination
in complex situations, its lack of attention to fundamental human
rights and to the critical needs of certain groups. Here we can see a
concrete application of the principle of subsidiarity, which justifies
the participation and activity of communities and organizations on
lower levels as a means of integrating and complementing the activity
of the state. These groups and organizations often carry out
commendable efforts in the service of the common good and their members
at times show true heroism, revealing something of the grandeur of
which our humanity is still capable. SOCIAL AND POLITICAL CHARITY 176.
For many people today, politics is a distasteful word, often due to the
mistakes, corruption and inefficiency of some politicians. There are
also attempts to discredit politics, to replace it with economics or to
twist it to one ideology or another. Yet can our world function without
politics? Can there be an effective process of growth towards universal
fraternity and social peace without a sound political life?[157] The
politics we need 177. Here I would once more observe that “politics
must not be subject to the economy, nor should the economy be subject
to the dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of technocracy”.[158]
Although misuse of power, corruption, disregard for law and
inefficiency must clearly be rejected, “economics without politics
cannot be justified, since this would make it impossible to favour
other 44 ways of handling the various aspects of the present
crisis”.[159] Instead, “what is needed is a politics which is
far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and interdisciplinary
approach to handling the different aspects of the crisis”.[160] In
other words, a “healthy politics… capable of reforming and coordinating
institutions, promoting best practices and overcoming undue pressure
and bureaucratic inertia”.[161] We cannot expect economics to do this,
nor can we allow economics to take over the real power of the state.
178. In the face of many petty forms of politics focused on immediate
interests, I would repeat that “true statecraft is manifest when, in
difficult times, we uphold high principles and think of the longterm
common good. Political powers do not find it easy to assume this duty
in the work of nationbuilding”,[162] much less in forging a common
project for the human family, now and in the future. Thinking of those
who will come after us does not serve electoral purposes, yet it is
what authentic justice demands. As the Bishops of Portugal have taught,
the earth “is lent to each generation, to be handed on to the
generation that follows”.[163] 179. Global society is suffering from
grave structural deficiencies that cannot be resolved by piecemeal
solutions or quick fixes. Much needs to change, through fundamental
reform and major renewal. Only a healthy politics, involving the most
diverse sectors and skills, is capable of overseeing this process. An
economy that is an integral part of a political, social, cultural and
popular programme directed to the common good could pave the way for
“different possibilities which do not involve stifling human creativity
and its ideals of progress, but rather directing that energy along new
channels”.[164] Political love 180. Recognizing that all people are our
brothers and sisters, and seeking forms of social friendship that
include everyone, is not merely utopian. It demands a decisive
commitment to devising effective means to this end. Any effort along
these lines becomes a noble exercise of charity. For whereas
individuals can help others in need, when they join together in
initiating social processes of fraternity and justice for all, they
enter the “field of charity at its most vast, namely political
charity”.[165] This entails working for a social and political order
whose soul is social charity.[166] Once more, I appeal for a renewed
appreciation of politics as “a lofty vocation and one of the highest
forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks the common good”.[167] 181.
Every commitment inspired by the Church’s social doctrine is “derived
from charity, which according to the teaching of Jesus is the synthesis
of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36-40)”.[168] This means acknowledging
that “love, overflowing with small gestures of mutual care, is also
civic and political, and it makes itself felt in every action that
seeks to build a better world”.[169] For this reason, charity finds
expression not only in close and intimate relationships but also in
“macrorelationships: social, economic and political”.[170] 45 182. This
political charity is born of a social awareness that transcends every
individualistic mindset: “‘Social charity makes us love the common
good’, it makes us effectively seek the good of all people, considered
not only as individuals or private persons, but also in the social
dimension that unites them”.[171] Each of us is fully a person when we
are part of a people; at the same time, there are no peoples without
respect for the individuality of each person. “People” and “person” are
correlative terms. Nonetheless, there are attempts nowadays to reduce
persons to isolated individuals easily manipulated by powers pursuing
spurious interests. Good politics will seek ways of building
communities at every level of social life, in order to recalibrate and
reorient globalization and thus avoid its disruptive effects. Effective
love 183. “Social love”[172] makes it possible to advance towards a
civilization of love, to which all of us can feel called. Charity, with
its impulse to universality, is capable of building a new world.[173]
No mere sentiment, it is the best means of discovering effective paths
of development for everyone. Social love is a “force capable of
inspiring new ways of approaching the problems of today’s world, of
profoundly renewing structures, social organizations and legal systems
from within”.[174] 184. Charity is at the heart of every healthy and
open society, yet today “it is easily dismissed as irrelevant for
interpreting and giving direction to moral responsibility”.[175]
Charity, when accompanied by a commitment to the truth, is much more
than personal feeling, and consequently need not “fall prey to
contingent subjective emotions and opinions”.[176] Indeed its close
relation to truth fosters its universality and preserves it from being
“confined to a narrow field devoid of relationships”.[177] Otherwise,
it would be “excluded from the plans and processes of promoting human
development of universal range, in dialogue between knowledge and
praxis”.[178] Without truth, emotion lacks relational and social
content. Charity’s openness to truth thus protects it from “a fideism
that deprives it of its human and universal breadth”.[179] 185. Charity
needs the light of the truth that we constantly seek. “That light is
both the light of reason and the light of faith”,[180] and does not
admit any form of relativism. Yet it also respects the development of
the sciences and their essential contribution to finding the surest and
most practical means of achieving the desired results. For when the
good of others is at stake, good intentions are not enough. Concrete
efforts must be made to bring about whatever they and their nations
need for the sake of their development. THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL LOVE
186. There is a kind of love that is “elicited”: its acts proceed
directly from the virtue of charity and are directed to individuals and
peoples. There is also a “commanded” love, expressed in those acts of
charity that spur people to create more sound institutions, more just
regulations, more 46 supportive structures.[181] It follows that “it is
an equally indispensable act of love to strive to organize and
structure society so that one’s neighbour will not find himself in
poverty”.[182] It is an act of charity to assist someone suffering, but
it is also an act of charity, even if we do not know that person, to
work to change the social conditions that caused his or her suffering.
If someone helps an elderly person cross a river, that is a fine act of
charity. The politician, on the other hand, builds a bridge, and that
too is an act of charity. While one person can help another by
providing something to eat, the politician creates a job for that other
person, and thus practices a lofty form of charity that ennobles his or
her political activity. Sacrifices born of love 187. This charity, which
is the spiritual heart of politics, is always a preferential love shown
to those in greatest need; it undergirds everything we do on their
behalf.[183] Only a gaze transformed by charity can enable the dignity
of others to be recognized and, as a consequence, the poor to be
acknowledged and valued in their dignity, respected in their identity
and culture, and thus truly integrated into society. That gaze is at
the heart of the authentic spirit of politics. It sees paths open up
that are different from those of a soulless pragmatism. It makes us
realize that “the scandal of poverty cannot be addressed by promoting
strategies of containment that only tranquilize the poor and render
them tame and inoffensive. How sad it is when we find, behind allegedly
altruistic works, the other being reduced to passivity”.[184] What are
needed are new pathways of self-expression and participation in
society. Education serves these by making it possible for each human
being to shape his or her own future. Here too we see the importance of
the principle of subsidiarity, which is inseparable from the principle
of solidarity. 188. These considerations help us recognize the urgent
need to combat all that threatens or violates fundamental human rights.
Politicians are called to “tend to the needs of individuals and
peoples. To tend those in need takes strength and tenderness, effort
and generosity in the midst of a functionalistic and privatized mindset
that inexorably leads to a ‘throwaway culture’… It involves taking
responsibility for the present with its situations of utter
marginalization and anguish, and being capable of bestowing dignity
upon it”.[185] It will likewise inspire intense efforts to ensure that
“everything be done to protect the status and dignity of the human person”.[186]
Politicians are doers, builders with ambitious goals, possessed of a
broad, realistic and pragmatic gaze that looks beyond their own
borders. Their biggest concern should not be about a drop in the polls,
but about finding effective solutions to “the phenomenon of social and
economic exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human trafficking,
the marketing of human organs and tissues, the sexual exploitation of
boys and girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the drug and
weapons trade, terrorism and international organized crime. Such is the
magnitude of these situations, and their toll in innocent lives, that
we must avoid every temptation to fall into a declarationist nominalism
that would assuage our consciences. We need to ensure that our
institutions are truly effective in the struggle against all these
scourges”.[187] This includes taking intelligent advantage of the
immense resources offered by technological development. 47 189. We are
still far from a globalization of the most basic of human rights. That
is why world politics needs to make the effective elimination of hunger
one of its foremost and imperative goals. Indeed, “when financial
speculation manipulates the price of food, treating it as just another
commodity, millions of people suffer and die from hunger. At the same
time, tons of food are thrown away. This constitutes a genuine scandal.
Hunger is criminal; food is an inalienable right”.[188] Often, as we
carry on our semantic or ideological disputes, we allow our brothers and
sisters to die of hunger and thirst, without shelter or access to
health care. Alongside these basic needs that remain unmet, trafficking
in persons represents another source of shame for humanity, one that
international politics, moving beyond fine speeches and good
intentions, must no longer tolerate. These things are essential; they
can no longer be deferred. A love that integrates and unites 190.
