21. The Common Good
10. The Purpose of Society: The Common Good
The unity of society is shown through the concerted effort of all its members to attain the common good. “The common good embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfilment.”1 These conditions can be summed up in the rights and duties of each person and social group. These rights and duties are natural, and therefore prior to any particular juridical ordination. They do not stem from human will. “We must however, reject the view that the will of the individual or the group is the primary and only source of a citizen’s rights and duties, and of the binding force of political constitutions and the government’s authority.”2 Public authority, citizens, and each intermediate association must all contribute to the common good in their own ways. The aspects of the common good range from external goods—material possessions that are necessary for health and welfare—to spiritual goods in which man has the right to participate—peace, culture, education, social order, and the different aspects of freedom.
The ultimate and full expression of the common good is God—common good by causality of all the beings of the universe. This Supreme Good is the source of authority, wanted by God in order to guarantee the temporal common good of citizens. It is thus in the common good that all the reasons for the legitimacy of the state lie. The teaching of the Church rejects the unconditional subordination of all private initiatives to state authority.
To consider the State as something ultimate, to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. This can happen either when unrestricted dominion comes to be conferred on the State as having a mandate from the nation, people, or even a social order, or when the State arrogates such dominion to itself as absolute master, despotically, without any mandate whatsoever.3
11. Common Good: The Good of All Men
11a) A Common Undertaking
All citizens must contribute to the common good, though not all in the same way. Social justice, which extends to all citizens, covers both the participation in the common good and the contribution to its maintenance by sharing the resulting burdens.
Besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set of obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand from each individual all that is necessary for the common good.4
11b) Essential Elements of the Common Good
The common good embraces three essential elements5:
i) Respect for the person: Society must allow each person to accomplish his vocation. Particularly, the common good consists of the conditions that facilitate the exercise of natural freedom, which are indispensable for the development of human vocation: “the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard his privacy, and rightful freedom even in matters of religion.”6
ii) Social welfare and development: The authority should facilitate what each needs to live a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, adequate information, the right to found one’s family, etc.
iii) Peace: The authority should provide safety for society and its members. The common good is the basis of the right to individual and collective legitimate defense.
11c) Attainment of the Common Good
These conditions must be met for the attainment of the common good:
(1) All citizens should enjoy a sphere of freedom. Only persons who are autonomous in their social activity and who can freely exercise their rights and fulfill their social duties can devote their energies to the common good.
To protect the inviolable sphere of human rights and facilitate the fulfillment of human duties is the essential business of all public authority. Does not, indeed, in this consist the genuine meaning of the common good that the State is called upon to promote? From this ensues that the care for that “common good” does not require so extensive a power over the members of the community that in virtue of it the public authority would be entitled to restrict the development of the individual activity.7
Coercion on the part of the state is justified only under the principle of subsidiarity. This means that such coercion must be an answer to a previous violation of the common good by a citizen. “Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers, or is threatened with harm, that can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it.”8
(2) The basic rights of the person must be protected. The legitimate authority must safeguard the legitimate rights of man that are grounded on his nature. “The State cannot violate the just freedoms of the human person without undermining its own authority.”9 Only in exceptional circumstances can the exercise of some secondary rights be postponed.10 The role of the state is to foster individual and social initiatives. Only in cases of need can the state supplant these initiatives, and only for as long as the circumstances that justify that intervention last.
These freedoms would not be respected, either in the letter or in the spirit, if the tendency prevailed to attribute to the state and to the other territorial expressions of the public authority a centralizing and exclusive function of organization and direct management of the services or of rigid control, which would end up by distorting their own legitimate function of promotion, propulsion, integration and even—if necessary—of substitution of the initiative of the free social formations according to the principle of subsidiarity.11
(3) Each individual must be promoted. The exercise of civil liberties by all citizens must be fostered. In this regard, no group of citizens may be discriminated against by reason of their race, financial means, or political power. All have the same fundamental rights. Any discrimination as regards the demands of human dignity is therefore unjust.
