Downloaded 10 times
![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](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/scl3notes-140315100459-phpapp02/75/Scl3-notes-21-2048.jpg)
![Again, the gap between the rich countries and the poor countries, the North and the South, is
manifested in the former’s attitude about mitigating or avoiding responsibility for their actions and in
how the latter become victims of the reckless use of natural resources, causing them to suffer more.
The burden of responsibility for global warming rests on developed countries because the
greenhouses they emitted tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and developed
countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries
than the poor countries.
As the World Resources Institute (WRI) highlighted in a report (2003), industrialized countries
are the biggest polluters:
• In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon
dioxide build-up in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total
of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5
times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively.
• Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in
industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides.
• The environmental consequences of the policies of industrialized nations have had a large,
detrimental and costly effect on developing countries — especially the poor in those countries,
that are already burdened with debt and poverty.
Industrialised countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing
countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any
restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the
industrialised countries’ emissions are still present in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, the North is
responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current
prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb
GHGs. (Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002)
The claim of some Annex I countries, particularly America, that the Kyoto Protocol is how such
emissions reductions would be disadvantageous to their development. To expect the developing
countries to make the same level of emissions reductions as that of rich nations is totally unfair because
the developing countries’ development and consumption is for basic needs, while the rich has moved on
to luxury consumption and associated lifestyles.
An example would be a poor farmer who, because he cannot afford to buy an LPG oven, uses
firewood to cook their family meal. This releases plenty of carbon monoxide to the air, contributing to
global warming, but it is necessary for his survival. At the other side of the spectrum is an urbanite who,
at the spur of the moment, thinks of going to the mall but leaves his air conditioner on to keep his room
cool, his computer on sleep mode, then drives a gas-guzzling Sports Utility Vehicle to a mall one ride
away from his house. Imagine the amount of carbon emissions he makes, all in order to support his
luxurious, and wasteful, lifestyle. Now, raise this example to the macro level and you see how grossly
unjust developed countries make use of the earth’s natural resources with utter disregard for those who
also need the same natural resources for their basic survival.
According to a Christian Aid report (September 1999), industrialized nations should be owing
over 600 billion dollars to the developing nations for the associated costs of climate changes. This is
three times as much as the conventional debt that developing countries owe the developed ones.
As the above-mentioned WRI report also adds: “Much of the growth in emissions in developing
countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in
industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the
average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions
between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20
times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.”
The Center for Science and Environment (CSE) adds:
“Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very
recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still
significantly lower than that of industrialised countries. The difference in emissions between
industrialised and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into
account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equalled that of 19 Indians.” (Shah, 2008)
Page | 24](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/scl3notes-140315100459-phpapp02/75/Scl3-notes-24-2048.jpg)
![because that is his purpose or role in the family. He does not need to be told because to act otherwise
would be contradicting his very purpose.
The story of Sodom reflected the inhospitality of Lot’s neighbors (cf. Gen. 19), earning for them
the wrath of God. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews, perhaps drawing from this story, reminded
his audience: “Do not neglect how to show hospitality, for by that means, some have entertained angels
without knowing it” (Heb. 13: 2).
PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF CST
Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind.
To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse.
To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better.
To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better.
King Whitney Jr.
A. Management of Wealth: Gospel of Wealth
At a time when the body of Catholic Social Teachings was being started, an industrialist who was
among the richest of his time wrote an essay that described the responsibility of philanthropy to those
who amassed great wealth during this time. His name was Andrew Carnegie. He sought to urge the rich
to re-distribute their wealth to society instead of allowing the heirs to squander their large inheritance.
Drawing reference to the rich man in the story of Lazarus, he seeks that the rich man “will approach his
end no longer the ignoble hoarder of useless millions; poor, very poor indeed, in money, but rich, very
rich, twenty times a millionaire still, in the affection, gratitude, and admiration of his fellow-men, and-
sweeter far-soothed and sustained by the still, small voice within, which, whispering, tells him that,
because he has lived, perhaps one small part of the great world has been bettered just a little.”
Below are some quotations taken from Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth. (taken from
(http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/carnegiegospelofwealth.html))
"The Gospel of Wealth"
According to Andrew Carnegie. 1889
Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was a massively successful business man. His enormous wealth was
based on the provision of iron and steel to the railways. But he was also a man who at least at the end of
his life recalled his radical roots in Scotland before his immigration to the United States. To resolve what
might seem to be contradictions between the creation of wealth, which he saw as proceeding from
immutable social laws, and his social conscience, he came up with the notion of the "gospel of wealth".
He lived up to his word, and gave away his fortune to socially beneficial projects, most famously by
funding libraries. His defense of the concept of estate taxes might surprise many billionaires of our time!
"The problem of our age is the administration (i.e. management) of wealth, so that the ties of
brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of
human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In
former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief
and those of his retainers . . . The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the
laborer with us today measures the change which has come with civilization.
This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay,
essential for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and
best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be
so. Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no
Maecenas [Note: a rich Roman patron of the arts]. The "good old times" were not good old times.
Neither master nor servant was as well situated then as to day. A relapse to old conditions would be
disastrous to both - not the least so to him who serves - and would sweep away civilization with it.