Political charity is also expressed in a spirit of openness to
everyone. Government leaders should be the first to make the sacrifices
that foster encounter and to seek convergence on at least some issues.
They should be ready to listen to other points of view and to make room
for everyone. Through sacrifice and patience, they can help to create a
beautiful polyhedral reality in which everyone has a place. Here,
economic negotiations do not work. Something else is required: an
exchange of gifts for the common good. It may seem naïve and utopian,
yet we cannot renounce this lofty aim. 191. At a time when various
forms of fundamentalist intolerance are damaging relationships between
individuals, groups and peoples, let us be committed to living and
teaching the value of respect for others, a love capable of welcoming
differences, and the priority of the dignity of every human being over
his or her ideas, opinions, practices and even sins. Even as forms of
fanaticism, closedmindedness and social and cultural fragmentation
proliferate in present-day society, a good politician will take the
first step and insist that different voices be heard. Disagreements may
well give rise to conflicts, but uniformity proves stifling and leads
to cultural decay. May we not be content with being enclosed in one
fragment of reality. 192. In this regard, Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb and
I have called upon “the architects of international policy and world
economy to work strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance and of
living together in peace; to intervene at the earliest opportunity to
stop the shedding of innocent blood”.[189] When a specific policy sows
hatred and fear towards other nations in the name of its own country’s
welfare, there is need to be concerned, to react in time and
immediately to correct the course. FRUITFULNESS OVER RESULTS 193. Apart
from their tireless activity, politicians are also men and women. They
are called to practice love in their daily interpersonal relationships.
As persons, they need to consider that “the 48 modern world, with its
technical advances, tends increasingly to functionalize the satisfaction
of human desires, now classified and subdivided among different
services. Less and less will people be called by name, less and less
will this unique being be treated as a person with his or her own
feelings, sufferings, problems, joys and family. Their illnesses will
be known only in order to cure them, their financial needs only to
provide for them, their lack of a home only to give them lodging, their
desires for recreation and entertainment only to satisfy them”. Yet it
must never be forgotten that “loving the most insignificant of human
beings as a brother, as if there were no one else in the world but him,
cannot be considered a waste of time”.[190] 194. Politics too must make
room for a tender love of others. “What is tenderness? It is love that draws
near and becomes real. A movement that starts from our heart and
reaches the eyes, the ears and the hands… Tenderness is the path of
choice for the strongest, most courageous men and women”.[191] Amid the
daily concerns of political life, “the smallest, the weakest, the
poorest should touch our hearts: indeed, they have a ‘right’ to appeal
to our heart and soul. They are our brothers and sisters, and as such
we must love and care for them”.[192] 195. All this can help us realize
that what is important is not constantly achieving great results, since
these are not always possible. In political activity, we should
remember that, “appearances notwithstanding, every person is immensely
holy and deserves our love. Consequently, if I can help at least one person
to have a better life, that already justifies the offering of my life.
It is a wonderful thing to be God’s faithful people. We achieve
fulfilment when we break down walls and our hearts are filled with
faces and names!”[193] The great goals of our dreams and plans may only
be achieved in part. Yet beyond this, those who love, and who no longer
view politics merely as a quest for power, “may be sure that none of
our acts of love will be lost, nor any of our acts of sincere concern
for others. No single act of love for God will be lost, no generous
effort is meaningless, no painful endurance is wasted. All of these
encircle our world like a vital force”.[194] 196. For this reason, it
is truly noble to place our hope in the hidden power of the seeds of
goodness we sow, and thus to initiate processes whose fruits will be
reaped by others. Good politics combines love with hope and with
confidence in the reserves of goodness present in human hearts. Indeed,
“authentic political life, built upon respect for law and frank
dialogue between individuals, is constantly renewed whenever there is a
realization that every woman and man, and every new generation, brings
the promise of new relational, intellectual, cultural and spiritual
energies”.[195] 197. Viewed in this way, politics is something more
noble than posturing, marketing and media spin. These sow nothing but
division, conflict and a bleak cynicism incapable of mobilizing people
to pursue a common goal. At times, in thinking of the future, we do
well to ask ourselves, “Why I am doing this?”, “What is my real aim?”
For as time goes on, reflecting on the past, the questions will not be:
“How many people endorsed me?”, “How many voted for me?”, “How many had
a positive image of me?” The real, and potentially painful, questions
will be, “How much love did I 49 put into my work?” “What did I do for
the progress of our people?” “What mark did I leave on the life of
society?” “What real bonds did I create?” “What positive forces did I
unleash?” “How much social peace did I sow?” “What good did I achieve
in the position that was entrusted to me?” CHAPTER SIX DIALOGUE AND
FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIETY 198. Approaching, speaking, listening, looking
at, coming to know and understand one another, and to find common
ground: all these things are summed up in the one word “dialogue”. If
we want to encounter and help one another, we have to dialogue. There
is no need for me to stress the benefits of dialogue. I have only to
think of what our world would be like without the patient dialogue of
the many generous persons who keep families and communities together.
Unlike disagreement and conflict, persistent and courageous dialogue
does not make headlines, but quietly helps the world to live much
better than we imagine. SOCIAL DIALOGUE FOR A NEW CULTURE 199. Some
people attempt to flee from reality, taking refuge in their own little
world; others react to it with destructive violence. Yet “between
selfish indifference and violent protest there is always another
possible option: that of dialogue. Dialogue between generations;
dialogue among our people, for we are that people; readiness to give
and receive, while remaining open to the truth. A country flourishes
when constructive dialogue occurs between its many rich cultural
components: popular culture, university culture, youth culture,
artistic culture, technological culture, economic culture, family
culture and media culture”.[196] 200. Dialogue is often confused with
something quite different: the feverish exchange of opinions on social
networks, frequently based on media information that is not always
reliable. These exchanges are merely parallel monologues. They may
attract some attention by their sharp and aggressive tone. But
monologues engage no one, and their content is frequently self-serving
and contradictory. 201. Indeed, the media’s noisy potpourri of facts
and opinions is often an obstacle to dialogue, since it lets everyone
cling stubbornly to his or her own ideas, interests and choices, with
the excuse that everyone else is wrong. It becomes easier to discredit
and insult opponents from the outset than to open a respectful dialogue
aimed at achieving agreement on a deeper level. Worse, this kind of
language, usually drawn from media coverage of political campaigns, has
become so widespread as to be part of daily conversation. Discussion is
often manipulated by powerful special interests that seek to tilt
public opinion unfairly in their favour. This kind of manipulation can
be exercised not only by governments, but also in economics, politics,
communications, religion and in other spheres. Attempts can be made to
justify or excuse it when it tends to serve 50 one’s own economic or
ideological interests, but sooner or later it turns against those very
interests. 202. Lack of dialogue means that in these individual sectors
people are concerned not for the common good, but for the benefits of
power or, at best, for ways to impose their own ideas. Round tables
thus become mere negotiating sessions, in which individuals attempt to
seize every possible advantage, rather than cooperating in the pursuit
of the common good. The heroes of the future will be those who can
break with this unhealthy mindset and determine respectfully to promote
truthfulness, aside from personal interest. God willing, such heroes
are quietly emerging, even now, in the midst of our society. Building
together 203. Authentic social dialogue involves the ability to respect
the other’s point of view and to admit that it may include legitimate
convictions and concerns. Based on their identity and experience,
others have a contribution to make, and it is desirable that they
should articulate their positions for the sake of a more fruitful
public debate. When individuals or groups are consistent in their
thinking, defend their values and convictions, and develop their
arguments, this surely benefits society. Yet, this can only occur to
the extent that there is genuine dialogue and openness to others.
Indeed, “in a true spirit of dialogue, we grow in our ability to grasp
the significance of what others say and do, even if we cannot accept it
as our own conviction. In this way, it becomes possible to be frank and
open about our beliefs, while continuing to discuss, to seek points of
contact, and above all, to work and struggle together”.[197] Public
discussion, if it truly makes room for everyone and does not manipulate
or conceal information, is a constant stimulus to a better grasp of the
truth, or at least its more effective expression. It keeps different
sectors from becoming complacent and self-centred in their outlook and
their limited concerns. Let us not forget that “differences are
creative; they create tension and in the resolution of tension lies
humanity’s progress”.[198] 204. There is a growing conviction that,
together with specialized scientific advances, we are in need of
greater interdisciplinary communication. Although reality is one, it
can be approached from various angles and with different methodologies.
