1. SEE-JUDGE-ACT
There are three stages which should normally be followed in the reduction of social
principles into practice. First, one reviews the concrete situation; secondly, one forms a
judgment on it in the light of these same principles; thirdly, one decides what in the
circumstances can and should be done to implement these principles. These are the
three stages that are usually expressed in the three terms: observe, judge, act.
Pope John XXIII in Mater et Magistra
he disciple of Jesus is tasked of proclaiming the Gospel to all parts of the world in all ages.
Throughout the centuries of the Church’s existence, Christian communities have sought to find a
suitable way of following Jesus in their own milieu. They tried to proclaim faith in Jesus not by
just handing down doctrines but more importantly, they tried to keep this faith dynamic by living it out
in different milieus and cultures. This is why the true measure of faith can only be seen in living out its
beliefs, values or truths. James has warned Christians that “faith without good works is dead” (Jas.
2:17). Jesus uses the parable of the Good Samaritan (cf. Lk. 10:30-37) to demonstrate how the idea of
love can be made more concrete. The Catholic Social Teachings similarly challenge Christians to re-
evaluate the quality of their discipleship by addressing the social question that has endured for centuries
in light of Jesus’ commandment to love one another (cf. Jn. 13:34-35).
T
Pope John Paul II reminds Christians that “the social message of the Gospel must not be
considered a theory, but above all else a basis and a motivation for action. . . Christ's words ‘as you did it
to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me’ (Mt 25:40) were not intended to remain a
pious wish, but were meant to become a concrete life commitment. Today more than ever, the Church
is aware that her social message will gain credibility more immediately from the witness of actions than
as a result of its internal logic and consistency” (CA, 57).
The Catholic Social Teachings sum up the teachings of the Church on social justice issues. It
promotes a vision of a just society that is grounded in the Bible and in the wisdom gathered from
experience by the Christian community as it has responded to social justice issues through history.
(http://centerforsocialconcerns.nd.edu/mission/the Catholic Social Teachings/the Catholic Social
Teachings4.shtml )
It is important to acknowledge that the Catholic Social Teachings do not purport to offer a
‘blueprint’ for an ideal type of society. Rather, the Catholic Social Teachings propose principles aimed at
creating ‘right’ social, economic and political relationships and the construction of social structures and
institutions based on justice and respect for human dignity. Inherent in the Catholic Social Teachings is
the belief that the application of these principles to the structures and institutions of society, both
nationally and globally, will enhance human dignity, overcome poverty and promote and ensure social
justice. (http://sao.clriq.org.au/publications/the Catholic Social Teachings_and_prisons.pdf)
Three Elements
The social teachings are made up of three different elements: principles for reflection; criteria
for judgement; and guidelines for action. The principles for reflection apply across many different times
and places, but the guidelines for action can change for different societies or times. Uniform guidelines
for action wouldn’t work because societies are so different from one another, and they are always
changing over time creating new situations with different problems and possibilities. The criteria for
judgement may be thought of as ‘middle axioms’ mediating between the highly authoritative but
necessarily general and abstract principles for reflection, and the details of the concrete social reality.
They are less authoritative than the principles for reflection but more so than the guidelines for action.
Guidelines for action are always dependant on contingent judgements and the information available
through human knowledge. There is frequently scope for legitimate differences of opinion among
believers on a range of social justice issues.
There exists a creative tension between the principles for reflection and the guidelines for action
since the former have a certain universal applicability, but they can be impinged by the social context in
which it is applied. Thus, in order to make relevant the Christian response to the social question,
Christians are encouraged to read the “signs of the times” by making use of a method popularized by
Cardinal Cardjin in workers’ and students’ movements.
It asks people to work inductively, looking first at the social justice issues as they exist in their
communities, before assessing what is happening, and what is at stake. Finally people need to discern
Page | 1

2. what action to undertake in response. (http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Content/pdf/the
Catholic Social Teachings_intro.pdf)
Below are some guide questions taken from http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au to give a
run through of the process itself, recommended by John XXIII in Mater et Magistra:
Reflection /Action Process
Here is a brief sketch of the key elements of the reflection-action process:
1. See/Observe – Seeing, hearing, and experiencing the lived reality of individuals and communities.
Carefully and intentionally examining the primary data of the situation. What are the people in
this situation doing, feeling, and saying? What is happening to them and how do they respond?
2. Judge – This is the heart of the process and it involves two key parts:
a. Social Analysis -- Obtaining a more complete picture of the social situation by exploring its historical
and structural relationships. In this step, we attempt to make sense of the reality that was observed in
Step 1. Why are things this way? What are the root causes?
b. Theological Reflection – Analyzing the experience in the light of scripture and the Catholic social
tradition? How do biblical values and the principles of Catholic social teaching help us to see this reality
in a different way? How do they serve as a measuring stick for this experience? (Obviously, the word
"judge" is used here in a positive sense, meaning to analyze the situation. It does not imply that we
judge other people or that we are judgmental in the pejorative sense.)
3. Act – Planning and carrying out actions aimed at transforming the social structures that contribute to
suffering and injustice.
It is important to remember that this is a process. It is a cycle that is continually repeated. That
is, after completing Step Three, the participants return to Step One – observing new realities, making
new judgments, and finding new ways to act. This process is intended for groups working collectively,
rather than for single individuals. The group process allows for a richer reflection, a deeper analysis, and
a more creative search for effective action.
Importance of Social Analysis
Social analysis is a key element of this reflection-action process. Since the concept may be new
to some of us, it is worth exploring a bit further.
First, note that social analysis is an essential part of our mission as believers and disciples. Our faith
compels us to work for a more just world, and social analysis is a necessary element of carrying out that
mission. In the words of Pope Paul VI,
It is up to the Christian communities to analyze with objectivity the situation which is
proper to their own country, to shed on it the light of the Gospel's unalterable words and
to draw principles of reflection, norms of judgment and directives for action from the
social teaching of the Church.
Pope Paul VI, 1971, A Call to Action, #4
Similarly, Pope John Paul II has urged us to go beyond the symptoms and effects of injustice and seek
out the root causes:
We should not limit ourselves to deploring the negative effects of the present situation
of crisis and injustice. What we are really required to do is destroy the roots that cause
these effects.
Pope John Paul II, World Day of Peace Message, 1995
Benefits of Social Analysis
Page | 2

3. 1. It forces us to go beyond the interpersonal level and to think systemically. Systems are
interrelated parts that form a whole, and social and economic systems act and react with other
systems to produce the social conditions in which we live. By using social analysis, we begin to
see the connections between social institutions and we begin to get a fuller picture of the social,
economic, and political forces at work in our world.
2. It enables us to make a proper diagnosis of the social problem. In doing so we avoid spending
time and energy on activities that will not really change the situation. In this way, social analysis
is a tool that leads to effective action.
3. It helps us identify potential allies and opponents in the search for a just resolution of the
situation.
(http://www.socialjustice.catholic.org.au/Content/pdf/the Catholic Social Teachings_intro.pdf)
HUMAN DIGNITY
““What should move us to action is human dignity:
the inalienable dignity of the oppressed,
but also the dignity of each of us.
We lose dignity if we tolerate the intolerable.”.”
Dominique de Menil
n the midst of a dehumanizing condition spurred by the rise of capitalism, the Church, through Leo
XIII’s Rerum Novarum, called attention to a nonnegotiable value which cannot be sacrificed in the
name of economic progress: the inalienable and inviolable dignity of every human person.I A preliminary distinction needs to be made first on the bases used to define dignity. For one,
dignity is sometimes equated with having, while another equates dignity with being. Which is the
correct one?
Dignity as having refers to looking at people’s worth depending on what they “have”. The more
they have, the more dignified they feel they are. Self-worth is equated to material wealth. For example,
some people of influence seem to have this great need to flaunt their superiority to other people by
using sirens to weave through traffic or be exempted from traffic laws altogether, demanding special
treatment from ordinary people or bullying people into submission at the fear of reprisal. The attitude
of people of “having” is to accumulate material things to beef up their worth. Titles, wealth and
powerful connections are some of the important ingredients of a dignified life.
Consumerism, or buying things for reasons other than using them, is another example of
preaching about one’s worth depending on an attitude of “having”. It “consists in an excessive
availability of every kind of material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily making people
slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the multiplication or
continual replacement of the things already owned with others still better.” Such a consumeristic
attitude involves so much "throwing-away" and "waste." For example, “an object already
owned but now superseded by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting
value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer” (SRS, 28).
How does this behaviour affect those who have blindly submitted themselves to a materialistic
doctrine? “In the first place there is a crass materialism, and at the same time a radical dissatisfaction,
because one quickly learns - unless one is shielded from the flood of publicity and the ceaseless and
tempting offers of products - that the more one possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations
remain unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled (SRS, 28).
Ultimately, the real worth of a person cannot be put on temporal, and often illusory,
possessions. Beside from being fleeting, these possessions try to make people contented, but to no
avail.
To "have" objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human subject, unless it contributes
to the maturing and enrichment of that subject's "being," that is to say unless it contributes to the
realization of the human vocation as such (SRS, 28).
Dignity that is based on being refers to discovering who the person is and affirming that
knowledge. The more a person acts out his or her capacity or potential, the more he or she becomes
Page | 3