We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are
promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the
situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises - and, if the foregoing be
correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal - What is the proper mode of administering
wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it
Page | 30](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/scl3notes-140315100459-phpapp02/75/Scl3-notes-30-2048.jpg)
More Related Content
Scl3 notes
- 1. SEE-JUDGE-ACT There are threestages 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 toundertake 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 forcesus 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 iswhere 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 thisquestion, 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 complexitiesof 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 isa 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 directedtowards 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 vocationin 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 ANDRACISM “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, thevictory 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 begiven 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 asmany 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 oris 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 thatone 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 reformknown 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 thestate 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 thissection 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
- 22. that can bedone is to create an environment that is full of opportunities for people to attain their self- realization. The choice to utilize these opportunities will rest on the persons-subjects but will in no way be imposed on them. Jesus ministry and death gave people an idea of a condition freed from the effects of suffering and sin, otherwise called as Kingdom of God. Yet, he never forced his will on people but just enticed them to enter the Kingdom by demonstrating its positive consequences through his healing, exorcisms, table-fellowships, parables and Paschal Mystery. Ironically, Jesus was hailed as the Messiah but he never suffered from this messianic complex. Messianic complex denies the freedom of persons while subsidiarity guarantees it. Freedom is the highest expression of the person’s being because through it he or she becomes the author of the choices that would determine his or her ultimate goal and the constructor of the social order (cf. CSD, 135). STEWARDSHIP AND CLIMATE CHANGE “The blunt truth about the politics of climate change is that no country will want to sacrifice its economy in order to meet this challenge, but all economies know that the only sensible long term way of developing is to do it on a sustainable basis.” Tony Blair n 2006, former US Vice-president Al Gore presented a documentary entitled “An Inconvenient Truth.” It elicited mixed reactions but nobody denied the film’s assertion of a sense of urgency in addressing pressing environmental issues like climate change, greenhouse gases and carbon footprint, to name a few. I The film’s critics argued against its exaggeration of some scientific claims but by just looking at the data presented in the film about global warming, it is clear that the earth’s climate is changing. Although this has constantly happened since the birth of this planet, what makes this alarming is the rate at which it is happening, so much so that some species on this planet cannot adapt to the fast pace of this climate change. The effect is some species become extinct or are already on the verge of extinction. Ultimately, a heightened level of awareness provided by the film made many people more aware of their impact on the environment. This is symbolized by one’s ecological footprint. The ecological footprint is “a measure of human demand on the Earth's ecosystems. It compares human demand with planet Earth's ecological capacity to regenerate. It represents the amount of biologically productive land and sea area needed to regenerate the resources a human population consumes and to absorb and render harmless the corresponding waste. Using this assessment, it is possible to estimate how much of the Earth (or how many planet Earths) it would take to support humanity if everybody lived a given lifestyle. For 2005, humanity's total ecological footprint was estimated at 1.3 planet Earths - in other words, humanity uses ecological services 1.3 times faster than Earths can renew them. Every year, this number is recalculated - with a three year lag due to the time it takes for the UN to collect and publish all the underlying statistics.” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint ) The diagram below (from http:// www.informinc.org/global_footprint_network.php) illustrates this concept: Page | 22
- 23. One great factorthat undermines the Earth’s capacity to regenerate and renew its services is the problem of global warming, also known as climate change. Climate change “describes the full extent of the implications of the greenhouse effect. Whilst the average temperature of the Earth may increase, it is the changes in the Earth's climate systems that will be most dramatic. Extreme weather events such as droughts, floods, cyclones and frosts may effect areas previously unaffected or strike with increased frequency. Rising sea levels may affect rainfall patterns, soil erosion and local ecosystems“ (http://www.emissionstatement.com.au/Climate_Change_Glossary_of_Terms.html). The focus of this section, however, is not to delve into the causes of these environmental problems but the injustice it causes among peoples and among nations. (A more in-depth study of the cause of this problem is tackled by students in their course on Natural Science or NATSCI). Global warming is primarily a result of the industrialization and motorization levels in the OECD (Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development) countries, on whom the main responsibility for mitigation presently lies. (World Bank, Transport Economics and Sector Policy briefing, quoted from Collision Course; Free trade’s free ride on the global climate, New Economics Foundation, 2000) Measures to mitigate the environmental impact of industrialization have been drawn up initially through the UN’s environmental agency, culminating in the signing of an accord called the Kyoto Protocol. The major stumbling block to this effort was the strong refusal of the United States to sign the accord. They claim a certain double standard in the reduction of emission between Annex I countries, which are all industrialized countries, and Non-Annex I countries, like the Philippines. It has long been accepted that those industrialized nations that have been industrializing since the Industrial Revolution bear more responsibility for human-induced climate change. This is because greenhouse gases can remain in the atmosphere for decades. With a bit of historical context then, claims of equity and fairness take on a different meaning than simply suggesting all countries should be reducing emissions by the same amount. But some industrialized nations appear to reject or ignore this premise. Page | 23