There is a risk that a single scientific advance will be seen as the
only possible lens for viewing a particular aspect of life, society and
the world. Researchers who are expert in their own field, yet also
familiar with the findings of other sciences and disciplines, are in a
position to discern other aspects of the object of their study and thus
to become open to a more comprehensive and integral knowledge of
reality. 205. In today’s globalized world, “the media can help us to
feel closer to one another, creating a sense of the unity of the human
family which in turn can inspire solidarity and serious efforts to
ensure a more dignified life for all… The media can help us greatly in
this, especially nowadays, when the networks of human communication
have made unprecedented advances. The internet, 51 in particular,
offers immense possibilities for encounter and solidarity. This is
something truly good, a gift from God”.[199] We need constantly to
ensure that present-day forms of communication are in fact guiding us
to generous encounter with others, to honest pursuit of the whole
truth, to service, to closeness to the underprivileged and to the
promotion of the common good. As the Bishops of Australia have pointed
out, we cannot accept “a digital world designed to exploit our
weaknesses and bring out the worst in people”.[200] The BASIS of
Consensus 206. The solution is not relativism. Under the guise of
tolerance, relativism ultimately leaves the interpretation of moral
values to those in power, to be defined as they see fit. “In the
absence of objective truths or sound principles other than the
satisfaction of our own desires and immediate needs… we should not
think that political efforts or the force of law will be sufficient…
When the culture itself is corrupt, and objective truth and universally
valid principles are no longer upheld, then laws can only be seen as
arbitrary impositions or obstacles to be avoided”.[201] 207. Is it
possible to be concerned for truth, to seek the truth that responds to
life’s deepest meaning? What is law without the conviction, born of
age-old reflection and great wisdom, that each human being is sacred
and inviolable? If society is to have a future, it must respect the
truth of our human dignity and submit to that truth. Murder is not
wrong simply because it is socially unacceptable and punished by law,
but because of a deeper conviction. This is a non-negotiable truth
attained by the use of reason and accepted in conscience. A society is
noble and decent not least for its support of the pursuit of truth and
its adherence to the most basic of truths. 208. We need to learn how to
unmask the various ways that the truth is manipulated, distorted and
concealed in public and private discourse. What we call “truth” is not
only the reporting of facts and events, such as we find in the daily papers.
It is primarily the search for the solid foundations sustaining our
decisions and our laws. This calls for acknowledging that the human
mind is capable of transcending immediate concerns and grasping certain
truths that are unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it peers
into human nature, reason discovers universal values derived from that
same nature. 209. Otherwise, is it not conceivable that those
fundamental human rights which we now consider unassailable will be
denied by those in power, once they have gained the “consensus” of an
apathetic or intimidated population? Nor would a mere consensus between
different nations, itself equally open to manipulation, suffice to
protect them. We have ample evidence of the great good of which we are
capable, yet we also have to acknowledge our inherent destructiveness.
Is not the indifference and the heartless individualism into which we
have fallen also a result of our sloth in pursuing higher values,
values that transcend our immediate needs? Relativism always brings the
risk that some or other alleged truth will be imposed by the powerful
or the clever. Yet, “when it is a matter of the moral norms prohibiting
intrinsic evil, there are no privileges or exceptions for 52 anyone. It
makes no difference whether one is the master of the world or the
‘poorest of the poor’ on the face of the earth. Before the demands of
morality we are all absolutely equal”.[202] 210. What is now happening,
and drawing us into a perverse and barren way of thinking, is the reduction
of ethics and politics to physics. Good and evil no longer exist in
themselves; there is only a calculus of benefits and burdens. As a
result of the displacement of moral reasoning, the law is no longer
seen as reflecting a fundamental notion of justice but as mirroring
notions currently in vogue. Breakdown ensues: everything is “leveled
down” by a superficial bartered consensus. In the end, the law of the
strongest prevails. Consensus and truth 211. In a pluralistic society,
dialogue is the best way to realize what ought always to be affirmed
and respected apart from any ephemeral consensus. Such dialogue needs
to be enriched and illumined by clear thinking, rational arguments, a
variety of perspectives and the contribution of different fields of
knowledge and points of view. Nor can it exclude the conviction that it
is possible to arrive at certain fundamental truths always to be
upheld. Acknowledging the existence of certain enduring values, however
demanding it may be to discern them, makes for a robust and solid
social ethics. Once those fundamental values are acknowledged and
adopted through dialogue and consensus, we realize that they rise above
consensus; they transcend our concrete situations and remain
non-negotiable. Our understanding of their meaning and scope can
increase – and in that respect, consensus is a dynamic reality – but in
themselves, they are held to be enduring by virtue of their inherent
meaning. 212. If something always serves the good functioning of
society, is it not because, lying beyond it, there is an enduring truth
accessible to the intellect? Inherent in the nature of human beings and
society there exist certain basic structures to support our development
and survival. Certain requirements thus ensue, and these can be discovered
through dialogue, even though, strictly speaking, they are not created
by consensus. The fact that certain rules are indispensable for the
very life of society is a sign that they are good in and of themselves.
There is no need, then, to oppose the interests of society, consensus
and the reality of objective truth. These three realities can be
harmonized whenever, through dialogue, people are unafraid to get to
the heart of an issue. 213. The dignity of others is to be respected in
all circumstances, not because that dignity is something we have
invented or imagined, but because human beings possess an intrinsic
worth superior to that of material objects and contingent situations.
This requires that they be treated differently. That every human being
possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that corresponds to human
nature apart from all cultural change. For this reason, human beings
have the same inviolable dignity in every age of history and no one can
consider himself or herself authorized by particular situations to deny
this conviction or to act against it. The intellect can investigate the
53 reality of things through reflection, experience and dialogue, and
come to recognize in that reality, which transcends it, the basis of
certain universal moral demands. 214. To agnostics, this foundation
could prove sufficient to confer a solid and stable universal validity
on basic and non-negotiable ethical principles that could serve to
prevent further catastrophes. As believers, we are convinced that human
nature, as the source of ethical principles, was created by God, and
that ultimately it is he who gives those principles their solid
foundation.[203] This does not result in an ethical rigidity nor does
it lead to the imposition of any one moral system, since fundamental
and universally valid moral principles can be embodied in different
practical rules. Thus, room for dialogue will always exist. A NEW
CULTURE 215. “Life, for all its confrontations, is the art of
encounter”.[204] I have frequently called for the growth of a culture
of encounter capable of transcending our differences and divisions.
This means working to create a many-faceted polyhedron whose different
sides form a variegated unity, in which “the whole is greater than the
part”.[205] The image of a polyhedron can represent a society where
differences coexist, complementing, enriching and reciprocally
illuminating one another, even amid disagreements and reservations.
Each of us can learn something from others. No one is useless and no
one is expendable. This also means finding ways to include those on the
peripheries of life. For they have another way of looking at things;
they see aspects of reality that are invisible to the centres of power
where weighty decisions are made. Encounter that becomes culture 216.
The word “culture” points to something deeply embedded within a people,
its most cherished convictions and its way of life. A people’s
“culture” is more than an abstract idea. It has to do with their
desires, their interests and ultimately the way they live their lives.
To speak of a “culture of encounter” means that we, as a people, should
be passionate about meeting others, seeking points of contact, building
bridges, planning a project that includes everyone. This becomes an
aspiration and a style of life. The subject of this culture is the
people, not simply one part of society that would pacify the rest with
the help of professional and media resources. 217. Social peace demands
hard work, craftsmanship. It would be easier to keep freedoms and
differences in check with cleverness and a few resources. But such a
peace would be superficial and fragile, not the fruit of a culture of
encounter that brings enduring stability. Integrating differences is a
much more difficult and slow process, yet it is the guarantee of a
genuine and lasting peace. That peace is not achieved by recourse only
to those who are pure and untainted, since “even people who can be
considered questionable on account of their errors have something to
offer which must not be overlooked”.[206] Nor does it come from
ignoring social demands or quelling disturbances, since it is not “a
consensus on paper or a transient peace for a 54 contented
minority”.[207] What is important is to create processes of encounter,
processes that build a people that can accept differences. Let us arm
our children with the weapons of dialogue! Let us teach them to fight
the good fight of the culture of encounter! The joy of acknowledging
others 218. All this calls for the ability to recognize other people’s
right to be themselves and to be different. This recognition, as it
becomes a culture, makes possible the creation of a social covenant.
Without it, subtle ways can be found to make others insignificant,
irrelevant, of no value to society. While rejecting certain visible
forms of violence, another more insidious kind of violence can take
root: the violence of those who despise people who are different,
especially when their demands in any way compromise their own
particular interests. 219. When one part of society exploits all that
the world has to offer, acting as if the poor did not exist, there will
eventually be consequences. Sooner or later, ignoring the existence and
rights of others will erupt in some form of violence, often when least expected.
Liberty, equality and fraternity can remain lofty ideals unless they
apply to everyone. Encounter cannot take place only between the holders
of economic, political or academic power. Genuine social encounter
calls for a dialogue that engages the culture shared by the majority of
the population. It often happens that good ideas are not accepted by
the poorer sectors of society because they are presented in a cultural
garb that is not their own and with which they cannot identify. A
realistic and inclusive social covenant must also be a “cultural
covenant”, one that respects and acknowledges the different worldviews,
cultures and lifestyles that coexist in society. 220. Indigenous
peoples, for example, are not opposed to progress, yet theirs is a different
notion of progress, often more humanistic than the modern culture of
developed peoples. Theirs is not a culture meant to benefit the
powerful, those driven to create for themselves a kind of earthly
paradise. Intolerance and lack of respect for indigenous popular
cultures is a form of violence grounded in a cold and judgmental way of
viewing them. No authentic, profound and enduring change is possible
unless it starts from the different cultures, particularly those of the
poor. A cultural covenant eschews a monolithic understanding of the
identity of a particular place; it entails respect for diversity by
offering opportunities for advancement and social integration to all.