4. dignified. This is where the true meaning of dignity falls under. The attitude is to develop one’s
potentials because his or her ultimate goal is self-realization.
Human dignity, therefore, refers to the natural worth of a person because he or she is created in
the image and likeness of God. Being created in the image and likeness of God implies that:
1. People are created because this is a sign of God’s love. This love of God is an act of free will,
thus, it can never be measured nor deserved since the point of reference is not the one
being loved but the one doing the loving. That is why, no matter how much a person rejects
God’s love, God will never stop loving that person because God’s act of free will is not
dictated upon by the response of the beloved, but by God’s decision to love.
2. The act of love of God makes the person valuable or important. By looking back at one’s
experience of being loved, such feeling gives one the sense of worth or importance. The
poet Luis Cernuda writes:
Tu justificas mi existencia: (You are the reason why I'm here,
si no te conozco, no he vivido If I haven't known you, I won't live;
si muero sin conocerte, no muero, If I die without having known you
porque no he vivido. I won't have died, because I have never
lived at all )
Life becomes worth living and meaningful because one has experienced being loved. A
person who feels that nobody loves him or her can force the person to commit suicide
because life is worthless anyway.
3. Like God, a person has rationality which gives forth the gift of free will. A person alone
among all creation is capable of making decisions that are self-determining.
However, since creation had been stained by sin, Christ redeemed it because he saw it worthy of
being saved thereby restoring people to their original dignity as adopted children of God. This dignity
becomes the basis for equality, irregardless of sex, gender, religion, age, or race. A positive appreciation
of this idea is illustrated when many people express disgust and outrage at bigotry that betrays
discrimination against other people. Such bigotry is unreasonable because all people share the same
nature and potential for perfection.
Three qualities can give a better understanding of human dignity: it is natural, inviolable, and
inalienable.
By affirming this worth as natural, it follows that it can neither be separated nor removed from
the person since it would be tantamount to denying the person’s essence. For example, of what use is a
vehicle that claims to be an airplane if it has no wings? The wings are essential for an airplane to serve
its purpose, which is to fly. Similarly, a person is called to perfection, and removing one’s dignity
prevents a person from actualizing his or her purpose or goal set by his or her Creator.
Since dignity defines a person, it cannot be violated either because doing so would reduce the
person to a mere thing, a means to an end. This is a sign of disrespect not only to the person but also to
his or her Creator who had a particular end in mind for every human person he created. Using the
airplane as an example again, it cannot be used to just run on the ground. For one, there is a specific
vehicle for that purpose, and another, the people who conceived of the plane would feel insulted seeing
their creation being used for another purpose. A person’s goal is to live a fully humanized life because it
is his or her way of glorifying God. To violate a person’s dignity therefore is to prevent the person from
achieving his or her own salvation or humanization.
Human dignity is inalienable. No amount of maltreatment or degradation can deny the fact that
he or she is still a human being because the basic condition that makes a person a person with dignity,
i.e. created by God, loved by God, and gifted with rationality, is never taken away nor destroyed.
Looking back at the case of the prostitute, although she never loses her dignity, her sense of
self-worth is greatly diminished by the kind of life she lives. This diminution poses as a great obstacle to
the realization of her personhood. If, however, the prostitute were to choose a more decent livelihood,
say, a call center agent, she would be enhancing her self-worth because her new way of living helps in
her pursuit of self-realization.
So, is respect to people’s dignity something demanded from others or something earned?
Page | 4

5. Before answering this question, a contrast must be made between two kinds of dignity. Dignity
can either be passive or active.
Passive dignity refers solely to the natural worth of a person, and by extension to all of creation,
because they are all created by God. The first creation story affirms the goodness of creation, thereby
giving it value. It is this same creation that Jesus, the New Adam, redeemed when he sacrificed himself
on the cross (cf. Rom. 5: 12-21).
However, among all creation, the person alone has the other kind of dignity, which is active
dignity. Gifted with rationality and freedom, the person’s life is like a project that he or she is supposed
to bring to a fruitful completion. To be created in the image of God also means the person shares in the
creative work of God. When people were given the order to subdue the earth, it carried with it a
responsibility to use creation in attaining their final destination. In the Garden of Eden, when Adam and
Eve were given the choice of any fruit except one, they were given the freedom to select the best one
which will enhance their being persons, albeit with some limitations.
One can therefore claim that respect is both demanded and earned. Respect is demanded
because dignity is part of being human so it is but proper that people get the respect that is due them.
Respect is also earned because when people engage in meaningful activities, it adds value to their being
that makes them more worthy of respect than others. Consider how students tend to look up to some
of their professors or look down on some. Many students use as a basis if these professors treated
them with respect as students to determine which professors earned their respect or not.
This distinction with regards respect to dignity is helpful to clarify that respect is not always
demanded, especially because of one’s social status. One has to prove worthy of respect before it is
given. Respect is also not always earned, especially again because of one’s social status. Even if people
belong to a lowly status, they can always demand for respect when they are being abused or used. To
be respected is to be first aware both of one’s potential (passive) and one’s acting upon this potential
(active).
THE DIGNITY OF HUMAN WORK AND ALIENATION
Human work is probably the key to the whole social question.
John Paul II in Laborem Exercens
ne of the traits that people share with God is creativity. This creativity is manifested when
people work. Work is proper to human beings because people are gifted with rationality.
Through this rationality, people keep in mind the purpose as to why they work. It is also
through work that people can imprint their own uniqueness on the product of their work. "People have
to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the 'image of God' they are people. . . capable of
deciding about themselves, and with a tendency to self-realization" (LE, 73).
O
In the book of Genesis, when God designated man and woman as stewards of creation, it
contained an implicit command to transform it to something better. Work can be simply understood as
the act in which the person exercises creative powers and produces and distributes the good necessary
for human flourishing. However, in working, people also get the opportunity to do something better to
themselves. It is by working that people get to enhance their dignity because through work they get to
utilize their potentials and bring it to perfection. The more people work, the better people turn out
because they improve their worth. Work, therefore, has dignity because the people doing it have dignity
and at the same time work develops the dignity of the ones doing it. This is similar to the stewards left
with money. If God were a businessman, he would be seeking to profit from his investments, which are
people because he invested them with some of his own traits. God will measure his profit by asking his
stewards whether they were able to realize themselves by working for it (Mt. 25:14-30).
How then is work a valuable activity for people? Three reasons can be given as to what makes
work essential to people’s achieving their self-actualization. The first reason expresses people's
creativity while the remaining two affirms the social nature of people.
First, through work, people get to transform nature to meet their basic needs (cf. CSD, 287). As
said before, people also need to have in order to be. Farmers, for instance, work the land to provide
people with food. Food, which is a product of many natural components, is important to make people
continue to live.
Page | 5

6. Second, by working, people become productive contributors to society and are linked to other
members of society as well. For example, working as a security officer contributes to the safety of the
CSB community. The community members then become interdependent to them, and the security
officers to the community. A simplistic explanation would be the community needs to be protected
while the security officers need to protect somebody to fulfill their purpose; otherwise, they have no
reason to work in the school.
Lastly, people can found families if they have work. For many people, starting a family gives
them a sense of purpose or meaning in life because they get to act on their being loving and relational
persons, and at the same time, they become part of their children’s striving for living a better life. If a
taxi driver has a good income, he would be confident to send his children through college. Seeing his
children graduate would be a great achievement not only for the graduate but more so for the parents
because their efforts have been rewarded.
Therefore, when people work, they are able to utilize what creation has to offer which in turn
contributes to the enhancement of people’s worth, including those around them. “Work remains a
good thing, not only because it is useful and enjoyable, but also because it expresses and increases the
worker's dignity. Through work we not only transform the world, we are transformed ourselves,
becoming "more a human being" (LE, 9). How does one become more a human being by working?
It would be instructive to distinguish the two dimensions of work, as mentioned by John Paul II
in Laborem Exercens. The first is called the objective dimension while the second is called subjective
dimension.
The objective dimension of work refers to "the sum of activities, resources, instruments and
technologies used by people to produce things, to exercise dominion over the earth" (CSD, 270). The
objective dimension includes both the things used in exercising creativity and the product of such
activity. On the one hand, technology makes work more convenient and more efficient. On the other
hand, workers earn their wages, but these are external manifestations that people have achieved
something thus far while doing their work. It would be very difficult to equate the people’s contribution
with their wage because the former is ambiguous when put side-by-side with the latter. The objective
dimension of work is but "the contingent aspect of human activity, constantly varying in its expressions
according to the changing technological, cultural, social and political conditions" (CSD, 270). Therefore,
the objective dimension cannot be used to qualify work because this dimension is very superficial since
it is primarily dependent on something material and evolving.
The subjective dimension, meanwhile, refers to "the activity of the human person as a dynamic
being capable of performing a variety of actions that are part of the work process and that correspond
to his or her personal vocation" (CSD, 270). This tries to seek what is happening to the people doing the
work. Do they experience humanization or alienation in the work that they do? One can just wonder
what those employees working as casuals experience every time their five months are up. This is where
the experience of alienation can occur, that is, if the subjective dimension is neglected.
Take the case of a young girl working as a Guest Relations Officer (GRO) in an entertainment
club for men. She may be earning much but in no way does she become proud of what she does or
what her work does to her self-worth. This makes it easier to understand why some people would quit
their jobs, even if it were high-paying. It’s just that they never experienced being actualized in what
they do. Conversely, this is also what makes some teachers persist teaching in the public school and
some doctors practice their profession in far-flung barrios: their work provides meaning to their lives
and the monetary gain becomes less relevant to their over-all purpose in life.
Hence, "the basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the kind of work
being done but the fact that the one who is doing it is a person. The sources of the dignity of work are to
be sought primarily in the subjective dimension, not in the objective one" (LE, 6).
This distinction is critical, both for understanding what the ultimate foundation of the value and
dignity of work is, and with regard to the difficulties of organizing economic and social systems that
respect human rights (more on this in the topic on authentic human development and common good).
When work goes against its very purpose, this results in the experience of alienation.
Alienation
Page | 6