- 24. Again, the gapbetween the rich countries and the poor countries, the North and the South, is manifested in the former’s attitude about mitigating or avoiding responsibility for their actions and in how the latter become victims of the reckless use of natural resources, causing them to suffer more. The burden of responsibility for global warming rests on developed countries because the greenhouses they emitted tend to remain in the atmosphere for many decades, and developed countries have been industrializing and emitting climate changing pollution for many more centuries than the poor countries. As the World Resources Institute (WRI) highlighted in a report (2003), industrialized countries are the biggest polluters: • In terms of historical emissions, industrialized countries account for roughly 80% of the carbon dioxide build-up in the atmosphere to date. Since 1950, the U.S. has emitted a cumulative total of roughly 50.7 billion tons of carbon, while China (4.6 times more populous) and India (3.5 times more populous) have emitted only 15.7 and 4.2 billion tons respectively. • Annually, more than 60 percent of global industrial carbon dioxide emissions originate in industrialized countries, where only about 20 percent of the world’s population resides. • The environmental consequences of the policies of industrialized nations have had a large, detrimental and costly effect on developing countries — especially the poor in those countries, that are already burdened with debt and poverty. Industrialised countries set out on the path of development much earlier than developing countries, and have been emitting GHGs [Greenhouse gases] in the atmosphere for years without any restrictions. Since GHG emissions accumulate in the atmosphere for decades and centuries, the industrialised countries’ emissions are still present in the earth’s atmosphere. Therefore, the North is responsible for the problem of global warming given their huge historical emissions. It owes its current prosperity to decades of overuse of the common atmospheric space and its limited capacity to absorb GHGs. (Background for COP 8, Center for Science and Environment, October 25, 2002) The claim of some Annex I countries, particularly America, that the Kyoto Protocol is how such emissions reductions would be disadvantageous to their development. To expect the developing countries to make the same level of emissions reductions as that of rich nations is totally unfair because the developing countries’ development and consumption is for basic needs, while the rich has moved on to luxury consumption and associated lifestyles. An example would be a poor farmer who, because he cannot afford to buy an LPG oven, uses firewood to cook their family meal. This releases plenty of carbon monoxide to the air, contributing to global warming, but it is necessary for his survival. At the other side of the spectrum is an urbanite who, at the spur of the moment, thinks of going to the mall but leaves his air conditioner on to keep his room cool, his computer on sleep mode, then drives a gas-guzzling Sports Utility Vehicle to a mall one ride away from his house. Imagine the amount of carbon emissions he makes, all in order to support his luxurious, and wasteful, lifestyle. Now, raise this example to the macro level and you see how grossly unjust developed countries make use of the earth’s natural resources with utter disregard for those who also need the same natural resources for their basic survival. According to a Christian Aid report (September 1999), industrialized nations should be owing over 600 billion dollars to the developing nations for the associated costs of climate changes. This is three times as much as the conventional debt that developing countries owe the developed ones. As the above-mentioned WRI report also adds: “Much of the growth in emissions in developing countries results from the provision of basic human needs for growing populations, while emissions in industrialized countries contribute to growth in a standard of living that is already far above that of the average person worldwide. This is exemplified by the large contrasts in per capita carbons emissions between industrialized and developing countries. Per capita emissions of carbon in the U.S. are over 20 times higher than India, 12 times higher than Brazil and seven times higher than China.” The Center for Science and Environment (CSE) adds: “Developing countries, on the other hand, have taken the road to growth and development very recently. In countries like India, emissions have started growing but their per capita emissions are still significantly lower than that of industrialised countries. The difference in emissions between industrialised and developing countries is even starker when per capita emissions are taken into account. In 1996, for instance, the emission of 1 US citizen equalled that of 19 Indians.” (Shah, 2008) Page | 24
- 25. This calls fora new form of solidarity, namely, ecological solidarity. It is first of all a realization of the limits of available resources and, secondly, of the need to respect the integrity and cycles of nature (SRS, 26). Since people have been created to have dominion over the earth, there is a moral requirement for the stewards to respect the beings which constitute the natural world, known to the ancient Greeks as the cosmos, by virtue of a three-fold consideration: 1) a growing awareness that nature cannot be used with impunity to satisfy economic needs; 2) natural resources are limited, some not being renewable; 3) consequences or the quality of life by haphazard industrialization. When God made man the master of creation, he was also limited when he was not allowed to eat of the forbidden tree. Although instructed to use and be involved with the creatures, people must still obey the laws of God because ultimately, they are for the well-being of human beings. The order that laws guarantee is for the easier attainment of perfection of the cosmos. Taking care of nature is important because it is the God-given duty to act as stewards to God’s creation. It is vital to people’s existence because people depend on it for their survival. “The Bible, from the first page on, teaches us that the whole of creation is for humanity, that it is men and women's responsibility to develop it by intelligent effort and by means of their labor to perfect it, so to speak, for their use. If the world is made to furnish each individual with the means of livelihood and the instruments for growth and progress, all people have therefore the right to find in the world what is necessary for them” (PP, 22). THE CALL FOR JUSTICE AND CHANGE “What is already owed in justice cannot be offered in charity.” Pope Paul VI recent experiment at UCLA discovered that being treated fairly turns on the brain’s rewards circuitry. The study’s co-author, Matthew D. Lieberman, claimed, "We may come to be wired to treat fairness as a reward." (http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/17690)AThe study’s author, Golnaz Tabibnia averred that, "Receiving a fair offer activates the same brain circuitry as when we eat craved food, win money or see a beautiful face." The significance of this study reinforces the notion that being treated fairly satisfies a basic need. In Maslow’s hierarchy of needs, satisfying the basic needs is prerequisite to achieving self- actualization. However, in the bible, justice is seen not as a mere physical or biological need but more importantly, it is a call from God. “Let justice roll like a river” (Amos 5: 24-27). This vocation originated from the Israelites’ Exodus experience where Yahweh revealed himself as the liberator of the oppressed and suffering. Such act of graciousness from God demanded faithfulness from the people expressed in the exercise of justice towards one’s neighbours. This is contained in the covenant formula “I will be your God, you will be my people.” (cf. Ex. 19: 4-6). God’s covenant with the Israelites, as mentioned in Exodus and Deuteronomy, demanded the fulfilment of certain obligations to help the poor and the suffering since the Israelites were also once oppressed in Egypt. Prophets like Amos, Hosea and Deutero-Isaiah held people accountable for their sins in relation to Israel’s covenant with God. The Deuteronomist historian judged kings by their adherence to the precepts of God’s concern for the poor. Thus, Israel’s faith in God must translate into living out the same graciousness they experienced from God through concern for the least members of society. The Jubilee Year (cf. Lev. 25) is a good example of this demand. Held every fifty years (one year after seven Sabbath years), it has four demands, namely, 1. rest of land 2. freedom of slaves 3. return of land or property 4. cancellation of debts Page | 25 Figure taken from: http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/emissions/images/GGGE2000Medium.gif