221. Such a covenant also demands the realization that some things may
have to be renounced for the common good. No one can possess the whole
truth or satisfy his or her every desire, since that pretension would
lead to nullifying others by denying their rights. A false notion of
tolerance has to give way to a dialogic realism on the part of men and
women who remain faithful to their own principles while recognizing
that others also have the right to do likewise. This is the genuine
acknowledgment of the other that is made possible by love alone. We
have to stand in the place of others, if we are to discover what is
genuine, or at least understandable, in their motivations and concerns.
55 RECOVERING KINDNESS 222. Consumerist individualism has led to great
injustice. Other persons come to be viewed simply as obstacles to our
own serene existence; we end up treating them as annoyances and we
become increasingly aggressive. This is even more the case in times of
crisis, catastrophe and hardship, when we are tempted to think in terms
of the old saying, “every man for himself”. Yet even then, we can
choose to cultivate kindness. Those who do so become stars shining in
the midst of darkness. 223. Saint Paul describes kindness as a fruit of
the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22). He uses the Greek word chrestótes, which
describes an attitude that is gentle, pleasant and supportive, not rude
or coarse. Individuals who possess this quality help make other
people’s lives more bearable, especially by sharing the weight of their
problems, needs and fears. This way of treating others can take
different forms: an act of kindness, a concern not to offend by word or
deed, a readiness to alleviate their burdens. It involves “speaking
words of comfort, strength, consolation and encouragement” and not
“words that demean, sadden, anger or show scorn”.[208] 224. Kindness
frees us from the cruelty that at times infects human relationships,
from the anxiety that prevents us from thinking of others, from the
frantic flurry of activity that forgets that others also have a right
to be happy. Often nowadays we find neither the time nor the energy to
stop and be kind to others, to say “excuse me”, “pardon me”, “thank
you”. Yet every now and then, miraculously, a kind person appears and
is willing to set everything else aside in order to show interest, to
give the gift of a smile, to speak a word of encouragement, to listen
amid general indifference. If we make a daily effort to do exactly
this, we can create a healthy social atmosphere in which
misunderstandings can be overcome and conflict forestalled. Kindness
ought to be cultivated; it is no superficial bourgeois virtue.
Precisely because it entails esteem and respect for others, once
kindness becomes a culture within society it transforms lifestyles,
relationships and the ways ideas are discussed and compared. Kindness
facilitates the quest for consensus; it opens new paths where hostility
and conflict would burn all bridges. CHAPTER SEVEN PATHS OF RENEWED
ENCOUNTER 225. In many parts of the world, there is a need for paths of
peace to heal open wounds. There is also a need for peacemakers, men
and women prepared to work boldly and creatively to initiate processes
of healing and renewed encounter. STARTING ANEW FROM THE TRUTH 226.
Renewed encounter does not mean returning to a time prior to conflicts.
All of us change over 56 time. Pain and conflict transform us. We no
longer have use for empty diplomacy, dissimulation, double-speak,
hidden agendas and good manners that mask reality. Those who were
fierce enemies have to speak from the stark and clear truth. They have
to learn how to cultivate a penitential memory, one that can accept the
past in order not to cloud the future with their own regrets, problems
and plans. Only by basing themselves on the historical truth of events
will they be able to make a broad and persevering effort to understand
one another and to strive for a new synthesis for the good of all.
Every “peace process requires enduring commitment. It is a patient
effort to seek truth and justice, to honour the memory of victims and
to open the way, step by step, to a shared hope stronger than the
desire for vengeance”.[209] As the Bishops of the Congo have said with
regard to one recurring conflict: “Peace agreements on paper will not
be enough. We will have to go further, by respecting the demands of
truth regarding the origins of this recurring crisis. The people have
the right to know what happened”.[210] 227. “Truth, in fact, is an
inseparable companion of justice and mercy. All three together are
essential to building peace; each, moreover, prevents the other from
being altered… Truth should not lead to revenge, but rather to
reconciliation and forgiveness. Truth means telling families torn apart
by pain what happened to their missing relatives. Truth means
confessing what happened to minors recruited by cruel and violent
people. Truth means recognizing the pain of women who are victims of
violence and abuse… Every act of violence committed against a human
being is a wound in humanity’s flesh; every violent death diminishes us
as people… Violence leads to more violence, hatred to more hatred,
death to more death. We must break this cycle which seems
inescapable”.[211] THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE 228. The path to
peace does not mean making society blandly uniform, but getting people
to work together, side-by-side, in pursuing goals that benefit
everyone. A wide variety of practical proposals and diverse experiences
can help achieve shared objectives and serve the common good. The
problems that a society is experiencing need to be clearly identified,
so that the existence of different ways of understanding and resolving
them can be appreciated. The path to social unity always entails
acknowledging the possibility that others have, at least in part, a
legitimate point of view, something worthwhile to contribute, even if
they were in error or acted badly. “We should never confine others to
what they may have said or done, but value them for the promise that
they embody”,[212] a promise that always brings with it a spark of new
hope. 229. The Bishops of South Africa have pointed out that true
reconciliation is achieved proactively, “by forming a new society, a
society based on service to others, rather than the desire to dominate;
a society based on sharing what one has with others, rather than the
selfish scramble by each for as much wealth as possible; a society in
which the value of being together as human beings is ultimately more
important than any lesser group, whether it be family, nation, race or
culture”.[213] As the Bishops of South Korea have pointed out, true
peace “can be achieved only 57 when we strive for justice through
dialogue, pursuing reconciliation and mutual development”.[214] 230.
Working to overcome our divisions without losing our identity as
individuals presumes that a basic sense of belonging is present in
everyone. Indeed, “society benefits when each person and social group
feels truly at home. In a family, parents, grandparents and children
all feel at home; no one is excluded. If someone has a problem, even a
serious one, even if he brought it upon himself, the rest of the family
comes to his assistance; they support him. His problems are theirs… In
families, everyone contributes to the common purpose; everyone works
for the common good, not denying each person’s individuality but
encouraging and supporting it. They may quarrel, but there is something
that does not change: the family bond. Family disputes are always
resolved afterwards. The joys and sorrows of each of its members are
felt by all. That is what it means to be a family! If only we could
view our political opponents or neighbours in the same way that we view
our children or our spouse, mother or father! How good would this be!
Do we love our society or is it still something remote, something
anonymous that does not involve us, something to which we are not
committed?”[215] 231. Negotiation often becomes necessary for shaping
concrete paths to peace. Yet the processes of change that lead to
lasting peace are crafted above all by peoples; each individual can act
as an effective leaven by the way he or she lives each day. Great
changes are not produced behind desks or in offices. This means that
“everyone has a fundamental role to play in a single great creative
project: to write a new page of history, a page full of hope, peace and
reconciliation”.[216] There is an “architecture” of peace, to which
different institutions of society contribute, each according to its own
area of expertise, but there is also an “art” of peace that involves us
all. From the various peace processes that have taken place in
different parts of the world, “we have learned that these ways of
making peace, of placing reason above revenge, of the delicate harmony
between politics and law, cannot ignore the involvement of ordinary
people. Peace is not achieved by normative frameworks and institutional
arrangements between wellmeaning political or economic groups… It is
always helpful to incorporate into our peace processes the experience
of those sectors that have often been overlooked, so that communities
themselves can influence the development of a collective memory”.[217]
232. There is no end to the building of a country’s social peace;
rather, it is “an open-ended endeavour, a never-ending task that
demands the commitment of everyone and challenges us to work tirelessly
to build the unity of the nation. Despite obstacles, differences and
varying perspectives on the way to achieve peaceful coexistence, this
task summons us to persevere in the struggle to promote a ‘culture of
encounter’. This requires us to place at the centre of all political,
social and economic activity the human person, who enjoys the highest
dignity, and respect for the common good. May this determination help
us flee from the temptation for revenge and the satisfaction of
short-term partisan interests”.[218] Violent public demonstrations, on
one side or the other, do not help in finding solutions. Mainly
because, as the Bishops of Colombia have rightly noted, the “origins
and objectives of civil demonstrations are not always clear; certain 58
forms of political manipulation are present and in some cases they have
been exploited for partisan interests”.[219] Beginning with the least
233. Building social friendship does not only call for rapprochement
between groups who took different sides at some troubled period of
history, but also for a renewed encounter with the most impoverished
and vulnerable sectors of society. For peace “is not merely absence of
war but a tireless commitment – especially on the part of those of us
charged with greater responsibility – to recognize, protect and
concretely restore the dignity, so often overlooked or ignored, of our
brothers and sisters, so that they can see themselves as the principal
protagonists of the destiny of their nation”.[220] 234. Often, the more
vulnerable members of society are the victims of unfair
generalizations. If at times the poor and the dispossessed react with
attitudes that appear antisocial, we should realize that in many cases
those reactions are born of a history of scorn and social exclusion.