(4) Social authority is necessary. The existence of a social authority that is geared toward the common good is a demand of nature. The reason for its existence is the common good. It is not for the social authority to establish the common good, but to safeguard it with solicitude. To this end, it must have the prerogative of supreme sovereignty within its sphere. This order, however, is not absolute; social authority cannot go beyond the reason for its legitimacy, the common good. “A ruling authority is indispensable to civil society. This is a fact that follows from the moral order itself. Such authority, therefore, cannot be misdirected against the moral order. It would immediately cease to exist, being deprived of its whole raison d’être.”12 Thus understood, authority proceeds from God, given its natural character. “But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every political body must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author.”13
12. Erroneous Doctrines on the Common Good
12a) Liberalism
The Church has condemned the manner in which liberalism understands the relationship between the individual good and the common good. For liberalism, free individuals need not care for the common good, but only for their personal profit. The common good is thus reduced to a more or less automatic consequence of the creation and increase of capital. Liberalism presents itself under two aspects. One is a generic attitude, an exaltation of freedom in human actions to the point of claiming emancipation from any divine law. This view is equivalent to laicism in social life, according to the terminology introduced by Leo XIII. “At the very root of philosophical liberalism is an erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his activity, his motivation and the exercise of his liberty.”14 Liberalism confuses liberty with libertinism, that is, individual wantonness as rule of behavior. Besides, it is ultimately rooted in a hidden rebellion of man against God.15
The other aspect, more restricted in scope, is economic liberalism. This doctrine rejects any ethical limitation of the free play of market forces.
Contractual processes which seek to determine the amount of just prices cannot simply be left to the play of the market forces—which in fact are never natural but always constructed by people—nor to the dominant influence of small groups or to that of numbers. Every contract is a human matter, conducted by people and directed towards serving people.16
Liberalism also leads to economic reductionism. This is patent in the exclusive pursuit of individual welfare, leaving no room for an effective solidarity.
Nor can the Christian adhere to liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by withdrawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarity as more or less automatic consequence of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of social organization.17
Leo XIII distinguishes three degrees of liberalism:
i) The first degree denies any divine authority over man and claims that human reason is the sole source of truth.
ii) The second degree does not deny the existence of God, and even affirms that man should submit to natural law, but never to revealed divine law.
iii) The third degree admits man’s subjection to natural and revealed divine laws, but only in private life. Public life, it argues, is outside the jurisdiction of divine law, whether natural or revealed.18
In view of this, we can easily understand the critical assessment of each degree of liberalism. The first is the greatest perversion of freedom. The second supports a mistaken view of Church-state separation, which leads to the practical denial of the social existence of the Church, and subjects her to political power. The third, likewise, merits criticism, because it seeks to confine faith to the sphere of private life, generating the different forms of laicism.
Liberalism has evolved since it first appeared in the nineteenth century, tending to support private initiative against state control. Nevertheless, given its erroneous philosophical roots, it “calls for careful discernment on the part of the Christians.”19
12b) Socialism
Socialist ideology is likewise incompatible with Christian doctrine, because of:
· its wrong concept of the relationship between individual and society,
· its historical materialism,
· its rejection of transcendence.20
These traits are common to all forms of socialism. The production of material goods is taken as the purpose of the social organization, overlooking the true scope of the notions of freedom and social authority.21 Being a form of materialism, the supreme finality of human society—and, consequently, of the state—is laid in the production and enjoyment of material goods in this life. This is linked to an immanentistic world view, that is, the denial of any practical or theoretical dependence of society on transcendental realities, such as God and eternal law. Hence the fundamental postulate of its programs of social or political action: total independence from an order established by God, the Creator of nature.
As a consequence of these basic tenets, socialism shows the following traits:
· Absolute juridical positivism: What human law allows is lawful; what it prescribes is obligatory; what it forbids is unlawful. And this is so just because it is the law, whether it be divorce, abortion, or any other action.