- 26. For the creditors,it may seem unfair, or even unjust, to wipe out their debtors’ obligation to them. But this action, though unsound in capitalism, demonstrated their faithfulness to God’s covenant. This is because God has blessed them (creditors) with material prosperity so they are obliged to help uplift the people mired in debt and deprivation who find it difficult to go ahead in life. Therefore, this Jubilee Year tries to promote social equality by lessening the gap between the “haves” and “have-nots”. Jesus had a similar parable about two debtors (Mt. 18: 23-35) where a generous king was angered at his debtor’s lack of compassion towards the latter’s debtor who owed him less money. This just showed God’s expectation of people to reciprocate his goodness to other people. Jesus also called on his disciples to love one another as he has loved them because this will make the world recognize them as his followers (cf. Jn. 13: 34-35). This love has always been emphasized as the center of the gospel of salvation (e.g. Jn. 3: 16). The Second Vatican Council (1962-65) sought to engage the world in dialogue and fruitful action. In the opening message of John XXIII, he said that the Council was meant to renew "ourselves and the flocks committed to us, so that there may radiate before all men the lovable features of Jesus Christ, who shines in our hearts that God's splendor may be revealed." (http://mb- soft.com/believe/txs/secondvc.htm) It brought fresh air into the Church, re-emphasizing “orthopraxis,” or right actions, alongside “orthodoxy,” or right beliefs. The 1971 Synod of Bishops re-echoed the demands of discipleship in more concrete ways: “Action on behalf of justice and participation in the transformation of the world fully appear to us as a constitutive dimension of the preaching of the Gospel, or, in other words, of the Church's mission for the redemption of the human race and its liberation from every oppressive situation” (JW, 6). "The Church has the right, indeed the duty, to proclaim justice on the social, national, and international level, and to denounce instances of injustice, when the fundamental rights of man and his very salvation demand it. The Church, indeed, is not alone responsible for justice in the world; however, she has a proper and specific responsibility which is identified with her mission of giving witness before the world of the need for love and justice contained in the gospel message, a witness to be carried out in Church institutions themselves and in the lives of Christians" (JW, 36). This justice is the virtue that must govern the state of relations among peoples in working towards the common good. This is where the famous definition of justice can be applied. Justice is “giving what is due to others.” To understand the true nature of justice, the basic truth about human persons must first be re-affirmed. All human persons are basically equal by virtue of their common nature of having dignity derived from being created in God’s image. Part of being created in God’s image is having the gift of rationality. This rationality orients people toward their destiny which is soteria or salvation (self- actualization, self-realization, or humanization). However, they are also guaranteed rights so that they will be unobstructed in fulfilling their goal. But since they exist as relational beings in an imperfect world, these rights must be governed by duties and laws to preserve the social order. The principle of justice measures these actions as whether fair or unfair, legal or illegal, equal or unequal, alike or unalike, as long it arrives at giving what is due to people. The Catholic Social Teachings distinguishes four dimensions of justice to guarantee that the minimum level of care and respect are given to other people. These are distributive justice, commutative justice, legal justice, and social justice. “Commutative justice calls for fundamental fairness in all agreements and exchanges between individuals or private social groups” (EJA, 69). It can exist between individuals (e.g. an employer and his laborer), an individual to a group (e.g. a teacher to his or her class), or two groups (e.g. nation’s trade agreements). This form of justice takes the form of restitution. “Distributive justice requires that the allocation of income, wealth, and power in society be evaluated in light of its effects on persons whose basic material needs are unmet” (EJA, 70). It involves the sharing of the goods of creation in a fair and equal manner to meet human needs. An example is when government spends the taxes reasonably collected for basic health services, education, infrastructures, or employment opportunities. Putting up a business is another means to re-distribute resources accumulated by a few. Legal justice relates to the citizen’s obligations toward the government or society, without prejudice to the right of conscientious objection or even civil disobedience (McBrien, 1994). This Page | 26
- 27. demands citizens topay their taxes according to the size of their wealth or income, or for the citizens to vote in elections to determine the public leaders. This is because people are duty-bound to contribute to the common good. “Social justice implies that persons have an obligation to be active and productive participants in the life of society and that society has a duty to enable them to participate in this way” (EJA, 71). Sometimes, social justice is used synonymously with legal justice, but for the purposes of this work, social justice encompasses a wider breadth because it “relates to the obligation of all parties to apply the Gospel to the structures, systems, and institutions of society which are the framework which all human relationships take place” (McBrien, 1994) so that the rights of people are guaranteed. This can take the form of individuals or groups advancing a particular advocacy for solutions to a given issue. These forms of justice are interrelated but at the same time limiting. True, on the one hand they can provide principles of discernment and specific guides for judgment, but on the other hand, it can still fall short and be reduced to mere legalism. This can be seen in Jesus parable about the master and his vineyard. "The kingdom of heaven is like a landowner who went out at dawn to hire laborers for his vineyard. After agreeing with them for the usual daily wage, he sent them into his vineyard. Going out about nine o'clock, he saw others standing idle in the marketplace, and he said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard, and I will give you what is just.' So they went off. (And) he went out again around noon, and around three o'clock, and did likewise. Going out about five o'clock, he found others standing around, and said to them, 'Why do you stand here idle all day?' They answered, 'Because no one has hired us.' He said to them, 'You too go into my vineyard.' When it was evening the owner of the vineyard said to his foreman, 'Summon the laborers and give them their pay, beginning with the last and ending with the first.' When those who had started about five o'clock came, each received the usual daily wage. So when the first came, they thought that they would receive more, but each of them also got the usual wage. And on receiving it they grumbled against the landowner, saying, 'These last ones worked only one hour, and you have made them equal to us, who bore the day's burden and the heat.' He said to one of them in reply, 'My friend, I am not cheating you. Did you not agree with me for the usual daily wage? Take what is yours and go. What if I wish to give this last one the same as you? (Or) am I not free to do as I wish with my own money? Are you envious because I am generous?' Thus, the last will be first, and the first will be last." (Mt. 20: 1-16) Many people are of the opinion that the master did not treat his workers justly with regards their wage, but reflecting further, why would Jesus use this parable to demonstrate the Kingdom of God where God’s justice rules? Has justice been upheld or promoted? The basic problem surrounding justice is the measurement that is used in applying this principle. Some would base it on merit, number of hours, amount paid, inherent skills or talents, or size, to name a few. However, these criteria can still leave a person discontented. For example, by distributive justice, all people will be given one cup of rice in a meal. Is this already fair? How about teen-age boys? Will one cup of rice be enough for them? For some, it is too much, for others, too little. Yet, by applying an empirical criterion like volume, one cup is equal to all. Or in the case of the parable above, one hour of work for the same pay as of those who worked for nine hours is grossly unfair in terms of number of hours rendered. What is noticeable about these measurements used in the application of justice is that material things (e.g. volume, hours, wages) are often used to dictate what is equal or fair. This makes a judgment open to many questions because it seems to be fair on the outset (e.g. 8 hours of work for a daily wage) but underneath a more fundamental requirement of justice seems to be unaddressed. What then is the true measurement of justice? Looking back at the parable, the master was a just person in the sense that when he hired laborers after eight o’clock (the start of the working hours), he still gave them the same amount of pay. It was because the workers will come home at the end of the day to provide for their families through their earnings. Lesser earnings would not necessarily mean lesser expenses for the worker and his family, and this is what the master recognized. He gave his laborers the same amount, regardless of their number of hours, because he wanted to ensure that the laborers will have enough money to provide for the needs of their families. Thus, the true measurement of justice will always be what is good for the human person. Page | 27