The Latin American Bishops have observed that “only the closeness that
makes us friends can enable us to appreciate deeply the values of the
poor today, their legitimate desires, and their own manner of living
the faith. The option for the poor should lead us to friendship with
the poor”.[221] 235. Those who work for tranquil social coexistence
should never forget that inequality and lack of integral human
development make peace impossible. Indeed, “without equal
opportunities, different forms of aggression and conflict will find a
fertile terrain for growth and eventually explode. When a society –
whether local, national or global – is willing to leave a part of
itself on the fringes, no political programmes or resources spent on
law enforcement or surveillance systems can indefinitely guarantee
tranquility”.[222] If we have to begin anew, it must always be from the
least of our brothers and sisters. THE VALUE AND MEANING OF FORGIVENESS
236. There are those who prefer not to talk of reconciliation, for they
think that conflict, violence and breakdown are part of the normal
functioning of a society. In any human group there are always going to
be more or less subtle power struggles between different parties.
Others think that promoting forgiveness means yielding ground and
influence to others. For this reason, they feel it is better to keep
things as they are, maintaining a balance of power between differing
groups. Still others believe that reconciliation is a sign of weakness;
incapable of truly serious dialogue, they choose to avoid problems by
ignoring injustices. Unable to deal with problems, they opt for an
apparent peace. Inevitable conflict 59 237. Forgiveness and
reconciliation are central themes in Christianity and, in various ways,
in other religions. Yet there is a risk that an inadequate
understanding and presentation of these profound convictions can lead
to fatalism, apathy and injustice, or even intolerance and violence.
238. Jesus never promoted violence or intolerance. He openly condemned the
use of force to gain power over others: “You know that the rulers of
the Gentiles lord it over them, and their great ones are tyrants over
them. It will not be so among you” (Mt 20:25-26). Instead, the Gospel
tells us to forgive “seventy times seven” (Mt 18:22) and offers the
example of the unmerciful servant who was himself forgiven, yet unable
to forgive others in turn (cf. Mt 18:23-35). 239. Reading other texts
of the New Testament, we can see how the early Christian communities,
living in a pagan world marked by widespread corruption and
aberrations, sought to show unfailing patience, tolerance and
understanding. Some texts are very clear in this regard: we are told to
admonish our opponents “with gentleness” (2 Tim 2:25) and encouraged
“to speak evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be gentle, and to
show every courtesy to everyone. For we ourselves were once foolish”
(Tit 3:2-3). The Acts of the Apostles notes that the disciples, albeit
persecuted by some of the authorities, “had favour with all the people”
(2:47; cf. 4:21.33; 5:13). 240. Yet when we reflect upon forgiveness,
peace and social harmony, we also encounter the jarring saying of
Christ: “Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth; I
have not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to set a man
against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a man’s foes will be
members of his own household” (Mt 10:34-36). These words need to be
understood in the context of the chapter in which they are found, where
it is clear that Jesus is speaking of fidelity to our decision to
follow him; we are not to be ashamed of that decision, even if it
entails hardships of various sorts, and even our loved ones refuse to
accept it. Christ’s words do not encourage us to seek conflict, but
simply to endure it when it inevitably comes, lest deference to others,
for the sake of supposed peace in our families or society, should
detract from our own fidelity. Saint John Paul II observed that the
Church “does not 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”.[223] Legitimate conflict and
forgiveness 241. Nor does this mean calling for forgiveness when it
involves renouncing our own rights, confronting corrupt officials,
criminals or those who would debase our dignity. We are called to love
everyone, without exception; at the same time, loving an oppressor does
not mean allowing him to keep oppressing us, or letting him think that
what he does is acceptable. On the contrary, true love for an oppressor
means seeking ways to make him cease his oppression; it means stripping
him of a power that he does not know how to use, and that diminishes
his own humanity 60 and that of others. Forgiveness does not entail
allowing oppressors to keep trampling on their own dignity and that of
others, or letting criminals continue their wrongdoing. Those who
suffer injustice have to defend strenuously their own rights and those
of their family, precisely because they must preserve the dignity they
have received as a loving gift from God. If a criminal has harmed me or
a loved one, no one can forbid me from demanding justice and ensuring
that this person – or anyone else – will not harm me, or others, again.
This is entirely just; forgiveness does not forbid it but actually demands
it. 242. The important thing is not to fuel anger, which is unhealthy
for our own soul and the soul of our people, or to become obsessed with
taking revenge and destroying the other. No one achieves inner peace or
returns to a normal life in that way. The truth is that “no family, no
group of neighbours, no ethnic group, much less a nation, has a future
if the force that unites them, brings them together and resolves their
differences is vengeance and hatred. We cannot come to terms and unite
for the sake of revenge, or treating others with the same violence with
which they treated us, or plotting opportunities for retaliation under
apparently legal auspices”.[224] Nothing is gained this way and, in the
end, everything is lost. 243. To be sure, “it is no easy task to
overcome the bitter legacy of injustices, hostility and mistrust left
by conflict. It can only be done by overcoming evil with good (cf. Rom
12:21) and by cultivating those virtues which foster reconciliation,
solidarity and peace”.[225] In this way, “persons who nourish goodness
in their heart find that such goodness leads to a peaceful conscience
and to profound joy, even in the midst of difficulties and
misunderstandings. Even when affronted, goodness is never weak but
rather, shows its strength by refusing to take revenge”.[226] Each of
us should realize that “even the harsh judgment I hold in my heart
against my brother or my sister, the open wound that was never cured,
the offense that was never forgiven, the rancour that is only going to
hurt me, are all instances of a struggle that I carry within me, a
little flame deep in my heart that needs to be extinguished before it
turns into a great blaze”.[227] The best way to move on 244. When
conflicts are not resolved but kept hidden or buried in the past,
silence can lead to complicity in grave misdeeds and sins. Authentic
reconciliation does not flee from conflict, but is achieved in
conflict, resolving it through dialogue and open, honest and patient
negotiation. Conflict between different groups “if it abstains from
enmities and mutual hatred, gradually changes into an honest discussion
of differences founded on a desire for justice”.[228] 245. On numerous
occasions, I have spoken of “a principle indispensable to the building
of friendship in society: namely, that unity is greater than conflict…
This is not to opt for a kind of syncretism, or for the absorption of
one into the other, but rather for a resolution which takes place on a
higher plane and preserves what is valid and useful on both
sides”.[229] All of us know that “when we, as individuals and
communities, learn to look beyond ourselves and our particular 61
interests, then understanding and mutual commitment bear fruit… in a
setting where conflicts, tensions and even groups once considered
inimical can attain a multifaceted unity that gives rise to new
life”.[230] MEMORY 246. Of those who have endured much unjust and cruel
suffering, a sort of “social forgiveness” must not be demanded.
Reconciliation is a personal act, and no one can impose it upon an
entire society, however great the need to foster it. In a strictly
personal way, someone, by a free and generous decision, can choose not
to demand punishment (cf. Mt 5:44-46), even if it is quite legitimately
demanded by society and its justice system. However, it is not possible
to proclaim a “blanket reconciliation” in an effort to bind wounds by
decree or to cover injustices in a cloak of oblivion. Who can claim the
right to forgive in the name of others? It is moving to see forgiveness
shown by those who are able to leave behind the harm they suffered, but
it is also humanly understandable in the case of those who cannot. In
any case, forgetting is never the answer. 247. The Shoah must not be
forgotten. It is “the enduring symbol of the depths to which human evil
can sink when, spurred by false ideologies, it fails to recognize the
fundamental dignity of each person, which merits unconditional respect
regardless of ethnic origin or religious belief”.[231] As I think of
it, I cannot help but repeat this prayer: “Lord, remember us in your
mercy. Grant us the grace to be ashamed of what we men have done, to be
ashamed of this massive idolatry, of having despised and destroyed our
own flesh which you formed from the earth, to which you gave life with
your own breath of life. Never again, Lord, never again!”.[232] 248.