7. Understanding the complexities of human work should lead to a comprehensive synopsis of the
human nature and the productive activity. In the order of nature’s existence authored by God, not only
is creation an out-of-nothing event, but also a “creation-for-something” that characterizes the universe
as a consistently purposeful experience. At a persistent vanguard in the person’s existence, in view of
the person’s dignity being created in the image and likeness of the Creator, and thus being co-creator
himself or herself, is the quest for reason why he or she exists, i.e., the propensity to create.
As a rational being, which is the person’s most fundamental nature, one is disposed to
understand the essence of this act of creativity, which is two-fold. First, the person is to create himself
or herself which is the very act of self-actualization. Every individual exists with inherent faculties,
abilities, and capacities. Acting upon these inherent features shapes up the uniqueness of each
individual that, also by nature, is directed towards the intrinsically satisfying experience of mutuality in
self-determination; therefore, in the creative process, an individual experiences his or her own
subjectivity. Second, the person manipulates the environment around him or her. In the creative
process of self-actualization, an individual acts upon his inherent faculties, ability, and capacity, and yet
also “upon something”. The world, at first, is merely an object before him or her. Once an individual
places his or her creative hands on this particular world, the product is transformed into something that
reflects one’s self. Meaning, one’s creative humanity is externalized that eventually humanizes the
world. Therefore, the world is not merely an external object totally distinct from one’s being. Rather, it
is the very objectivity of one’s self.
Within the two-fold essence of creative process lies the key features of human life’s productive
activity that integrates the world, the humane, and the social relationships into one order of existence.
In general, productive activity should always take a vantage point as essentially laborious expression of
human life which constantly aims at the transformation of both the way how people live and what
human life should necessarily be. Productive activity is an experience that encompasses the most basic
form of survival and the intrinsically satisfying world transformation that suits humanity’s purposes in
the realms of experiential subjectivity as actualized beings and the well-affirmed objectivity of beings as
concrete phenomena.
As organic species, human beings exert effort in order to live. People work for food, water,
shelter, and clothing to withstand the elements of man’s material nature and the external environment.
These basic needs are the primary material objects of human consciousness for survival. They need to
be satisfied. As free and conscious beings, people produce goods not only for themselves but for others
too. Primarily, a person works freely on something he or she needs. Free in a sense that he or she works
at will in whatever fashion he or she enjoys. As everyone is endowed with unique abilities and
capacities by nature, each one expresses his or her being through the work he or she can masterfully do
and eventually get better yields. Recognition and acting upon individual uniqueness builds up a common
understanding that no one can satisfy all needs by oneself alone. Thus, directly or indirectly, all
individuals “work-with” and “work-for” a common disposition. Notwithstanding, the collective process
of human activities within a social group magnifies every person who freely delivers products out of his
own creativity.
Individually, a person freely and consciously works on something that completely reflects his or
her needs or creative powers, whether the product is made to satisfy his or her basic needs or a display
of his or her inherent ability. A sack yield of rice, for instance, reflects one’s ability to grow rice (“palay”)
and the need for food. Or a wooden statue is indeed a reflection of one’s appreciation for aesthetics. In
whatever manner of expression, every produce of human work has on it an imprint of the “self” of a
person who at the same time also recognizes others’ needs and acknowledgement, i.e., in one way or
the other, all share common disposition. Here, the collective dimension is also visible as social active
responses.
Moreover, human intelligence does not limit people to simply meet the demands for survival
through the most imaginable rustic means. People invent tools in their quest for even the most
unimaginable means to deliver goods for the satisfaction of human needs and further attain a more
comfortable living. As the needs grow, and so does the need to produce. However, it is maintained that
mass production through sophisticated means is only directed towards enriching the lives of the people,
i.e., to further reach the universal display of human creativity and satisfaction. People who work for
theirs and others’ needs. People who are free to live decently as actualized human beings.
Any form of productive activity that detaches from the essential elements of creative process is
in itself an alienating experience. Alienation here refers to the separation of the very essence of creative
process away from the manifestation of what is expressed. The object of expression in the creative
process is the personal identity of the subject himself or herself--the dignity of the worker. The product
Page | 7

8. of work is a manifestation of one’s creativity and that which expresses one’s being. It is the one kind of
creativity that builds individual subjectivity and is objectified within the social active responses. John
Paul II emphasizes that “the person who works desires not only due remuneration for his or her work
but also wishes that, within the production process, provision be made for him or her to be able to know
that in his or her work, even on something that is owned in common, he or she is working ‘for himself or
herself’” (LE, 15).
The most visible kind of alienation in the productive activity is estrangement of a worker from
the product of his or her effort. In a rapidly changing world, the current system of production has been
successful in fostering an alienating environment in the production process. A worker does not work
anymore in order to express his or her creative powers by yielding his or her own produce. Rather, a
worker is only measured by a value paid to him or her which is more often much less than the value he
or she creates. He or she creates goods which he or she does not own. He or she drains sweat and blood
for something that is at the disposal of another. This is one painful experience of exploitation. Farmers
toil land for great harvests and yet they remain malnourish. Miners dig deep into the earth for precious
metals more valuable than their lives. A sales lady stands all day selling clothes but finds her children
naked when she gets home. At the end of the day, a worker leaves a workplace without anything in his
or her hand but sheer exchange value. This is what alienation from the product is all about: the loss of
self-worth by losing his or her creative product. It is said to be a “creative product” in the sense that the
product is an end in itself that reflects the creator’s details in creating his or her personal identity, which
is lost within a system of production.
In the current system of production, when a worker applies for a job, he or she embarks on an
organization which is heavily structured in terms of a proper delivery of pre-imposed and prescribed
work details, called job description. Here, the productive process is measured by what kind of work is to
be done, how well a worker performs his or her job, and when the job is to be rendered. Under the
watchful eyes of superiors and bosses, a worker is rather concerned with these structured measures.
Therefore, the entire productive process is reduced to only aiming at the satisfaction of people in
control in order to keep one’s job. While the essence of productive activity includes the productive
process itself as natural occurrence in the one’s effort to freely create and actualize his or her own
being, a rigidly controlled work environment shuns this freedom. To work is to work at will, to work on
what is desired, and to work in a fashion deemed by the creative agent himself. In any case where actual
industrial or corporate experience stands in opposition to a free and purposeful event of the productive
process, a worker is alienated from the productive activity itself. Moreover, alienation from the
productive process visibly manifests in breaking down of work process into smaller component parts.
Especially in assembly lines, a worker is assigned to one specific task which is only part of one particular
product within a well structured mechanical system. A worker is simply reduced into a mere mechanical
part. Here, the essential aspect of one’s creativity and the objectification process of his or her personal
identity are dissolved within the mechanical system and, thus, the worker is estranged from his or her
product beyond recognition. It is a dissolution of supposedly integrated experience of the worker and
the product itself within the productive process. “Productive process”, which is “creative” by nature, is
hereby only taken as “production process” which concern is solely focused on producing more goods
and raising profits to the interest of the owners/managers but to the disinterest of the workers.
Embedded in the alienations from the product and the productive process is the most
disenchanting experience: alienation from oneself, i.e., estrangement from one’s own being. While
one’s faculties, abilities, and capacities remain active and utilized, they are not directed towards the
personal growth and development. Rather, human effort becomes conversant only with some external
control that manipulates the very being of an individual. A creative agent loses his or her self-worth
when he or she is deprived of the very product of his or her work. One’s work product is his or her own
self-worth and not just an exchange value. In his or her self-worth lies the objectification of his or her
personal identity, his or her being as his or her own subjectivity. In a productive process dominated by
external control, his or her being is altered by some imposed activities that do not reflect his or her
interior motive to create himself or herself as a self-actualized being. Alteration of being is most
exemplified by one’s creative ability and capacity reduced as mechanical part within a mechanical
system of production. Merely used as a material component, a person loses his or her freedom for self-
determination and the opportunity to become oneself. (A high turn-over ratio in an organization can be
an indication of this type of alienation).
As mentioned above, the essence of creative process includes a form of human activity as
“working-with” and “working-for” social experience. It is a social experience in which the collective
activity magnifies every individual who freely delivers goods and services out of his or her creative
powers. “Working-with“ is a social experience that allows everyone to work with each one in as much
as everyone works for the satisfaction of various societal needs. After all, this particular social
Page | 8