- 28. The Compendium notesthat “from a subjective point of view, justice is translated into behaviour that is based on the will to recognize the other as a person, while, from an objective point of view, it constitutes the decisive criteria of morality in the intersubjective and social sphere” (CSD, 201). Justice is rooted in the Latin word “ius,” which means “right". Since people have rights, they can make claim to what is appropriate to their existence. That is why justice is defined as simply “giving what is due.” But what is due to people? It is those which are essential for achieving the purpose for which people are destined as rational persons: their humanization. In the end, what is the basic right that people lay claim to when they seek justice? It is simply the right to a meaningful life, facilitated when people keep in mind that they also owe other people the same opportunity that they themselves seek towards self-actualization. Justice has as its fruit the ensuring of the common good, but by itself, it will always be incomplete. It must allow itself to be overshadowed by love. Jesus teaches us that “the fundamental law of human perfection, and consequently of the transformation of the world, is the new commandment of love” (cf. Mt 22:40, Jn 15:12; Col 3:14; Jas 2:8) (CSD, 580). What makes love a human act is that it arises out of the person’s choice to do so with no conditions whatsoever. Thus, a person becomes more human by loving because a person acts upon his or her freedom more. In the social sphere, love always seeks what is good for the other. In exercising love in justice, society is perfected because it is making progress towards what is essentially good for its members, not by being a stickler for rules or material conventions for justice, but keeping in mind the subject of justice: the person. FAMILY AS LOCUS OF CHANGE Family isn't about whose blood you have. It's about who you care about. Trey Parker and Matt Stone, South Park, Ike's Wee Wee, 1998 he principles contained herein find its first inception in the family. Not only is the family called the vital cell of society because it is a building block, but also because the values a society espouses are first formed here.TThe family finds its origin in the communion of persons, the spouses. They are drawn together by love which, like God’s love for his people, always seeks the well-being of the other. In this union, the partners make a total gift of self to the other, at the same time affirming the other’s gift of self. Such giving bears fruit in the procreation of children whose rights to a fulfilled life are guaranteed inside the family circle through education and generosity of the parents. In a family, the fundamental equality among peoples is first established because each member respects the inherent worth of the each individual. The adage “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs” makes a strong case here. However, the bigger challenge is how to translate the experience inside the family as the leaven for social change. Jose de Mesa, in his book “Marriage is Discipleship” (1995), makes an observation about the family in the context of the history of the Filipino people. He describes it as a “history of insecurity.” He notes: Society in history was, in general, not experienced as kind and provident. Deprived of the security which society should have provided them, Filipinos turned naturally to the members of their family or their kinship group for it. The absence of an alternative source of security virtually forced every family to see to its own (and only its own) security. Brothers and sisters help one another, protect each other, and work together for the happiness of the family. An older brother or sister who has finished schooling and currently working now supports the education of his or her younger brothers and sisters. The phenomenon of overseas workers and professionals doing the work of domestic helpers abroad is also related to this overriding concern for the welfare of the family. Even the psychological (and at times, physical) costs of marrying a virtually unknown foreigner are not considered too high for the sake of the family. These people Page | 28
- 29. send money homeso that the family can get along well financially. And when they have set aside enough to buy even a second-hand jeepney, they proudly paint the family name on it. Taking into account the socio-economic situation of Philippine society discussed in the early chapters, it is easy to see the effect on the family into becoming the only source of security. In a situation where injustice is structural and opportunities are lacking, the family takes as the highest value its own security and stability with little or no regard on its effect to the larger group. Brought to the extreme, overly concern for the family’s welfare becomes an obstacle to the development of the nation. The attitude of “tayo-tayo lamang” (just us) and “kanya-kanya” (to each his own) prevails. One can cite the example of many Filipino households who clean their house well but do not care where their trash goes as long as their own house is clean. Such a self-serving attitude constitutes what is called a “culture of insecurity.” This culture of insecurity sees the primacy of family interests taking priority over needs far from the ambit of the family. The practice of graft and corruption is a good example of a politician looking after his private welfare against common good. Economic benefits are not evenly distributed because the selfish public servant is not only drawn by love of money but also by a distorted love for one’s own family or clan. Other forms of this phenomenon are: “political family dynasties, private armies, the compadrazco system (extended family by association) used as social security system, nepotism, patron- client relations whereby the elite build up their alliances from heavily dependent families, and family corporations both in business and education” (de Mesa, 1995). Going back to what has initially affirmed about the family, it is the first locus of education and experience of solidarity, which has as its intended purpose the self-actualization or well-being of persons. However, the negative situation of Philippine society somehow affects the family to move inward rather than outward. Although living in a society, it only seeks their individual good. Therefore, to become witnesses of Christ to the world, it needs to take the path of conversion. John’s letter makes no distinction between love of God and love of neighbor (cf. 1 Jn. 4). One is constitutive of the other. And how do families concretize the mission towards which they are called? “Hospitality gives witness to the living presence of Jesus in the world and manifests the genuine nature of the domestic Church (cf. GS, 48). When families act as hosts, they make visible and palpable (i.e., sacramentalize) today Jesus’ continuing hospitality and, therefore, lead people to the recognition of his presence in their human experiences” (cf. de Mesa, 1995). People during Jesus’ ministry recognized his hospitality because he accommodated the needs of people. Moreover, the disciples recognized Jesus’ resurrection when he acted as hosts to them. Hospitality is also the virtue that most foreigners appreciate about the Filipinos who would go to great lengths to ensure the comfort of their guests. The Emmaus incident (Lk. 24:34-35) narrates the story of two disciples walking who were later joined by Jesus in discussing the fate of the Messiah. Jesus was only recognized by the two after he took the bread, blessed it, broke it and gave it to them. The same can be said in another of apparition after