Nor must we forget the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Once again, “I pay homage to all the victims, and I bow before the
strength and dignity of those who, having survived those first moments,
for years afterward bore in the flesh immense suffering, and in their
spirit seeds of death that drained their vital energy… We cannot allow
present and future generations to lose the memory of what happened. It
is a memory that ensures and encourages the building of a more fair and
fraternal future”.[233] Neither must we forget the persecutions, the
slave trade and the ethnic killings that continue in various countries,
as well as the many other historical events that make us ashamed of our
humanity. They need to be remembered, always and ever anew. We must
never grow accustomed or inured to them. 249. Nowadays, it is easy to
be tempted to turn the page, to say that all these things happened long
ago and we should look to the future. For God’s sake, no! We can never
move forward without remembering the past; we do not progress without
an honest and unclouded memory. We need to “keep alive the flame of
collective conscience, bearing witness to succeeding generations to the
horror of what happened”, because that witness “awakens and preserves
the memory of the victims, so that the conscience of humanity may rise
up in the face of every desire for dominance and destruction”.[234] The
victims themselves – individuals, social groups or nations – need to do
62 so, lest they succumb to the mindset that leads to justifying
reprisals and every kind of violence in the name of the great evil
endured. For this reason, I think not only of the need to remember the
atrocities, but also all those who, amid such great inhumanity and
corruption, retained their dignity and, with gestures small or large,
chose the part of solidarity, forgiveness and fraternity. To remember
goodness is also a healthy thing. Forgiving but not forgetting 250. Forgiving
does not mean forgetting. Or better, in the face of a reality that can
in no way be denied, relativized or concealed, forgiveness is still
possible. In the face of an action that can never be tolerated,
justified or excused, we can still forgive. In the face of something
that cannot be forgotten for any reason, we can still forgive. Free and
heartfelt forgiveness is something noble, a reflection of God’s own
infinite ability to forgive. If forgiveness is gratuitous, then it can
be shown even to someone who resists repentance and is unable to beg
pardon. 251. Those who truly forgive do not forget. Instead, they
choose not to yield to the same destructive force that caused them so
much suffering. They break the vicious circle; they halt the advance of
the forces of destruction. They choose not to spread in society the
spirit of revenge that will sooner or later return to take its toll.
Revenge never truly satisfies victims. Some crimes are so horrendous
and cruel that the punishment of those who perpetrated them does not
serve to repair the harm done. Even killing the criminal would not be
enough, nor could any form of torture prove commensurate with the
sufferings inflicted on the victim. Revenge resolves nothing. 252. This
does not mean impunity. Justice is properly sought solely out of love
of justice itself, out of respect for the victims, as a means of
preventing new crimes and protecting the common good, not as an alleged
outlet for personal anger. Forgiveness is precisely what enables us to
pursue justice without falling into a spiral of revenge or the
injustice of forgetting. 253. When injustices have occurred on both
sides, it is important to take into clear account whether they were
equally grave or in any way comparable. Violence perpetrated by the
state, using its structures and power, is not on the same level as that
perpetrated by particular groups. In any event, one cannot claim that
the unjust sufferings of one side alone should be commemorated. The
Bishops of Croatia have stated that, “we owe equal respect to every
innocent victim. There can be no racial, national, confessional or
partisan differences”.[235] 254. I ask God “to prepare our hearts to
encounter our brothers and sisters, so that we may overcome our
differences rooted in political thinking, language, culture and
religion. Let us ask him to anoint our whole being with the balm of his
mercy, which heals the injuries caused by mistakes, misunderstandings
and disputes. And let us ask him for the grace to send us forth, in
humility and meekness, along the demanding but enriching path of
seeking peace”.[236] 63 WAR AND THE DEATH PENALTY 255. There are two
extreme situations that may come to be seen as solutions in especially
dramatic circumstances, without realizing that they are false answers
that do not resolve the problems they are meant to solve and ultimately
do no more than introduce new elements of destruction in the fabric of
national and global society. These are war and the death penalty. The
injustice of war 256. “Deceit is in the mind of those who plan evil,
but those who counsel peace have joy” (Prov 12:20). Yet there are those
who seek solutions in war, frequently fueled by a breakdown in
relations, hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power, fear of others and a
tendency to see diversity as an obstacle.[237] War is not a ghost from
the past but a constant threat. Our world is encountering growing
difficulties on the slow path to peace upon which it had embarked and
which had already begun to bear good fruit. 257. Since conditions that
favour the outbreak of wars are once again increasing, I can only
reiterate that “war is the negation of all rights and a dramatic
assault on the environment. If we want true integral human development
for all, we must work tirelessly to avoid war between nations and
peoples. To this end, there is a need to ensure the uncontested rule of
law and tireless recourse to negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as
proposed by the Charter of the United Nations, which constitutes truly
a fundamental juridical norm”.[238] The seventy-five years since the
establishment of the United Nations and the experience of the first
twenty years of this millennium have shown that the full application of
international norms proves truly effective, and that failure to comply
with them is detrimental. The Charter of the United Nations, when
observed and applied with transparency and sincerity, is an obligatory
reference point of justice and a channel of peace. Here there can be no
room for disguising false intentions or placing the partisan interests
of one country or group above the global common good. If rules are
considered simply as means to be used whenever it proves advantageous,
and to be ignored when it is not, uncontrollable forces are unleashed
that cause grave harm to societies, to the poor and vulnerable, to
fraternal relations, to the environment and to cultural treasures, with
irretrievable losses for the global community. 258. War can easily be
chosen by invoking all sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or
precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the manipulation of
information. In recent decades, every single war has been ostensibly
“justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic Church speaks of the
possibility of legitimate defence by means of military force, which
involves demonstrating that certain “rigorous conditions of moral
legitimacy”[239] have been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly
broad interpretation of this potential right. In this way, some would
also wrongly justify even “preventive” attacks or acts of war that can
hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders graver than the evil to be
eliminated”.[240] At issue is whether the development of nuclear,
chemical and 64 biological weapons, and the enormous and growing
possibilities offered by new technologies, have granted war an
uncontrollable destructive power over great numbers of innocent
civilians. The truth is that “never has humanity had such power over
itself, yet nothing ensures that it will be used wisely”.[241] We can
no longer think of war as a solution, because its risks will probably
always be greater than its supposed benefits. In view of this, it is
very difficult nowadays to invoke the rational criteria elaborated in
earlier centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just war”. Never
again war![242] 259. It should be added that, with increased
globalization, what might appear as an immediate or practical solution
for one part of the world initiates a chain of violent and often latent
effects that end up harming the entire planet and opening the way to
new and worse wars in the future. In today’s world, there are no longer
just isolated outbreaks of war in one country or another; instead, we
are experiencing a “world war fought piecemeal”, since the destinies of
countries are so closely interconnected on the global scene. 260. In
the words of Saint John XXIII, “it no longer makes sense to maintain
that war is a fit instrument with which to repair the violation of
justice”.[243] In making this point amid great international tension, he
voiced the growing desire for peace emerging in the Cold War period. He
supported the conviction that the arguments for peace are stronger than
any calculation of particular interests and confidence in the use of
weaponry. The opportunities offered by the end of the Cold War were
not, however, adequately seized due to a lack of a vision for the
future and a shared consciousness of our common destiny. Instead, it
proved easier to pursue partisan interests without upholding the
universal common good. The dread spectre of war thus began to gain new
ground. 261. Every war leaves our world worse than it was before. War
is a failure of politics and of humanity, a shameful capitulation, a
stinging defeat before the forces of evil. Let us not remain mired in
theoretical discussions, but touch the wounded flesh of the victims.
Let us look once more at all those civilians whose killing was
considered “collateral damage”. Let us ask the victims themselves. Let
us think of the refugees and displaced, those who suffered the effects
of atomic radiation or chemical attacks, the mothers who lost their
children, and the boys and girls maimed or deprived of their childhood.
Let us hear the true stories of these victims of violence, look at
reality through their eyes, and listen with an open heart to the
stories they tell. In this way, we will be able to grasp the abyss of
evil at the heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to be deemed naive for
choosing peace. 262. Rules by themselves will not suffice if we
continue to think that the solution to current problems is deterrence
through fear or the threat of nuclear, chemical or biological weapons.
Indeed, “if we take into consideration the principal threats to peace
and security with their many dimensions in this multipolar world of the
twenty-first century as, for example, terrorism, asymmetrical
conflicts, cybersecurity, environmental problems, poverty, not a few
doubts arise 65 regarding the inadequacy of nuclear deterrence as an
effective response to such challenges. These concerns are even greater
when we consider the catastrophic humanitarian and environmental
consequences that would follow from any use of nuclear weapons, with
devastating, indiscriminate and uncontainable effects, over time and
space… We need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is a stability
based on fear, when it actually increases fear and undermines
relationships of trust between peoples. International peace and
stability cannot be based on a false sense of security, on the threat
of mutual destruction or total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a
balance of power… In this context, the ultimate goal of the total
elimination of nuclear weapons becomes both a challenge and a moral and
humanitarian imperative… Growing interdependence and globalization mean
that any response to the threat of nuclear weapons should be collective
and concerted, based on mutual trust. This trust can be built only
through dialogue that is truly directed to the common good and not to
the protection of veiled or particular interests”.[244] With the money
spent on weapons and other military expenditures, let us establish a
global fund[245] that can finally put an end to hunger and favour
development in the most impoverished countries, so that their citizens
will not resort to violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave
their countries in order to seek a more dignified life. The death
penalty 263. There is yet another way to eliminate others, one aimed
not at countries but at individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint
John Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death penalty is
inadequate from a moral standpoint and no longer necessary from that of
penal justice.[246] There can be no stepping back from this position.