9. experience is directed towards the satisfaction of individuals. However, where there is an alienating
socio-economic structure, there also is the presence of alienation from other human beings. The
“working-with” social experience is transformed into working with the technical means of production.
One does not socialize with fellow human beings but with the mechanical system. While the working-for
social experience is transformed into working for the pre-imposed and pre-scribed job description and
working for the claimers of a worker’s produce. The alienating socio-economic structure builds up
tensions between the workers and the co-workers as one competes for promotion or simply for sake of
keeping the job, between the capitalists and the workers as there are various forms of exploitation, and
between the products and the consumers as certain products foster stereotyping of people in different
economic brackets – whereas there are those who can only afford the most basic commodities while
others can enjoy the luxuries of life.
That is why the primacy of labor over capital has been emphasized by John Paul II (cf. LE, 12)
because labor is just seen as an “instrumental cause” for the worker. Capital, or the resources, on its
own has no value unless the person exercises productive creativity over it. These resources are but
means for the worker to achieve the goal of self-actualization. The product of human effort cannot
stand on its own apart from its author. For example, a painting like the Mona Lisa is not appreciated for
its beauty but the creative genius of its painter, i.e. da Vinci.
A good point to reflect on is the implications of sweatshops. Sweatshop is “a shop or factory in
which employees work for long hours at low wages and under unhealthy conditions.” (sweatshop, 2009
In Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).
Nike is one of the companies that employs sweatshops to keep the profit margin high and pay
their celebrity endorsers by keeping costs, especially labor, low. Some people would defend sweatshops
because these provide income for people who otherwise would starve to death with no employment.
However,” the obligation to earn one's bread by the sweat of one's brow presumes the right to do so. A
society in which this right is systematically denied, in which economic policies do not allow workers to
reach satisfactory levels of employment, cannot be justified from an ethical point of view, nor can that
society attain social peace” (CA, 43).
What makes the existence of sweatshops scandalous is many people are being exploited for the
benefit of a few people. People, in this case, desperate and powerless, are being used as means to an
end, which is profit. The Catholic Social Teachings insist that work is for man (and woman), not man (or
woman) for work (LE, 6). To emphasize what has been said earlier, people are the subjects, not the
objects, of work, subjects seeking to achieve their purpose through working. Sweatshops devalue the
worth of people, and to patronize products from sweatshops, like Nike, is to abet the denigration of
hapless workers.
The great challenge arising from this situation is how people will change their consumer
behavior so that it would promote the welfare not only of the consumers, but also the workers who are
responsible for the creation of these goods. After all, human work cannot be reduced to its external
manifestations (e.g. products) but finds its fuller meaning in understanding its effect on the one who
does the work, the person-subject. To consider the repercussions of one’s actions is a form of solidarity,
the next principle for discussion.
SOLIDARITY
“I believe in the essential unity of all people and for that matter of all lives.
Therefore, I believe that if one person gains spiritually, the whole world gains,
and if one person falls, the whole world falls to that extent.”
Mohandas K. Gandhi
y emphasizing that a person has dignity, it follows that there must also be recognition of other
people’s dignity. Similar to the individual, other people too have the same goal of actualizing
themselves. They have the right to develop themselves like any other person, unimpeded but
rather aided to determine the life that fits them best. In those cases where dehumanization occurs, the
individual is tasked to join the struggle to unburden victims of injustice because they too have dignity
rooted in God’s image. This characterizes the virtue of solidarity.
B
The person is essentially a social being because “God did not create man as a ‘solitary being’ but
wished him to be a ‘social being’. Social life therefore is not exterior to man: he can only grow and
Page | 9

10. realize his vocation in relation with others” (CDF, Instruction Libertatis Conscientia, 32). Solidarity
highlights in a particular way the intrinsic social nature of the human person, the equality of all in dignity
and rights, and the common path of individuals and peoples towards an ever more committed unity
(CSD, 192). Thus, solidarity is seen as a social principle.
Solidarity is also an authentic moral virtue, not a “feeling of vague compassion or shallow
distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and
persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good. That is to say to the good of all and
of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all”. Solidarity rises to the rank of
fundamental social virtue since it places itself in the sphere of justice. It is a virtue directed par
excellence to the common good, and is found in “a commitment to the good of one's neighbour with the
readiness, in the Gospel sense, to ‘lose oneself' for the sake of the other instead of exploiting him, and
to ‘serve him' instead of oppressing him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42, 20:25; Mk 10:42-45;
Lk 22:25-27) (CSD, 193).
The following story sheds light on the importance of solidarity. In a farm fair, there’s a farmer
who always wins the contest for best corn. This farmer was interviewed by the host of the event and
was asked about his secret. The farmer narrates that he distributes the seeds of his best corn to his
neighbors for them to plant it. The host asks whether this is not a case of being too generous to his
competitors. The farmer replies that if his neighbor-farmers did not have excellent corn, during
pollination, his corn will be pollinated by lesser quality pollens, thus lowering the quality of his corn. But
if his corns will be surrounded by corns of high quality like his corn, the produce will be far better, thus
his secret to winning the best corn contest.
Solidarity can be likened to the farmer’s act of distributing corn seeds to his neighbors. While it
is true that a person has the goal and the desire for self-actualization, it is also equally true that other
people have the same goal and desire. However, it would be very difficult to achieve self-actualization if
the environment one operates in has limited opportunities. By helping others be humanized by acting
out of solidarity, these people get to improve and at the same time contribute well to the common
good, which ultimately would raise the level of human existence of those around. As the saying goes,
“every action has a social repercussion.” Solidarity creates a ripple effect that brings about positive
change to one’s environment, thereby being more able to develop one’s potentials and to pursue the
best course of action in line with his or her dignity. There can be no progress towards the complete
development of the human person without the simultaneous development of all humanity in the spirit
of solidarity (PP, 43).
The virtue of solidarity is but a response to incarnate the compassion and concern Jesus showed
to his fellowmen and women. The crucifixion of Jesus is a powerful testament to Jesus’ life-long
commitment to solidarity with the poor and the suffering. It is a concrete and courageous way of loving,
particularly the weak and defenceless in society’s midst. “Whatever insults human dignity, such as
subhuman living conditions, arbitrary imprisonment, deportation, slavery, prostitution, the selling of
women and children; as well as disgraceful working conditions, where people are treated as mere tools
for profit, rather than as free and responsible persons; all these things and others of their like are
infamies indeed. They poison human society, but they do no more harm to those who practice them
than those who suffer from the injury (GS, 27). Solidarity dispels the attitude of apathy or indifference
by becoming-one-with other people in their quest for humanization. This is mirroring Jesus, Emmanuel
(God-with-us), especially to those who are victims of oppression and marginalization.
The persistence of evil is blamed on this tendency of many people to remain indifferent even in
the midst of potential harm, or even death. Some people think that as long as they are not doing
something wrong, they are good already. Thus, apathy is the opposite of solidarity.
On the Last Judgement, Jesus will ask those who stand before him whether they have lived up to
their dignity as children of God by being compassionate to their neighbors. Such simple loving actions
earned for them the ultimate reward of a fully dignified life: the companionship of God. In the words of
St. Irenaeus, “Gloria Dei vivens homo. Gloria hominis visio Dei.” (The glory of God is the person fully
alive. And the glory of the person is the vision of God).
The work of solidarity aims to help and to guarantee that people will achieve their ultimate end.
This can only be done if human rights are protected, the next chapter for discussion.
Page | 10
Photo taken from: http://l.yimg.com/g/images/spaceball.gif

11. HUMAN RIGHTS AND RACISM
“Be as beneficent as the sun or the sea,
but if your rights as a rational being are trenched on,
die on the first inch of your territory.”
Ralph Waldo Emerson, poet
he virtue of solidarity has emphasized the need to translate interdependence among people into
something that will both enhance and respect the individual dignity of each member of society.
This can be done by recognizing the person’s inherent rights and acting in their best interest.
Human rights are “moral claims by a person to some good of the physical or spiritual order which is
necessary for proper human development and dignity.” (McBrien, 1999) These moral claims stem from
the basic existential condition of a person, namely, a being endowed with dignity. Such rights serve as a
protection so that the person will not be treated like an object, serving not as an instrument but as an
end. It also guarantees that people will be free from any obstacle towards developing themselves into
something that manifests their full capacity.
T
The natural rights are inseparably connected, in the very person who is their subject, with just as
many respective duties; and rights as well as duties find their source, their sustenance and their
inviolability in the natural law which grants or enjoins them (PT, 28). It is but fitting that something that
has value be provided a guarantee that it will neither be diminished nor taken away. In this instance, it
is the inherent worth of a person that needs to be preserved and enhanced. The person has a nature,
that is, endowed with intelligence and free will (rationality). As such, one has rights and duties, which
together flow as a direct consequence from his or her nature. These rights and duties are universal and
inviolable, and therefore altogether inalienable.
The encyclical Pacem in Terris enumerates these rights (nn. 8-27) and they bear a close
resemblance to the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights. In his "Address to the 34th
General Assembly of the United Nations," John Paul II provided an updated roster of “some of the most
important” human rights which the church endorses:
the right to life, liberty and security of the person; the right to food, clothing, housing,
sufficient health care, rest, and leisure; the right to freedom of expression, education
and culture; the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion; the right to
manifest one’s religion either individually or in community, in public or in private; the
right to choose a state of life, to found a family and to enjoy all conditions necessary for
family life; the right to property and work, to adequate working conditions and a just
wage; the right of assembly and association; the right to freedom of movement, to
internal and external migration; the right to nationality and residence; the right to
political participation and the right to participate in the free choice of the political
system of the people to which one belongs.
One issue that attacks others’ rights is called racial discrimination. Simply put, such attitude
views people on different levels, using different standards based on one’s ethnicity or race. This is a
clear example of bias or prejudice that offers no reasonable ground to justify its claim of truth but relies
mainly on subjective standards.
But it would be good to note that people also discriminate when it comes to ideas, actions,
products or pursuits. For instance, between a good action and a bad action, a person first makes a
distinction based on the purpose he or she wants to achieve and then shows preference towards a
particular action that would contribute to the realization of that purpose. Such discrimination is
considered justifiable because the two actions are essentially different. There is a reasonable ground to
validate this claim.
Now, to use the same process in treating people, one as inferior, the other superior, is totally
unreasonable because by nature, people are essentially the same. The race, gender, age and abilities
are but the superficialities visible to others but in no way express the totality of an individual. The Nazi
regime, for example, used propaganda to extol the Aryan race, making the lesser people subservient to
their whims and caprices. Thus, many Jews, disabled, old people, and even homosexuals were put in
concentration camps where they were experimented on, forced into manual labor, and even massacred
in gas chambers. Today, the Germans include the Holocaust as part of their curriculum so that this
crime will never be repeated.
Page | 11