the resurrection. Jesus was literally host here, causing the disciples finally to open their eyes. The family is then called to imitate Jesus as a gracious host, not revolving only around its own interests but reaching out to the bigger group. Children in the family are taught to exhibit love and care for its fellow members, but it should not end there. De Mesa reiterates how hospitality can be a rewarding outreach. He mentions a research project in the United States which focused on the characteristics of healthy families. It arrived at the conclusion that most of the healthy families invested in wide circles of outside concern. The researchers concluded that “human beings cannot fully develop their potential identities and social potential solely within the family. They need the larger society as well as the more intimate family group in order to satisfy the multiple dimensions of their nature.” (de Mesa, 1995) To speak of the family as a communion of persons, it not only seeks the welfare of its members but, like Jesus, accommodates other people who are in most need of comfort or a good chance in life. The solidarity found in their treatment of one another must be repeated to other families. The exercise of justice and charity in responding to the needs of its members should also transcend blood ties. To think of the Church as family would not anymore see the demands of feeding the sick, clothing the naked or visiting the sick as obligations or conditions of discipleship, but a given because everybody is united by the same family ties. Such actions are seen as flowing from the very definition of being a family member. For example, a father knows that by his nature, he seeks out the good of his family, Page | 29
- 30. because that ishis purpose or role in the family. He does not need to be told because to act otherwise would be contradicting his very purpose. The story of Sodom reflected the inhospitality of Lot’s neighbors (cf. Gen. 19), earning for them the wrath of God. The writer of the letter to the Hebrews, perhaps drawing from this story, reminded his audience: “Do not neglect how to show hospitality, for by that means, some have entertained angels without knowing it” (Heb. 13: 2). PRACTICAL APPLICATION OF CST Change has a considerable psychological impact on the human mind. To the fearful it is threatening because it means that things may get worse. To the hopeful it is encouraging because things may get better. To the confident it is inspiring because the challenge exists to make things better. King Whitney Jr. A. Management of Wealth: Gospel of Wealth At a time when the body of Catholic Social Teachings was being started, an industrialist who was among the richest of his time wrote an essay that described the responsibility of philanthropy to those who amassed great wealth during this time. His name was Andrew Carnegie. He sought to urge the rich to re-distribute their wealth to society instead of allowing the heirs to squander their large inheritance. Drawing reference to the rich man in the story of Lazarus, he seeks that the rich man “will approach his end no longer the ignoble hoarder of useless millions; poor, very poor indeed, in money, but rich, very rich, twenty times a millionaire still, in the affection, gratitude, and admiration of his fellow-men, and- sweeter far-soothed and sustained by the still, small voice within, which, whispering, tells him that, because he has lived, perhaps one small part of the great world has been bettered just a little.” Below are some quotations taken from Carnegie’s Gospel of Wealth. (taken from (http://liberalslikechrist.org/about/carnegiegospelofwealth.html)) "The Gospel of Wealth" According to Andrew Carnegie. 1889 Andrew Carnegie (1835-1919) was a massively successful business man. His enormous wealth was based on the provision of iron and steel to the railways. But he was also a man who at least at the end of his life recalled his radical roots in Scotland before his immigration to the United States. To resolve what might seem to be contradictions between the creation of wealth, which he saw as proceeding from immutable social laws, and his social conscience, he came up with the notion of the "gospel of wealth". He lived up to his word, and gave away his fortune to socially beneficial projects, most famously by funding libraries. His defense of the concept of estate taxes might surprise many billionaires of our time! "The problem of our age is the administration (i.e. management) of wealth, so that the ties of brotherhood may still bind together the rich and poor in harmonious relationship. The conditions of human life have not only been changed, but revolutionized, within the past few hundred years. In former days there was little difference between the dwelling, dress, food, and environment of the chief and those of his retainers . . . The contrast between the palace of the millionaire and the cottage of the laborer with us today measures the change which has come with civilization. This change, however, is not to be deplored, but welcomed as highly beneficial. It is well, nay, essential for the progress of the race that the houses of some should be homes for all that is highest and best in literature and the arts, and for all the refinements of civilization, rather than that none should be so. Much better this great irregularity than universal squalor. Without wealth there can be no Maecenas [Note: a rich Roman patron of the arts]. The "good old times" were not good old times. Neither master nor servant was as well situated then as to day. A relapse to old conditions would be disastrous to both - not the least so to him who serves - and would sweep away civilization with it. We start, then, with a condition of affairs under which the best interests of the race are promoted, but which inevitably gives wealth to the few. Thus far, accepting conditions as they exist, the situation can be surveyed and pronounced good. The question then arises - and, if the foregoing be correct, it is the only question with which we have to deal - What is the proper mode of administering wealth after the laws upon which civilization is founded have thrown it into the hands of the few? And it Page | 30
- 31. is of thisgreat question that I believe I offer the true solution. It will be understood that fortunes are here spoken of, not moderate sums saved by many years of effort, the returns from which are required for the comfortable maintenance and education of families. This is not wealth, but only competence, which it should be the aim of all to acquire. There are but three modes in which surplus wealth can be disposed of. (1) It can be left to the families of the decedents; or (2) it can be bequeathed for public purposes; or, finally, (3) it can be administered during their lives by its possessors. Under the first and second modes most of the wealth of the world that has reached the few has hitherto been applied. Let us in turn consider each of these modes. {1)The first is the most injudicious. In monarchial countries, the estates and the greatest portion of the wealth are left to the first son, that the vanity of the parent may be gratified by the thought that his name and title are to descend to succeeding generations unimpaired. The condition of this class in Europe today teaches the futility of such hopes or ambitions. The successors have become impoverished through their follies or from the fall in the value of land. . . Why should men leave great fortunes to their children? If this is done from affection, is it not misguided affection? Observation teaches that, generally speaking, it is not well for the children that they should be so burdened. Neither is it well for the state. Beyond providing for the wife and daughters moderate sources of income, and very moderate allowances indeed, if any, for the sons, men may well hesitate, for it is no longer questionable that great sums bequeathed oftener work more for the injury than for the good of the recipients. Wise men will soon conclude that, for the best interests of the members of their families and of the state, such bequests are an improper use of their means. {2)As to the second mode, that of leaving wealth at death for public uses, it may be said that this is only a means for the disposal of wealth, provided a man is content to wait until he is dead before it becomes of much good in the world. . . The cases are not few in which the real object sought by the testator is not attained, nor