Today we state clearly that “the death penalty is inadmissible”[247]
and the Church is firmly committed to calling for its abolition
worldwide.[248] 264. In the New Testament, while individuals are asked
not to take justice into their own hands (cf. Rom 12:17.19), there is
also a recognition of the need for authorities to impose penalties on
evildoers (cf. Rom 13:4; 1 Pet 2:14). Indeed, “civic life, structured
around an organized community, needs rules of coexistence, the wilful
violation of which demands appropriate redress”.[249] This means that
legitimate public authority can and must “inflict punishments according
to the seriousness of the crimes”[250] and that judicial power be
guaranteed a “necessary independence in the realm of law”.[251] 265.
From the earliest centuries of the Church, some were clearly opposed to
capital punishment. Lactantius, for example, held that “there ought to
be no exception at all; that it is always unlawful to put a man to
death”.[252] Pope Nicholas I urged that efforts be made “to free from
the punishment of death not only each of the innocent, but all the
guilty as well”.[253] During the trial of the murderers of two priests,
Saint Augustine asked the judge not to take the life of the assassins
with this argument: “We do not object to your depriving these wicked
men of the freedom to commit further crimes. Our desire is rather that
justice be satisfied without the taking of their lives or the maiming
of their bodies in any part. And, at the same time, that by the
coercive 66 measures provided by the law, they be turned from their irrational
fury to the calmness of men of sound mind, and from their evil deeds to
some useful employment. This too is considered a condemnation, but who
does not see that, when savage violence is restrained and remedies
meant to produce repentance are provided, it should be considered a
benefit rather than a mere punitive measure… Do not let the atrocity of
their sins feed a desire for vengeance, but desire instead to heal the
wounds which those deeds have inflicted on their souls”.[254] 266. Fear
and resentment can easily lead to viewing punishment in a vindictive
and even cruel way, rather than as part of a process of healing and
reintegration into society. Nowadays, “in some political sectors and
certain media, public and private violence and revenge are incited, not
only against those responsible for committing crimes, but also against
those suspected, whether proven or not, of breaking the law… There is
at times a tendency to deliberately fabricate enemies: stereotyped
figures who represent all the characteristics that society perceives or
interprets as threatening. The mechanisms that form these images are
the same that allowed the spread of racist ideas in their time”.[255]
This has made all the more dangerous the growing practice in some
countries of resorting to preventive custody, imprisonment without
trial and especially the death penalty. 267. Here I would stress that
“it is impossible to imagine that states today have no other means than
capital punishment to protect the lives of other people from the unjust
aggressor”. Particularly serious in this regard are so-called
extrajudicial or extralegal executions, which are “homicides
deliberately committed by certain states and by their agents, often
passed off as clashes with criminals or presented as the unintended
consequences of the reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of
force in applying the law”.[256] 268. “The arguments against the death
penalty are numerous and well-known. The Church has rightly called
attention to several of these, such as the possibility of judicial
error and the use made of such punishment by totalitarian and
dictatorial regimes as a means of suppressing political dissidence or
persecuting religious and cultural minorities, all victims whom the
legislation of those regimes consider ‘delinquents’. All Christians and
people of good will are today called to work not only for the abolition
of the death penalty, legal or illegal, in all its forms, but also to
work for the improvement of prison conditions, out of respect for the human
dignity of persons deprived of their freedom. I would link this to life
imprisonment… A life sentence is a secret death penalty”.[257] 269. Let
us keep in mind that “not even a murderer loses his personal dignity,
and God himself pledges to guarantee this”.[258] The firm rejection of
the death penalty shows to what extent it is possible to recognize the
inalienable dignity of every human being and to accept that he or she
has a place in this universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the
worst of criminals, I will not deny it to anyone. I will give everyone
the possibility of sharing this planet with me, despite all our
differences. 67 270. I ask Christians who remain hesitant on this
point, and those tempted to yield to violence in any form, to keep in
mind the words of the book of Isaiah: “They shall beat their swords
into plowshares” (2:4). For us, this prophecy took flesh in Christ
Jesus who, seeing a disciple tempted to violence, said firmly: “Put
your sword back into its place; for all who take the sword will perish
by the sword” (Mt 26:52). These words echoed the ancient warning: “I
will require a reckoning for human life. Whoever sheds the blood of a
man, by man shall his blood be shed” (Gen 9:5-6). Jesus’ reaction,
which sprang from his heart, bridges the gap of the centuries and
reaches the present as an enduring appeal. CHAPTER EIGHT RELIGIONS AT
THE SERVICE OF FRATERNITY IN OUR WORLD 271. The different religions,
based on their respect for each human person as a creature called to be
a child of God, contribute significantly to building fraternity and
defending justice in society. Dialogue between the followers of
different religions does not take place simply for the sake of
diplomacy, consideration or tolerance. In the words of the Bishops of India,
“the goal of dialogue is to establish friendship, peace and harmony,
and to share spiritual and moral values and experiences in a spirit of
truth and love”.[259] THE ULTIMATE FOUNDATION 272. As believers, we are
convinced that, without an openness to the Father of all, there will be
no solid and stable reasons for an appeal to fraternity. We are certain
that “only with this awareness that we are not orphans, but children,
can we live in peace with one another”.[260] For “reason, by itself, is
capable of grasping the equality between men and of giving stability to
their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish fraternity”.[261] 273.
In this regard, I wish to cite the following memorable statement: “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… 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 that no one may violate – no
individual, group, class, nation or state. Not even the majority of the
social body may violate these rights, by going against the
minority”.[262] 274. From our faith experience and from the wisdom
accumulated over centuries, but also from lessons learned from our many
weaknesses and failures, we, the believers of the different 68
religions, know that our witness to God benefits our societies. The
effort to seek God with a sincere heart, provided it is never sullied
by ideological or self-serving aims, helps us recognize one another as
travelling companions, truly brothers and sisters. We are convinced
that “when, in the name of an ideology, there is an attempt to remove
God from a society, that society ends up adoring idols, and very soon
men and women lose their way, their dignity is trampled and their rights
violated. You know well how much suffering is caused by the denial of
freedom of conscience and of religious freedom, and how that wound
leaves a humanity which is impoverished, because it lacks hope and
ideals to guide it”.[263] 275. It should be acknowledged that “among
the most important causes of the crises of the modern world are a
desensitized human conscience, a distancing from religious values and
the prevailing individualism accompanied by materialistic philosophies
that deify the human person and introduce worldly and material values
in place of supreme and transcendental principles”.[264] It is wrong
when the only voices to be heard in public debate are those of the
powerful and “experts”. Room needs to be made for reflections born of
religious traditions that are the repository of centuries of experience
and wisdom. For “religious classics can prove meaningful in every age;
they have an enduring power [to open new horizons, to stimulate
thought, to expand the mind and the heart]”. Yet often they are viewed
with disdain as a result of “the myopia of a certain rationalism”.[265]
276. For these reasons, the Church, while respecting the autonomy of
political life, does not restrict her mission to the private sphere. On
the contrary, “she cannot and must not remain on the sidelines” in the
building of a better world, or fail to “reawaken the spiritual energy”
that can contribute to the betterment of society.[266] It is true that
religious ministers must not engage in the party politics that are the
proper domain of the laity, but neither can they renounce the political
dimension of life itself,[267] which involves a constant attention to
the common good and a concern for integral human development. The
Church “has a public role over and above her charitable and educational
activities”. She works for “the advancement of humanity and of
universal fraternity”.[268] She does not claim to compete with earthly
powers, but to offer herself as “a family among families, this is the
Church, open to bearing witness in today’s world, open to faith hope
and love for the Lord and for those whom he loves with a preferential
love. A home with open doors. The Church is a home with open doors,
because she is a mother”.[269] And in imitation of Mary, the Mother of
Jesus, “we want to be a Church that serves, that leaves home and goes
forth from its places of worship, goes forth from its sacristies, in
order to accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign of unity… to
build bridges, to break down walls, to sow seeds of reconciliation”.[270]
Christian identity 277. The Church esteems the ways in which God works
in other religions, and “rejects nothing of what is true and holy in
these religions. She has a high regard for their manner of life and
conduct, 69 their precepts and doctrines which… often reflect a ray of
that truth which enlightens all men and women”.[271] Yet we Christians
are very much aware that “if the music of the Gospel ceases to resonate
in our very being, we will lose the joy born of compassion, the tender
love born of trust, the capacity for reconciliation that has its source
in our knowledge that we have been forgiven and sent forth. If the
music of the Gospel ceases to sound in our homes, our public squares,
our workplaces, our political and financial life, then we will no
longer hear the strains that challenge us to defend the dignity of
every man and woman”.[272] Others drink from other sources. For us the
wellspring of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel of Jesus
Christ. From it, there arises, “for Christian thought and for the
action of the Church, the primacy given to relationship, to the
encounter with the sacred mystery of the other, to universal communion
with the entire human family, as a vocation of all”.[273] 278. Called
to take root in every place, the Church has been present for centuries
throughout the world, for that is what it means to be “catholic”. She
can thus understand, from her own experience of grace and sin, the
beauty of the invitation to universal love. Indeed, “all things human
are our concern… wherever the councils of nations come together to
establish the rights and duties of man, we are honoured to be permitted
to take our place among them”.[274] For many Christians, this journey
of fraternity also has a Mother, whose name is Mary. Having received
this universal motherhood at the foot of the cross (cf. Jn 19:26), she
cares not only for Jesus but also for “the rest of her children” (cf.