12. For today, the victory of Barack Obama as president of the United States of America is hailed as
a triumph over racial discrimination. People voted based on the candidates’ qualifications for the job
rather than on their ethnicity. It would be helpful to revisit the story of an ordinary woman who caused
quite a stir during her time, whose effects became widespread. Her name was Rosa Parks, a simple
working woman who refused to give up her seat on the bus. (see worksheet on Rosa Parks) Nelson
Mandela, a South African reformist, viewed her as his inspiration during his years in incarceration. He
too was instrumental in abolishing apartheid in South Africa.
However, it is good to remember that when people claim their own rights, yet altogether forget
or neglect to carry out their respective duties, “these are people who build with one hand and destroy
with the other. Since men are social by nature they are meant to live with others and to work for one
another's welfare” (PT, 30). Every right has a corresponding duty because the latter guarantees that
one’s rights will also be respected. For example, if inside a classroom, everybody exercises their right to
speak at the same time, altogether ignoring their duty to listen, will their right to speak be heard? For
some people, duties can be cumbersome but, ironically, it is these duties which enhance rights.
One’s rights cannot be claimed to be absolute. It ends where the rights of others begin. “A
well-ordered human society requires that people recognize and observe their mutual rights and duties.
It also demands that each contribute generously to the establishment of a civic order in which rights and
duties are more sincerely and effectively acknowledged and fulfilled” (PT, 31). That portion of one’s
rights that is surrendered for the sake of the common good is contained in one’s duties as a member of
society.
To apply this in the previous topic about work, people who work have a right to the fruit of their
labors. This becomes their private property. But such right to private property cannot be claimed at the
expense of other people’s welfare. Such right is tempered or moderated by the duty to preserve the
common good. One cannot just continue accumulating property without taking into consideration
whether other people can have the opportunity to provide for themselves. Such discrepancy in
standards of living or gap between the “haves” and “have-nots” can prove to be scandalous. “One of
the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess
much are relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor
distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all” (SRS, 28).
The promotion of the collective rights sets out to build societal structure which has at its heart
the general welfare of people. John XXIII wrote: “in our time the common good is chiefly guaranteed
when personal rights and duties are maintained” (PT, 60). Thus, the preservation and improvement of
human rights are pre-requisites to achieving the common good.
COMMON GOOD AND SOCIAL SIN
“The fundamental defect of Christian ethics consists in the fact that
it labels certain classes of acts 'sins' and others 'virtue'
on grounds that have nothing to do with their social consequences”
Bertrand Russell
(English Logician and Philosopher 1872-1970)
he constant theme that has been running throughout the body of Catholic Social Teachings is the
protection and enhancement of the dignity of the human person that reaches its apex in the
person's humanization. This truth about the person cannot be fully understood apart from the
relational aspect of being human. It is only through interaction with other people that a person can
grow in self-knowledge and also find affirmation of his or her true value and realize his or her
interconnectivity in working for self-realization. This social nature of the person "makes it evident that
the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on one another. For the
beginning, the subject and the goal of all social institutions is and must be the human person which for
its part and by its very nature stands completely in need of social life. Since this social life is not
something added on to man, through his dealings with others, through reciprocal duties, and through
fraternal dialogue he develops all his gifts and is able to rise to his destiny" (GS, 25).
T
Such socialization among people is beneficial in combining resources and providing
opportunities for aiding the development of individuals and guaranteeing their rights. Therefore, equal
Page | 12

13. emphasis must be given both to the individual and the group or society of which the individual is a
member. This is expressed in the principle of the common good.
“Common” may either refer to the shared dignity of every member of society or to the
communal goal which they are striving for. “Good” pertains to a value that is instrumental in achieving a
purpose. "First of all and principally, therefore, a being capable of perfecting another after the manner
of an end is called good; but secondarily something is called good which leads to an end . . ." If
something is desired, it is desired for an end, as a final cause. Every desire has a direction, a purpose:
the joy of friendship or the pleasure of good food. Every motion is for a purpose, its actualization, the
rest of the moving object (Blankenhorn, 2002).
The common good, therefore, "embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life
which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and effective fulfillment (MM,
#74). This is a recognition that a person is not the only one who has a right to self-actualization, but it
includes other people who also have a right to reach the same destiny. Thus, because the person is by
nature relational, he or she is “required to fulfill obligations of justice and love to contribute to the
common good according to one's means and the needs of others, and also to promote and help public
and private organizations devoted to bettering the conditions of life" (GS, 30).
The principle of common good tries to balance individualism (e.g. liberal capitalism) on the one
hand, and collectivism (e.g. socialism) on the other hand. The former tends to consider only individual
needs at the expense of the rights of many, while the latter tends to absolutize the welfare of the group
by sacrificing or ignoring the rights of individuals.
The promotion of the common good cannot be achieved by individual persons alone. There is
also the State which exists precisely because it has to promote the common good. To a certain extent,
people surrender a portion of their rights to the state in order to “create, effectively and for the well-
being of all, the conditions required for attaining humanity's true and complete good” (OA, 46).
A good example is the color-coding scheme. On a given day, motorists forego of their right to
drive their vehicles to help in managing the traffic. In so doing, they are also able to enjoy better traffic
(at least in theory) when others forego of their right to drive their vehicles for their sake. Such traffic
rules are created and implemented by representatives of the state, which in this case is the Metro
Manila Development Authority (MMDA), to ensure the welfare of all road users.
The socialization among peoples, though helpful in achieving their destiny, can also be a
restriction of sorts because of the influence of their sinful situation. This is referred to as Original Sin, a
doctrine rooted in the Fall of Adam and Eve that reminds about the harm of misusing human freedom.
This distorted freedom causes people to be "often diverted from doing good and spurred toward and by
the social circumstances in which they live and are immersed from their birth. To be sure the
disturbances which so frequently occur in the social order result in part from the natural tensions of
economic, political and social forms. But at a deeper level they flow from man's pride and selfishness,
which contaminate even the social sphere. When the structure of affairs is flawed by the consequences
of sin, man, already born with a bent toward evil, finds there new inducements to sin, which cannot be
overcome without strenuous efforts and the assistance of grace” (GS, 25). This is called structural sin or
social sin.
The law of ascent that states that “every soul that rises above itself, raises up the world,” can
also hold true with regards its opposite law of descent. The social aspect of sin acknowledges that each
individual’s sin in some way affects other” (RP, 16). A negative action can work against another person’s
exercise of freedom and in the quest for establishing a just society. While common good tries to create
an environment conducive for achieving perfection, social sin denies people the opportunity to reach
this goal. Thus, social sin is “the sum total of the negative factors working against a true awareness of
the universal common good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in persons and
institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome” (SRS, 36).
Social sin can refer to “situations or structures of society which cause or support evil, or which
cause people to fail to correct evils and injustices when it is possible to do so (Gorospe, 1997).
Father Gorospe distinguishes three types of social sin (Gorospe, 1997), namely (1) “structures”
which systematically oppress human dignity and violate human rights, stifle human freedom, and
imposes gross inequality between the rich and the poor; examples are Martial Law, racial segregation,
or the gap between the rich and the poor (2) “situations” which promote and facilitate greed and human
selfishness; examples are the endemic corruption in the government and businesses, and oil price hikes
Page | 13