are they few in which his real wishes are thwarted. . . The growing disposition to tax more and more heavily large estates left at death is a cheering indication of the growth of a salutary change in public opinion. . . Of all forms of taxation, this seems the wisest. Men who continue hoarding great sums all their lives, the proper use of which for public ends would work good to the community, should be made to feel that the community, in the form of the state, cannot thus be deprived of its proper share. By taxing estates heavily at death, the state marks its condemnation of the selfish millionaire's unworthy life. . . . This policy would work powerfully to induce the rich man to attend to the administration of wealth during his life, which is the end that society should always have in view, as being that by far most fruitful for the people. . . {3)There remains, then, only one mode of using great fortunes: but in this way we have the true antidote for the temporary unequal distribution of wealth, the reconciliation of the rich and the poor - a reign of harmony - another ideal, differing, indeed from that of the Communist in requiring only the further evolution of existing conditions, not the total overthrow of our civilization. It is founded upon the present most intense individualism, and the race is prepared to put it in practice by degrees whenever it pleases. Under its sway we shall have an ideal state, in which the surplus wealth of the few will become, in the best sense, the property of the many, because administered for the common good, and this wealth, passing through the hands of the few, can be made a much more potent force for the elevation of our race than if it had been distributed in small sums to the people themselves. Even the poorest can be made to see this, and to agree that great sums gathered by some of their fellow citizens and spent for public purposes, from which the masses reap the principal benefit, are more valuable to them than if scattered among them through the course of many years in trifling amounts. This, then, is held to be the duty of the man of Wealth: First, to set an example of modest, unostentatious living, shunning display or extravagance; to provide moderately for the legitimate wants of those dependent upon him; and after doing so to consider all surplus revenues which come to him simply as trust funds, which he is called upon to administer, and strictly bound as a matter of duty to administer in the manner which, in his judgment, is best calculated to produce the most beneficial result for the community - the man of wealth thus becoming the sole agent and trustee for his poorer brethren, bringing to their service his superior wisdom, experience, and ability to administer - doing for them better than they would or could do for themselves." B. Corporate Social Responsibility: Business with Ethics Page | 31
- 32. If capitalism borneof the industrial revolution put primacy on efficiency for greater profit, this truth has been challenged by the emergence of a new philosophy in the workplace. This first started by putting emphasis on doing business with ethics. However, some of the disadvantages were the lack of consistency in implementing it since not all were practicing it, and the impact on society was not far- reaching, again because it was just sporadic. However, in the past two decades, the call to institutionalize the application of ethics in business gave birth to corporate social responsibility (CSR). Suddenly, businesses were not just focused on raking in profit at all cost. Responsibility is not only to the company stockholders but also to the long-term implications of their business practice as a way of looking at the viability of their business model. CSR is not to be confused with philanthropy because the latter’s act of giving is tied to the profit of the company and its effects are not properly ensured. The former, meanwhile, incorporates values in the daily operations of the company (e.g. large establishments using water-free urinals to save on water), and it involves three core components, namely: “how companies engage key stakeholders to address key social issues (community involvement); how they ensure that the core functions of business create values and do not harm the society (operations); and how businesses align commercial activities to create value to the society and company (products and services).” (http://www.lcf.org.ph/lcf/content/business-%E2%80%9Cmonastery%E2%80%9D-21st-century) Below is a further exposition of this corporate practice. (taken from (http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-corporate-responsibility.htm ) “Every company or business usually starts out with its own set agenda, which differs from business to business. A lot of businesses exist simply to make money. There are others who seriously wish to provide a needed service to a community or to the world. Each of these businesses has a corporate responsibility to the public, its shareholders and the world it trades in. In its most basic terms, corporate responsibility can come down to the ethics of a business. Each company has its own set of core values, but the company’s values also touch everyone that the business deals with. Years ago, a company’s corporate responsibility was dictated by its government. There were set laws that had to be adhered to regarding financial and social responsibility. Today, however, corporate responsibility has to take into account the world that we live in on a much wider scale. The public has become much more globally aware, and there are a number of groups that monitor corporations closely. These groups have the conditions of the world in mind. They think about the social issues of the world, such as labor laws and the exploitation of workers. They are also concerned with environmental issues, such as the rainforests disappearing. Corporations are now held accountable not just by the government, but also by the public. Corporate responsibility must now take into account how dealings with customers, shareholders and employees are seen by the world. Large global corporations know that people are watching them and that any wrongdoing will not go unnoticed. Many companies have a social conscience, treat employees fairly and try to do the best for their shareholders while trying to be socially responsible. There are, however, many other corporations who see nothing wrong with employing third world country workers to make their products. It is only due to groups who monitor such activities that these issues become public. Many corporations have been forced into taking corporate responsibility. They know that it does not make good business sense to be seen as a company that is damaging the world that we live in. Huge penalties and fines also await corporations that break ethical and environmental laws. Corporate responsibility has a huge impact not only on the local community, but also on the world. Its affects are social, economic and environmental. Bad and good corporate responsibility has effects that reach from the worker in the third world country to the air that we breathe.” CONCLUSION: A CIVILIZATION OF LOVE The unique gift of rationality given to people makes them standout from the rest of all creation because it makes them seek their destiny. This persistent quest for meaning tries to understand the very nature of life, one’s actions, environment, relationships, and ultimately, death. Socrates reminds Page | 32