Rev 12:17). In the power of the risen Lord, she wants to give birth to
a new world, where all of us are brothers and sisters, where there is
room for all those whom our societies discard, where justice and peace
are resplendent. 279. We Christians ask that, in those countries where
we are a minority, we be guaranteed freedom, even as we ourselves
promote that freedom for non-Christians in places where they are a
minority. One fundamental human right must not be forgotten in the
journey towards fraternity and peace. It is religious freedom for
believers of all religions. That freedom proclaims that we can “build
harmony and understanding between different cultures and religions. It
also testifies to the fact that, since the important things we share
are so many, it is possible to find a means of serene, ordered and
peaceful coexistence, accepting our differences and rejoicing that, as
children of the one God, we are all brothers and sisters”.[275] 280. At
the same time, we ask God to strengthen unity within the Church, a
unity enriched by differences reconciled by the working of the Spirit.
For “in the one Spirit we were all baptized into one body” (1 Cor
12:13), in which each member has his or her distinctive contribution to
make. As Saint Augustine said, “the ear sees through the eye, and the
eye hears through the ear”.[276] It is also urgent to continue to bear
witness to the journey of encounter between the different Christian
confessions. We cannot forget Christ’s desire “that they may all be
one” (cf. Jn 17:21). Hearing his call, we recognize with sorrow that
the process of globalization still lacks the prophetic and spiritual
contribution of unity among Christians. This notwithstanding, “even as
we make this journey towards full communion, we already have the duty
to offer common witness to the love of 70 God for all people by working
together in the service of humanity”.[277] RELIGION AND VIOLENCE 281. A
journey of peace is possible between religions. Its point of departure
must be God’s way of seeing things. “God does not see with his eyes,
God sees with his heart. And God’s love is the same for everyone,
regardless of religion. Even if they are atheists, his love is the
same. When the last day comes, and there is sufficient light to see
things as they really are, we are going to find ourselves quite
surprised”.[278] 282. It follows that “we believers need to find
occasions to speak with one another and to act together for the common
good and the promotion of the poor. This has nothing to do with
watering down or concealing our deepest convictions when we encounter
others who think differently than ourselves… For the deeper, stronger
and richer our own identity is, the more we will be capable of
enriching others with our own proper contribution”.[279] We believers
are challenged to return to our sources, in order to concentrate on
what is essential: worship of God and love for our neighbour, lest some
of our teachings, taken out of context, end up feeding forms of
contempt, hatred, xenophobia or negation of others. The truth is that
violence has no basis in our fundamental religious convictions, but
only in their distortion. 283. Sincere and humble worship of God “bears
fruit not in discrimination, hatred and violence, but in respect for
the sacredness of life, respect for the dignity and freedom of others,
and loving commitment to the welfare of all”.[280] Truly, “whoever does
not love does not know God, for God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). For this
reason, “terrorism is deplorable and threatens the security of people –
be they in the East or the West, the North or the South – and
disseminates panic, terror and pessimism, but this is not due to
religion, even when terrorists instrumentalize it. It is due, rather,
to an accumulation of incorrect interpretations of religious texts and
to policies linked to hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and pride.
That is why it is so necessary to stop supporting terrorist movements
fuelled by financing, the provision of weapons and strategy, and by
attempts to justify these movements, even using the media. All these
must be regarded as international crimes that threaten security and
world peace. Such terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and
expressions”.[281] Religious convictions about the sacred meaning of
human life permit us “to recognize the fundamental values of our common
humanity, values in the name of which we can and must cooperate, build
and dialogue, pardon and grow; this will allow different voices to
unite in creating a melody of sublime nobility and beauty, instead of
fanatical cries of hatred”.[282] 284. At times fundamentalist violence
is unleashed in some groups, of whatever religion, by the rashness of
their leaders. Yet, “the commandment of peace is inscribed in the
depths of the religious traditions that we represent… As religious
leaders, we are called to be true ‘people of dialogue’, to cooperate in
building peace not as intermediaries but as authentic mediators.
Intermediaries seek to give everyone a discount, ultimately in order to
gain something for 71 themselves. The mediator, on the other hand, is
one who retains nothing for himself, but rather spends himself
generously until he is consumed, knowing that the only gain is peace.
Each one of us is called to be an artisan of peace, by uniting and not
dividing, by extinguishing hatred and not holding on to it, by opening
paths of dialogue and not by constructing new walls”.[283] An appeal
285. In my fraternal meeting, which I gladly recall, with the Grand
Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, “we resolutely [declared] that religions must
never incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and extremism, nor must
they incite violence or the shedding of blood. These tragic realities
are the consequence of a deviation from religious teachings. They
result from a political manipulation of religions and from
interpretations made by religious groups who, in the course of history,
have taken advantage of the power of religious sentiment in the hearts
of men and women… God, the Almighty, has no need to be defended by
anyone and does not want his name to be used to terrorize people”.[284]
For this reason I would like to reiterate here the appeal for peace,
justice and fraternity that we made together: “In the name of God, who
has created all human beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and
who has called them to live together as brothers and sisters, to fill
the earth and make known the values of goodness, love and peace; “In
the name of innocent human life that God has forbidden to kill,
affirming that whoever kills a person is like one who kills the whole
of humanity, and that whoever saves a person is like one who saves the
whole of humanity; “In the name of the poor, the destitute, the
marginalized and those most in need, whom God has commanded us to help
as a duty required of all persons, especially the wealthy and those of
means; “In the name of orphans, widows, refugees and those exiled from
their homes and their countries; in the name of all victims of wars,
persecution and injustice; in the name of the weak, those who live in
fear, prisoners of war and those tortured in any part of the world,
without distinction; “In the name of peoples who have lost their
security, peace and the possibility of living together, becoming
victims of destruction, calamity and war; “In the name of human
fraternity, that embraces all human beings, unites them and renders
them equal; “In the name of this fraternity torn apart by policies of
extremism and division, by systems of unrestrained profit or by hateful
ideological tendencies that manipulate the actions and the future 72 of
men and women; “In the name of freedom, that God has given to all human
beings, creating them free and setting them apart by this gift; “In the
name of justice and mercy, the foundations of prosperity and the
cornerstone of faith; “In the name of all persons of goodwill present
in every part of the world; “In the name of God and of everything
stated thus far, [we] declare the adoption of a culture of dialogue as
the path; mutual cooperation as the code of conduct; reciprocal
understanding as the method and standard”.[285] * * * 286. In these
pages of reflection on universal fraternity, I felt inspired
particularly by Saint Francis of Assisi, but also by others of our
brothers and sisters who are not Catholics: Martin Luther King, Desmond
Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi and many more. Yet I would like to conclude by
mentioning another person of deep faith who, drawing upon his intense
experience of God, made a journey of transformation towards feeling a
brother to all. I am speaking of Blessed Charles de Foucauld. 287.
Blessed Charles directed his ideal of total surrender to God towards an
identification with the poor, abandoned in the depths of the African
desert. In that setting, he expressed his desire to feel himself a
brother to every human being,[286] and asked a friend to “pray to God
that I truly be the brother of all”.[287] He wanted to be, in the end,
“the universal brother”.[288] Yet only by identifying with the least
did he come at last to be the brother of all. May God inspire that
dream in each one of us. Amen. A Prayer to the Creator Lord, Father of
our human family, you created all human beings equal in dignity: pour
forth into our hearts a fraternal spirit and inspire in us a dream of
renewed encounter, dialogue, justice and peace. Move us to create
healthier societies and a more dignified world, a world without hunger,
poverty, violence and war. May our hearts be open to all the peoples
and nations of the earth. 73 May we recognize the goodness and beauty
that you have sown in each of us, and thus forge bonds of unity, common
projects, and shared dreams. Amen. An Ecumenical Christian Prayer O
God, Trinity of love, from the profound communion of your divine life,
pour out upon us a torrent of fraternal love. Grant us the love
reflected in the actions of Jesus, in his family of Nazareth, and in
the early Christian community. Grant that we Christians may live the
Gospel, discovering Christ in each human being, recognizing him
crucified in the sufferings of the abandoned and forgotten of our
world, and risen in each brother or sister who makes a new start. Come,
Holy Spirit, show us your beauty, reflected in all the peoples of the
earth, so that we may discover anew that all are important and all are
necessary, different faces of the one humanity that God so loves. Amen.
Given in Assisi, at the tomb of Saint Francis, on 3 October, Vigil of
the Feast of the Saint, in the year 2020, the eighth of my Pontificate.
Franciscus
|
Good Grief, Cas! I don't understand all the copy & paste! This is the same inflammatory depressing click-bait news that's spewed all over CNN,etc.
ReplyDeleteI usually read Blogs for the blogger's viewpoint and news in their life. We're supposed to be getting wiser in our old age (and we are much older than we were at Vista Maria). While our viewpoints are different, I'm always interested in the opinion of others.
what happened to your profile page???????
ReplyDelete