14. dictated by cartels, and (3) “attitude” of persons who do not take responsibility for evil being done or
who silently allow oppression and injustice. Refusing to testify to crimes one has witnessed or buying
products from sweatshops are examples of this.
Social sin applies to every sin against justice in interpersonal relationships, committed either by
the individual against the community or by the community against the individual. By limiting or
depriving opportunities for people, social sin offends freedom because people cannot act upon the
choice that would determine themselves but rather are forced to accept a situation which does not
promote their development. People can be held accountable for allowing this negative situation to
persist, although the greater fault lies on the shoulders of those individuals who are the cause of this.
“This social sin is rooted in the personal sin committed by individuals who cause or support evil
or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils
but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or
indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world and also of
those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of higher order” (RP,
16). To tolerate its existence has a price, for as Plato said, “The price of apathy towards public affairs is
to be ruled by evil men.”
Corruption in government has proven to be endemic. (Read the article about pork barrel) It
affects almost everyone, from bottom to top, from outsiders to insiders. This is one of the greatest
impediments to dismantling the structural defect of the socio-economic classes. Through it, people
become indifferent to the evil existing amongst them, accepting it as the status quo. Those on top tend
to be solipsistic and self-absorbed, rejecting the social dimension of their humanity. It has become the
sine qua non of their role as leaders. Is there anything that is ultimately achieved in dealing with an
individualistic morality (cf. GS, 30)? Such action offends society as a whole of which the person is an
individual. As John Paul II says, “With greater or lesser violence, with greater or lesser harm, every sin
has repercussions on the entire ecclesial body and the whole human family” (RP, 16). In the final
analysis, even the perpetrators of evil will also be a victim of their own actions.
Common good therefore is the goal towards which the social order orients itself. The
subsequent principles will elucidate how the principle of common good is advanced in terms of the
measure of development (authentic human development), the utility of resources (stewardship) and the
distribution of these resources (universal destination of goods). The principle of subsidiarity,
meanwhile, allows people to participate in determining what can be most helpful in the enhancement of
their collective dignity.
AUTHENTIC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT AND
THE GAP BETWEEN SOCIAL CLASSES
“The test of our progress is not whether we add to the abundance of those who have much.
It is whether we provide enough to those who have little.”
Theodore Roosevelt,
26th US president. 1882-1945)
he advent of the industrial revolution brought development to new heights. Countries like Britain
and the United States enjoyed great prosperity. The curious thing about the industrialization of
this age is that with so many resources now readily available and innovations that brought
progress, poverty was not alleviated but rather grew worse. The source of this problem is that
industrialized countries have a relationship that benefits them while the poor countries are independent
of each other. Thus the benefits of abundance of wealth did not benefit humanity as a whole but only a
select few who had greater access to the resources and profit.
T
The concentration of wealth in the hands of a few created unequal classes that caused
dehumanizing effects to those at the bottom, causing those on top to be alienated from those below.
Thus, the problem of the gap between the rich and the poor widened especially with the advent of
unbridled profit-taking. On a macro scale, the gap is not only between social classes but also between
developed and underdeveloped countries as well. This in part is responsible for the lack of impact to the
greater part of the population of whatever economic progress is touted by countries, especially with the
introduction of globalization. This globalization was supposed to free trade and grant access to
Page | 14

15. resources to as many people as possible and was trumpeted as a means to create more wealth.
However, contrary to popular claims, lack of development still grips a great part of the world.
The Church does not have technical solutions to offer for the problem of underdevelopment as
such (SRS, 41), but she is called to evangelize the true content of development, i.e. the individuals.
Whatever affects the dignity of individuals and people cannot be reduced to a technical problem (SRS,
41.) for it betrays the individual and peoples whom development is meant to serve.
Development is not a straightforward process, as if it were automatic and in itself limitless, as
though, given certain conditions, the human race were able to progress rapidly towards an undefined
perfection of some kind (SRS, 27). Closely linked to the idea of “progress” of the Enlightenment, the
present century has shown the naivety of such mechanistic optimism and replaced this with a well-
founded anxiety for the fate of humanity (SRS, 27). Thus, development is not just moving away from but
also moving towards something.
Development is not only limited to the economic concept, for it subjects the human person to
the demands of economic planning and selfish profit. Mere accumulation of goods and services is not
enough for the realization of human happiness (SRS, 28). The Church’s criticism on Marx is precisely on
the latter’s equation of the person’s humanization with the satisfaction of one’s material needs.
Experience has shown that material things never give the ultimate satisfaction because it fades or is lost.
The more one possesses, the more one wants, while the deeper human hopes remain unsatisfied and
even stifled. "Having" more things does not necessarily mean "being" more or being better. "Having"
only helps us when it contributes to a more complete "being" (SRS, 28).
This shows that development is not linked strictly to the economic concept. Rather,
development must be measured according to the respect it renders to the integral specific nature of the
person. There is always a moral dimension to development: true development implies a lively
awareness of the value of the rights of all and of each person (SRS, 33). First, respect for the individual
person and second, respect for the cultural identity of whole communities. John Paul II stresses the
paramount need for any project of human development to be built around respect. So as to be called
an authentic human development, this must be brought within the framework of solidarity and
freedom. In order for it to be authentic, development must come with a human face, a concern as to
how the person is affected by the development going around. Every perspective on economic life that is
human, moral, and Christian must be shaped by three questions: What does the economy do for
people? What does it do to people? And how do people participate in it? (EJA, 1).
Centesimus Annus claims “that many people, perhaps the majority today, do not have the
means which would enable them to take their place in an effective and humanly dignified way within a
productive system in which work is truly central. They have no possibility of acquiring the basic
knowledge which would enable them to express their creativity and develop their potential. They have
no way of entering the network of knowledge and intercommunication which would enable them to see
their qualities appreciated and utilized. Thus, if not actually exploited, they are to a great extent
marginalized; . . . Many other people, while not completely marginalized, live in situations in which the
struggle for a bare minimum is uppermost. . . In fact, for the poor, to the lack of material goods has been
added a lack of knowledge and training which prevents them from escaping their state of humiliating
subjection. Unfortunately, the great majority of people in the Third World still live in such conditions”
(n. 33).
How then can development be claimed alongside the existence of a gap between the “haves”
and the “have-nots”? This gap between people is inevitable because of the difference among them due
to skills or diligence, to name a few. However, what makes the current gap intolerable and scandalous is
that the situation is brought about not because of the reasons mentioned above but of greed and
apathy. As the Greek philosopher Socrates said, “Ultimately, what makes a country poor is not its lack
of natural resources but the greed of its few rich citizens.” It is possible to have people with less in life
(relative poverty) but it does not follow that they should die or suffer due to lack of basic needs
(absolute poverty). A case for example is the disparity of lifestyle between America (1st
world) and
Africa (3rd
world). How come many people are dying of mass starvation in Africa while in America, they
have a growing problem with obesity? How can people still die of sickness whose cure or vaccines have
long been invented? How can the world be considered developed if many people are being left behind?
Gross National Product (GNP) measures wealth produced by a country. Countries flaunt their
GNP growth, but that is not the complete picture. How about the rate of unemployment or the Human
Development Index (HDI) level? These indicators show whether the wealth generated actually has a
Page | 15

16. trickledown effect or is just stuck at the top. The principle of authentic human development calls for
giving this economic development a human face, taking human dignity as its object.
Enter Gawad Kalinga (“give care”). What started out as an outreach project of a church
organization, namely, the Couples for Christ, has become a worldwide movement that has crossed the
boundaries of nations and religions. It is not anymore the activity of a particular religion, it has become
the incarnation of what really is the essence of religion: humanization.
The Gawad Kalinga movement can be likened to the harkening of the coming of the Kingdom of
God where in that Kingdom, suffering because of deprivation has been wiped out by the sacrifice of
Christ. Gawad Kalinga is one of the best forms of witnessing to God’s call to treat the least in the
community with dignity that is required for them as children of God. Decent homes are provided so that
families can feel secure and thus become more confident to plan ahead because they have been
liberated from the constant fear of demolition or relocation. Notable in this kind of outreach is that the
neighbours themselves help one another out in the construction in a spirit of cooperation (“bayanihan”).
This gives a certain ownership not only to one’s house but also concern (“malasakit”) to the others.
What differentiates Gawad Kalinga from other housing activities is that the members of the community
are given values training before they move in to their new homes to thresh out solipsistic/territorial
attitudes in their communities to be replaced with solidarity. It is also accompanied with other
programs to empower the residents for “self-governance, self-reliance and self-sufficiency.”
What is the Gawad Kalinga vision? Cited below is the long-term plan of a movement that
originated from a youth camp held in Bagong Silang, Caloocan City in 1995.
(http://www.gk1world.com/about-us-page/114-vision-mission.html)
“Gawad Kalinga seeks to uplift 5 million Filipinos out of extreme poverty by the
year 2024, thereby building a first-class Philippines and a world-class Filipino.
The timeframe is 21 years starting October 4, 2003 until October 4, 2024.
The first phase of the Gawad Kalinga journey is to address social injustice by
raising 700,000 home lots and start–up 7,000 communities by the end of 2010. The goal
of the campaign called GK 777 is to "un-squat” the poorest of the poor, heal their
woundedness, regain their trust, build their confidence, make them think and act as a
community and to share the joy of a country rising from poverty.
Then we move in the next 7 years (2011 to 2017) to the stewardship phase
called Social Artistry: strengthening governance; developing community- based
programs for health, education, environment, and productivity; building a village culture
that honors Filipino values and heritage. The goal is to empower the powerless for self-
governance, self- reliance, and self- sufficiency.
The final phase in the last 7 years from 2018 to 2024 is envisioned as a time of
Social Progress. This phase seeks to achieve scale and sustainability by developing the
grassroots economy and expanding the reach and influence of GK to 5 million families
with support from key sectors of society in the Philippines and partners abroad. We will
make the Filipino poor “unpoor” by unleashing his potential for productivity and hard
work in the right environment.
The 21-year journey of Gawad Kalinga represents one generation of Filipinos
who will journey from poverty to prosperity, from neglect to respect, from shame to
honor, from third-world to first-world, from second-class to first-class citizen of the
world.
The term first-world is not a statement that everything in the West or in a
developed country is superior or desirable; it simply refers to greater opportunities,
higher standards, and better quality of life available to more of its citizens.”
For Gawad Kalinga, the measure of development is not whether a country has achieved the level
of progress of wealthy countries (“having”) but whether its people are afforded opportunities to
determine their own kind of life (“being”). “True development cannot consist in the simple
accumulation of wealth and in the greater availability of goods and services, if this is gained at the
expense of the development of the masses, and without due consideration for the social, cultural and
spiritual dimensions of the human being” (SRS, 9).
Page | 16