· Economic reductionism: All problems are reduced almost exclusively to economic problems: price, short-term or long-term earnings, etc. Human needs are reduced to material needs. The common good of society is often depicted as a salary distribution that would keep the majority satisfied.
· Antireligious character: The socialist world view is clearly incompatible with the acknowledgment of the relative value of material goods, which necessarily follows from a religious, transcendent view of the world, man, and society. This antireligious nature has had different manifestations, from communism’s bloody persecutions to merely declaring religion a “private affair.”
In a certain way, the errors of socialism and liberalism are similar. By tracing the origin of all laws to the explicit will of the majority, both liberalism and socialism implicitly reject an obligatory natural order, which is an expression of the will of God and is prior to any human juridical ordination. Both also lead to economic reductionism.
Finally, liberalism and socialism coincide in banishing the whole order of transcendence as unnecessary for the progress of society or even as an obstacle to be overcome.
Nevertheless, what is most characteristic of socialism, setting it apart from other errors that share this materialistic reductionism, is collectivism. It implies an inversion of the relationship between the individual and society. In all forms of socialism, the primary and basic human reality is society, represented by the state. The latter can be understood as a stage of “transition” toward a society without state (communism) or as a stable institution (state socialism).
According to collectivism, individual persons and natural societies—especially the family—are subordinated to society as a whole, which is the primary subject of rights. Therefore, personal rights and freedoms always have a secondary, derived nature. In every historical period, they are subordinated to the progress of society. There is no room in this conception for personal or family rights with precedence over any social interest.
Collectivism has a great variety of practical consequences. Its concrete applications are also very different, since they depend on what is perceived in each occasion as advantageous for the social development program that is established by the state.
The intrinsic evil of socialist principles becomes particularly grievous when applied to the family. Sometimes, because of circumstantial interests, the state may “grant” ample freedoms. Still, it often does not recognize the right to get married, the indissolubility of the marriage bond, parental authority within the family, etc.
Another evil consequence of the socialist view of the person-state relationship is its educational policy. It denies the priority of the family over the state in educational matters.
Finally, what is usually considered as the identifying trait of socialism is the rejection of private ownership of the means of production. In some forms of socialism, socialization—the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the state—is considered the perfect state of socialist economy. Communism, on the other hand, considers socialization as an intermediate stage for the ideal situation, which is the abolition of all ownership, including consumer goods, housing, etc.
The Church rejects dialectical materialism, which is the theoretical root of most forms of socialism. Dialectical materialism denies the primacy of the person over material objects, since both are inscribed in the same process, ruled by necessary laws.
Materialism, including its dialectical form, is incapable of providing sufficient and definitive bases for thinking about human work, in order that the primacy of man over the capital instrument, the primacy of the person over things, may find in it adequate and irrefutable confirmation and support. In dialectical materialism too man is not first and foremost the subject of work and the efficient cause of the production process, but continues to be understood and treated, in dependence on what is material, as a kind of “resultant” of the economic or production relations prevailing at a given period.22
We should not confuse socialism with any group or political program that, moved by general ideas of social justice, takes up the defense of workers’ rights, and the right to equal opportunities for all citizens. These ideals cannot be considered exclusive of any political orientation. “Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now that is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.”23 The terms socialist and Christian are mutually exclusive:
Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.24
The condemnation of Marxism is not based on circumstantial reasons, but on the intrinsic traits of this philosophy:
It is urgent to repeat (and here I am not speaking politics, I am simply pointing out the Church’s teaching) that Marxism is incompatible with the Christian faith.25
The Magisterium of the Church is quite explicit:
The Christian cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history.26
Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors that directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons.27