- 33. people that “anunexamined life is not worth living.” A meaningful existence is equivalent to a life fully lived (humanization). Yet as a Christian or a believer, this search for meaning will be incomplete if it does not arrive at the Ultimate Cause of everything: God. For while it may be doubtful to attach certain qualities to God, unless this is perceived by faith, the existence of a Cause is difficult to refute because reason always looks for a cause. This Cause is the source of the order found within nature and the end towards which it will reach its perfection. This Cause alone provides the complete meaning of all that exists. The re-discovery of a branch of theology known as eschatology (study of the last things) contributed to adding a sense of purpose to people’s existence. It recognizes the eternal plan of God operative since the beginning of time. This plan is always moving in a certain order towards a certain goal. Christians believe that this plan finds its beginning (alpha) and end (omega) in the goodness of God. The plan God instilled in creation is his plan of salvation, which always seeks what is good for his creatures. Love is the cause why God created and it is also the purpose towards which he draws all of creation (cf. Sir. 15:14). The emergence of many religious movements can attest to people’s growing thirst to make a sense of their earthly existence. Science may provide explanations about cause and effect but cannot on its own arrive at the ultimate cause of things. It cannot be the source itself because material things are still caused by something else and are temporal in nature. “To these basic questions about the meaning and purpose of human life the Church responds with the proclamation of the Gospel of Christ, which liberates the dignity of the human person from changing opinions and ensures the freedom of men and women as no human law can do.” (CSD, 576) The identity of a Christian cannot be understood apart from the model of humanization: Jesus. Christians see him as the “cause” of their involvement in the work of salvation because his words and deeds were appealing to them. The words of Paul in Galatians 5:1 that “it was for freedom that Christ has set us free!” signify Jesus’ mission to free people from conditions that oppress people’s dignity, denying them of their true nature as beings with worth. But the work does not end there. Jesus’ freedom of humankind from a negative existence also makes people free for something. Since freedom has been mentioned as fundamental to human dignity, it follows that it must be brought to its full actualization. By learning from the Master himself, Jesus perfected his freedom by exercising compassion and solidarity with his fellow human beings. Love is the ultimate expression of freedom because love is not motivated by any ulterior motive but just the decision of the person to do so. The act of loving helps a person mature because it involves a firm conviction to act, and responsible actions build up a person’s character. “Modern psychologists (Erich Fromm, Rollo May, et al.) insist that a person’s capacity to love depends on his or her personal maturity. Love requires self-knowledge, effort, conviction, courage, generosity, respect, a sense of responsibility, sensitivity, patience and a fundamental acceptance of oneself with all of one’s strengths and limitations” (McBrien, 1994). In addition, because of the social nature of people, it will ultimately build up the fellowship of people. The principles laid down in the Catholic Social Teachings have one purpose in life: to establish a civilization of love. True, justice is essential in affirming and actualizing the inherent dignity of persons and the common good. However, justice in itself is incomplete because all virtues must be permeated and informed by love because every virtue is an expression of love. (cf. 1 Cor. 13: 4ff). Justice alone may result in vengeance or legalism in the same way that “faith without love is ideology; hope without love is self-centeredness; forgiveness without love is self-abasement; fortitude without love is recklessness; generosity without love is extravagance; care without love is mere duty; fidelity without love is servitude” (McBrien, 1994). The civilization of love recognizes the dignity of persons, respecting the rights that arise out of their dignity. Through actions of solidarity, the common good is promoted by showing preferential treatment to the marginalized (option for the poor) and responsible management of resources (stewardship, authentic human development, universal destination of goods). People are left to their own counsel (subsidiarity) but also provided the necessary opportunities to engage in productive enterprises (dignity of work). This is another picture of the Kingdom of God where people experience his salvation begun since the start of creation. For many people, the Catholic Social Teachings seem too idealistic to implement, especially in a consumeristic society where “having” is the measuring stick of quality living. One’s experience in socialization can prove that unless one has the proper connections and enough resources, life will really Page | 33
- 34. be difficult. Ina profit-oriented environment, what works is that which is efficient for business. Concern for others’ welfare can be taxing on one’s efforts and resources. Add to that the criticism of some people who are not comfortable of having the status quo disturbed. Some critics would even write off these ideas because no matter how feel-good they are, in the end “poor people cannot afford to have principles.” As people of the resurrection, Christians are not just looking at the present but are also looking forward to the future with hope. Christ set a perfect example of what it means to work for the Kingdom by never wavering in his mission (e.g. Agony in the Garden), being brave to stand up for the rights of the oppressed and marginalized (e.g. dining with outcasts, cleansing of the Temple), and ultimately being killed on the cross in standing up for his convictions. His ministry signalled that the Kingdom is already here but not yet complete, so his disciples have to continue his work until God’s justice and righteousness will fully reign. Therefore, Christians see themselves not as the author of the civilization of love but merely its workers. They are not the ones responsible for the success of their work, but merely faithful servants trying to do the will of the Master, until he says, “Well done, good and faithful servant” (Mt. 25:21). Meddlers (“pakialamero”) are not liked in society because they don’t have any business poking their noses in other people’s business. Yet in scriptures, one can see God choosing meddlers in doing his work because they are those who could not remain neutral in the face of a negative situation. There was Moses who meddled in the affairs of an Egyptian slave master and a Hebrew slave, eventually killing the latter. There were the prophets who were disliked because they would call the attention of both royalty and priests, saying unpleasant things to hear. For example, John the Baptist lost his head for meddling in the affairs of King Herod and Herodias. Finally, there is Jesus who was a radical non- conformist. He sided with the oppressed and challenged traditional practices discriminating against the marginalized. All of these meddlers were unpopular but they did not cater to the opinion of others because it was clear to them that the only opinion that mattered was God’s because it was his plan that they were doing. They don’t meddle just for the sake of doing it but do it with a purpose of heralding the coming of the Kingdom of God. “Let me be the change I want to see.” These are brave words uttered by a man who walked the talk. His name was Mahatma Gandhi. He did not just passively wait for the freedom of his people but he actively engaged his situation, even at the cost of his life. No one can deny the impact his life and death had on the Indian nation. Long before him, Jesus’ life and death liberated people from the negative situation of sin. Suffering has not ceased to exist. Some people complain but stop there. A few would complain not just to release hot air but also to seek change and act in ways to bring this about. They are few, considering the number of people who profess to be Christians. Ultimately, these are the people whom Jesus will recognize as his own since they have labored to love their neighbors even under hostile conditions (cf. Story of the Good Samaritan in Lk. 10: 25-37). The best-kept secrets of the Church have been exposed. They are uncomfortable to hear because the values they espouse are counter-cultural, therefore unpopular. Should they be kept in the open or in the dark? Would one be willing to make a conversion for something good to happen or remain apathetic and perpetuate the problem? The poet Ralph Waldo Emerson has some encouraging words for those people who are thinking of what future they want for this world: “How do you measure success? To laugh often, and much; to win the respect of intelligent people and the affection of children; to earn the appreciation of honest critics and endure the betrayal of false friends; to appreciate beauty; to find the best in others; to leave the world a bit better, whether by a healthy child, a redeemed social condition, or a job well done; to know even one other life has breathed because you lived this is to have succeeded.” Page | 34