17. To claim that one has enough in life is not to count one’s material acquisitions and measure it
against a certain standard. This always leads to discontentment because this is like putting two mirrors
in front of one another: there is no end to the reflection. However, using a personalistic criterion, one
can say “I have enough” if a person has opportunities to work on his or her self-actualization. Thus,
contentment can easily be achieved because one’s value is not tied to something material but one’s
vision in life. (This is a reiteration of the difference between dignity as “having” and “being.”)
Many people have joined the Gawad Kalinga movement because as an act of solidarity, they try
not to just dole-out material resources that would satisfy a certain level of economic subsistence, but
more importantly, they try to be helpers in improving the quality of life of other individuals. Most of the
volunteers who worked for this cause always felt a certain joy and contentment in having helped people
and spending their own money and time for this cause.
THE UNIVERSAL DESTINATION OF GOODS
AND AGRARIAN REFORM
“The sage does not hoard. The more he helps others, the more he benefits himself,
The more he gives to others, the more he gets himself.
The Way of Heaven does one good but never does one harm.
The Way of the sage is to act but not to compete.”
Lao Tzu
he Philippines is basically an agricultural country. Gifted with vast tracts of arable land
surrounded by the sea, farming and fishing remain as the basic means of survival outside urban
centers. It is however sad to note that the farmers and the fisher folk belong to the poorest
sector of society, this, despite the Philippines’ rich natural and human resources.
T
Take the case of the farmers, for example. They are the ones who toil the land but they never
enjoy the profit of their work. Much of the time, they just use their meager earnings to pay off debts
incurred during the planting season. Add to that the existence of middlemen who lower their margin of
profit because “the private sector, composed of merchants, has always dominated and controlled the
rice marketing system. It is estimated that private merchants handle around 95% of domestic
production. In 2000, there were 77,193 retailers; 15,071 wholesalers and 10,469 millers. Although rice
merchants are important contributors to the viability of rural and urban economies, many in the past
were engaged in rice cartel that was responsible for controlling the flow and distribution of rice and
subsequently fixing its price”
(http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=93306).
An additional burden for farmers is many suppliers of farmers’ needs also provide loans at
usurious rates. “These usurers often act as middlemen between suppliers and farmers, or the input
suppliers themselves. Under such circumstance, the indebted farmer is obliged to sell his harvests to the
supplier, usually at a lower price, to repay his debts. Thus, the suppliers also become the buyers“
(http://www.consumersinternational.org/Templates/Internal.asp?NodeID=93306).
Ultimately, the pricing of rice is dictated by the private merchants and made worse by
inadequate public spending to help farmers gain access to the markets through roads. Credit is primarily
dependent on some opportunistic investors and government support through lending is lacking. The
long and complex marketing chain, with the occasional harassment of delivery trucks by some law
enforcers along the route to the market, compound the cost of rice.
A Filipino maxim best expresses this sad reality: “Ako ang nagtanim, iba ang umani” (I toiled but
others benefited). This is but another example of the farmers being alienated from themselves wherein
they could provide food for others but never enough to satisfy their basic needs.
Thus, since the time of President Diosdado Macapagal, a land reform program had already been
initiated to uplift the living conditions of the farmers. During Marcos’ Administration, Presidential
Decree 27 instituted a land reform program covering rice and corn farms. Rice and corn production
under this land reform program was heavily supported by the Marcos Administration with land
distribution and financing program known as the Masagana 99 and other production loans that led to
increased rice and corn production. The country produced enough rice for local consumption and
became a rice exporter during that period. The Aquino Administration in the mid 1980s instituted a very
Page | 17

18. controversial land reform known as CARP which covered all agricultural lands. The program led to rice
shortages in the succeeding years and lasted for 20 years without accomplishing the goal of land
distribution.
The case of the Sumilao farmers, who marched all the way from Bukidnon to Manila to plead
their case, showed how neglected this program was. Of course, this can be expected, especially if those
in power are mostly landlords themselves or allies in their own provinces. The betterment of the lives of
the beneficiaries never materialized because they are never actually freed from the bondage of debt.
But if progress is to happen, land reform is a good start on this path of economic progress.
Taiwan is a good example of such a well implemented land reform program. From being a small
province of China, it became known as a prosperous country, riding on its edge in technology. Their land
reform program had been based on Dr. Sun Yat-sen's doctrine of "land to the tiller". It has been carried
out gradually and peacefully to ensure that land reform and regulations are feasible, efficient,
reasonable and fair, thus accomplishing the goal of "of the tiller, and by the tiller." The outstanding
results achieved have made Taiwan a model for land reform in Southeast Asia. There have been three
stages:
Stage One: Rent Reduction to 37.5 Percent
Land rentals were reduced from 50% to 37.5% in 1949. Contracts signed covered a land area of
256,557 hectares and benefited 296,043 farming families.
Stage Two: Sale of Public Land
A total of 139,058 hectares of land has been sold to 286,563 farming families since 1951.
Stage Three: Land to the Tiller
Beginning in 1953, this program was designed to enable tenant farmers to own the land they
tilled, so as to increase farm production and farmers' income, as well as to transfer landlords' capital to
help develop industrial construction. This policy of "nurturing industry with agriculture and developing
agriculture with industry" has laid a solid foundation for Taiwan's rapid economic progress. A total of
194,823 farming families have received a land area of 139,249 hectares. (http://www.taiwan-
agriculture.org/taiwan/rocintro4.html)
To demonstrate the positive impact of Taiwan’s land reform, an analogy of how increased
income for the farmer can theoretically increase the number of College of Saint Benilde (CSB) students
can prove helpful.
If a farmer has a bigger income, this will trigger a series of positive impacts on society as a
whole. For example, the farmer gets to buy a TV. The TV manufacturer gains more profit which makes
them increase the pay of their workers. The workers then get to have more money to buy food which
the farmer produces. Again, the farmer’s income increases so he thinks of buying a DVD player and
other household items. Eventually, the workers in these companies providing the goods experience
increased income also because of increased sales, so they buy more food (among others) which also
increases the farmer’s income. So if many workers enjoy increased income, they can afford to send
their children to good schools like CSB. Simply put then, if the poor get to have more purchasing power,
economic progress can start to kick in.
“An equitable distribution of land remains ever critical, especially in developing countries and in
countries that have recently changed from systems based on collectivities or colonization. In rural areas,
the possibility of acquiring land through opportunities offered by labor and credit markets is a necessary
condition for access to other goods and services. Besides constituting an effective means for
safeguarding the environment, this possibility represents a system of social security that can be put in
place also in those countries with a weak administrative structure.
“To the subjects, whether individuals or communities, that exercise of various types of property
accrue a series of objective advantages; better living conditions, security for the future, and a greater
number of options from which to choose” (CSD, 181).
The argument for land distribution hinges on the very nature of land: it is essential for the
survival of people. The land offers plenty of opportunities for people in order to live a life beyond mere
subsistence. Aside from growing crops, it is also where people can exercise meaningful endeavours like
Page | 18

19. starting a family (house), pursuing education (school), interacting (park), trading goods (mall or market)
or nourishing spiritual needs (church). The list is not exhaustive but basically, people need to have land
in order to experience a good life. “The Church’s social teaching calls for recognition of the social
function of any form of private ownership land reform (Mater et Magistra) that clearly refers to its
necessary relation to the common good (Quadragesimo Anno). People should regard the external things
that they legitimately possess not only as their own but also as common in the sense that they should be
able to benefit not only the owners themselves but also others (Gaudium et Spes)” (Ramdeen, 2006).
To own land while effectively depriving people theirs for survival casts doubt on the real ownership of
the land.
First of all, how can land be owned by people? When they were born, the land was already
there, and when they die, the land will still be there. So how can people claim ownership of something
that is immortal? By looking at the evolution of the modes of production, one can see that initially,
everything was free.
In the ancient times, when many people were still nomads, natural resources like land and
water were owned by people who were actually using these resources. Thus, after these people leave,
the next users will be the new owners. Ownership here does not literally mean exclusive possession of
something, but more of utility at a given time, similar to stewardship. This is basically what it means to
own something: it is to be used for something, thus making hoarding immoral (and even illegal). This is
another reason to doubt an authentic claim of ownership on land.
The goods of the earth are created by God meant for the use of everybody. This puts in a
nutshell the principle of the universal destination of goods. Nobody has the monopoly of the resources
of the earth. The possession of it must always be balanced by the need to use it for one’s development
and to contribute to the common good. It is sharing resources that can serve the dignity of others.
Christian tradition has never recognized the right to private property as absolute and
untouchable: ‘On the contrary, it has always understood this right within the broader context of the
right common to all to use the goods of the whole of creation: the right to private property is
subordinated to the right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone’ (LE, 14).
Therefore, no one can make an authentic claim on land because it belongs to everybody
because people are born into it and they also need it to be used in meeting their needs. God, in the Old
Testament, reminded the Israelites: “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity; for the land is mine and
you are but aliens who have become my tenants.” (Lev. 25: 36) In the book of Genesis, God has
commanded people to care for the earth and subdue it because through the earth, people can provide
for their daily subsistence (Gen. 1: 28).
“The principle of the universal destination of goods is an affirmation both of God’s full and
perennial lordship over every reality and of the requirement that the goods of creation remain ever
destined to the development of the whole person and of all humanity (CCC, 2402-2406). This principle is
not opposed to the right to private property but indicates the need to regulate it.
“The universal destination of goods entails obligations on how goods are to be used by their
legitimate owners. Individual persons may not use their resources without considering the effects that
this use will have; rather they must act in a way that benefits not only themselves and their family but
also the common good. From this there arises the duty on the part of owners not to let the goods in
their possession go idle and to channel them to productive activity, even entrusting them to others who
are desirous and capable of putting them to use in production” (CSD, 178).
This is the reason behind Republic Act No. 7279 or the Urban Development Housing Act of 1992,
popularly known as the Lina Law. It protects informal settlers, or commonly called squatters, from being
evicted from the property they inhabit without due compensation. For landowners it may seem unfair
since they purchased that land legally and the informal settlers are “stealing” what is rightfully the
landowners’ possession. The problem arises from the fact that on the one hand, there are people who
do not have any land to use, but on the other hand, there are some landowners who just leave their
land idle, defeating the very essence of land ownership.
In the light of the principle of universal destination of goods, it might be good to have a
paradigm shift about possessing land. Just like in many European countries, possession of land is only
called stewardship, not ownership. It denotes that for a certain period of time, an individual can “own”
the land but only for a specific time with the intention of using it. After the period has lapsed, the land
Page | 19

20. returns to the state to be lent to another person who will use it. Unlike in land ownership, like here in
the Philippines, the cycle of wealth is never broken because a basic resource is never redistributed.
The land reform program is not simply distributing material resources but more importantly it is
distributing opportunities to many people to find means of moving away from a hand to mouth
existence (“isang kahig, isang tuka”) to an improved quality of living (“siksik, liglig, umaapaw”). In
essence, the principle of universal destination of goods as applied to the land reform program is a
reminder to consider the need to help others be humanized through utility of a very basic resource:
land.
SUBSIDIARITY AND TWO-CHILD POLICY
“To lead people, walk behind them.”
Lao Tzu, Chinese Philosopher
s what has been affirmed in the previous lesson, a person’s right is never sacrificed for the sake
of the common good. The individual is guaranteed the right to self-actualization by being
afforded the opportunity to determine his or her action. This is also called autonomy. Such right
is what is at the heart of the principle of subsidiarity. Pius XII warns against totalitarian regimes that see
the individual as the part of a whole. “Just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can
accomplish by their own initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and
at the same time a grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association
what lesser and subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to
furnish help to the members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them” (QA, 79).
A
Subsidiarity comes from the Latin word “subsidium” meaning “help”. The principle of
subsidiarity has both positive and negative form, both referring to when help should be withheld and
when help should be offered. The negative form calls on "a community of a higher order to not
interfere with the life of a community of a lower order, taking over its functions" (CA, 48). The positive
form is only justified if it is essential to “support the smaller community and help to coordinate its
activity with activities in the rest of society for the sake of the common good” (CA, 48).
Simply put, those on top should avoid imposing actions to those below to promote autonomy
and initiative to make the latter more creative and responsible stakeholders for the common good
(negative form). Only in cases where those below cannot carry out the abovementioned should those
on top intervene for the sake of the common good (positive form). John Paul II, in his encyclical
Centesimus Annus, cited some economic rights of workers that are to be guaranteed by the state: social
security, pensions, health insurance and compensation in the case of accidents, unemployment
insurance, a safe working environment, the right to form labor unions (CA, 15 and 34).
In effect, the principle of subsidiarity tries to preserve a sphere of freedom or autonomy, while
at the same time recognizing the need for a certain degree of centralization or control. “This principle
seeks to establish and maintain a balance between individual initiative and governmental assistance and
direction. The principle holds that the presumption is always in favour of individual or small-group
action over against governmental intervention. The state should intervene only when lesser bodies
cannot fulfil a given task required by the common good” (McBrien, 1994).
At present, in the pursuit of common good, some policy makers propose measures that can
threaten this very freedom. Take for instance the persistent plan to advocate a two-child policy. The
latest version of this policy is included in Rep. Edcel Lagman’s proposed Reproductive Health and
Population Development Act of 2008, or simply known as the Reproductive Health Bill. Aside from
suggesting other forms of family planning aside from the Church-backed natural family planning
methods, it also encourages two children and a couple as the ideal family size. This is neither mandatory
nor compulsory and no punitive action may be imposed on couples having more than two children.
This two-child policy is being advocated allegedly for the sake of women’s reproductive health
and for the economic growth to have an impact on the population instead of being negated by the
seemingly high population growth rate.
Although the intentions are seemingly noble, the policy is still highly questionable in the light of
the principle of subsidiarity. Of course there are many arguments to counter or advance the two-child
Page | 20

21. policy but this section will just narrow down on just one aspect, namely, the right of the couple to
determine their life.
At the outset, it may seem that the Reproductive Health Bill really seeks to promote the welfare
of women and the general public with its touted programs and measures. In fairness to the proposed
bill, it really intends to create a better environment for women and the impoverished sector of the
population. However, no matter how good the intended result is, the question that needs to be asked is
whether the people directly affected (i.e. the subjects) are given the opportunity to participate in
deciding what is best for them. Subsidiarity guarantees the right of people to participate in the crafting
of the common good that will have a direct impact on their lives.
The decision as regards the number of children is a decision that can be made by the couples
themselves since they are both rational beings. However, this right to decide for their family is
threatened by such state policies that “strongly suggest” having lesser children by creating a more
beneficial condition for those who would follow the state’s suggestion of two children over those who
would not. Although not directly dictating the number of children, it may eventually lead to making this
policy the norm. Government should not replace or destroy smaller communities and individual
initiative. Rather it should help them contribute more effectively to social well-being and supplement
their activity when the demands of justice exceed their capacities (EJ, 124).
At the other side of the spectrum, the Catholic Church’s insistence on the use of only natural
methods in family planning can be a different form of interference in the couple’s autonomy. Gaudium
et Spes n. 16 affirms the primacy of conscience in letting a person decide the best course of action to
take. Although as a shepherd the Church can remind her flock about moral principles, it cannot coerce
couples (through threats of excommunication or hell) to use only one form of family planning, unless of
course there is a direct threat to the life of another . Again, couples have the capacity to decide on this
matter by themselves because their conscience knows what is best for them. It is either by following or
ignoring a conscience that a person will be judged by God.
Therefore, the issue of the Reproductive Health Bill (Lagman, 2008) is not just about whether
couples should use artificial contraceptives or not, or whether the woman’s rights are protected. The
more basic issue is whether the couples are being dictated upon, either explicitly or implicitly, to act
according to how a higher authority (State or Church) sees fit for them. The principle of subsidiarity is a
reminder that “just as it is gravely wrong to take from individuals what they can accomplish by their own
initiative and industry and give it to the community, so also it is an injustice and at the same time a
grave evil and disturbance of right order to assign to a greater and higher association what lesser and
subordinate organizations can do. For every social activity ought of its very nature to furnish help to the
members of the body social, and never destroy and absorb them” (QA, 79).
What can be done by the higher authority, which is still in keeping with subsidiarity, is to provide
"Access to education, economic opportunity, political stability, basic health care and support for the
family must remain the basis for achieving the [millennium goals]. These priorities throughout history
have provided the platform for economic and social growth and accompanying increase in responsible
parenthood" (Migliore, 2009). This way, population is not seen as a great hindrance to economic
development but vital contributors to the success of the Millennium Development Goals and greater
sustainable development" (Migliore, 2009).
Subsidiarity, aside from its role in the socio-economic order, can also serve to counter the
messianic tendencies in some people, groups or states. For while it is ideal to work for the
establishment of the values of the Kingdom of God here on earth, some people would develop a
messianic complex. “Messianic complex is not just the general wish - be it overt or covert - to redeem
the world or to improve the conditions of the world, but it includes another component just as
important. The messianic wish is not merely a general wish for improved conditions and for changes for
the better, but the wish of that private person to become personally the redeemer of the world.”
(Even-Yisrael, 2002)
What makes this dangerous is that, aside from denying the need for God’s help in one’s
undertaking, it has a tendency to ignore the autonomy of the people involved, not making them the
subjects of their own emancipation but the objects.
For those who seek to build the Kingdom, there will be some instances when people would
reject the offer of help. The Christian response always finds its origin and end in love. Therefore, it is
not right to abandon or neglect those who don’t want to be liberated or helped. Neither is it right to
force them to accept a solution or condition because it would go against subsidiarity. The only thing
Page | 21