As in the case of liberalism, we must distinguish in socialism the erroneous doctrine—cast in terms that are irreconcilable with Christian dogma and morals—from the historical movements that embodied it. The latter developed at different times for specific economic, social, cultural, or political purposes, and have evolved with time. We cannot forget, though, that they originated from that erroneous ideology. Catholics must always respect, in their practical application, the Christian principles of responsible freedom and openness to the person’s spiritual values, which are the foundation of a person’s dignity. Depending on the specific circumstances, Catholics must discern how far they can assume some concrete solutions, while rejecting the principles on which they are based:
Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link that, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.28
12c) Communism
The Church condemns communism on account of its explicit profession of atheism, which attempts to undermine any transcendent dimension of the human person. This atheism is manifested in its materialistic concept of history that is based on the dialectics of violence and class struggle, in its collectivization of the means of production, in the totalitarian claims of the communist state, and in the suppression of legitimate liberties:
For these reasons We are driven to repudiate such ideologies that deny God and oppress the Church.… These ideologies are often identified with economic, social and political regimes; atheistic communism is a glaring instance of this. Yet is it really so much we who condemn them? One may say that it is rather they and their politicians who are clearly repudiating us, and for doctrinaire reasons subjecting us to violent oppression. Truth to tell, the voice we raise against them is more the complaint of a victim than the sentence of a judge.29
13. The Universal Common Good
13a) Concept of the Universal Common Good
The growing interdependence of peoples in the contemporary world highlights the universal dimension of the common good; the whole human family is called to participate in it. Solidarity is not restricted to a single social group; it must extend to all the inhabitants of the planet. “Every group must take into account the needs and legitimate aspirations of every other group, and still more of the human family as a whole.”30
The concept of common good extends to the whole person, including the demands of the body and spirit.31 The material goods that are required by man, however, are included in the common good only when they are ordained to the goods of the spirit. “The pre-eminence of the values of the spirit defines the proper sense of earthly material goods and the way to use them. This pre-eminence is therefore at the basis of a just peace.”32
The common good is not fixed or determined in all its concrete demands. It is a changing reality, a continuous task depending on the historical circumstances of the moment:
While the common good of mankind ultimately derives from the eternal law, it depends in the concrete upon circumstances which change as time goes on; consequently, peace will never be achieved once and for all, but must be built up continually.33
13b) Contents of the Common Good
(1) The purpose of public powers
The common good is the very reason for the existence of public powers. It is also the only valid criterion for justifying the state as an institution and the actuation of public authorities.
All power finds its justification solely in the common good, in the realization of a just social order. Consequently, power must never be used to protect the interests of one group to the detriment of the others.34
(2) The purpose of human authority
The common good is also the reason for the existence of human authority and laws. The moral justification of civil laws does not lie only in the legitimacy of the promulgating authority.
The law, in fact, takes its binding value from the function it carries out—in faithfulness to divine law—in the service of the common good; and this, in its turn, is such to the extent to which it promotes the well-being of the person.35
The reason why human laws must be obeyed is not to be found in the laws themselves, but in the divine eternal law. Human laws participate in the divine law when they apply natural precepts to specific contingent circumstances. Thus, the effect of positive law exceeds its own positive reach—and constitutes a moral obligation—only when it fulfills the moral function that legitimizes it. Conversely, when a positive law claims absolute value and is severed from the natural moral order, it must be rejected in conscience.
The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities. In working for the common good, therefore, the authorities must obviously respect its nature, and at the same time adjust their legislation to meet the requirements of the given situation.36
(3) Mutual relations
The common good requires the existence of exchanges between individuals and intermediate societies or associations. The universality of the common good is against the compartmentalization or isolation of the different groups that coexist in each nation. This diversity fosters mutual enrichment through the necessary interchanges.
There are many parts of the world where we find groupings of people of more or less different ethnic origin. Nothing must be allowed to prevent reciprocal relations between them.37
(4) The right to material goods
All people have the right to find on earth all that they need. The common good demands that the goods of the earth be placed at the service of all. The legitimate right of private ownership is tied to a social function: service to the common interest. The Christian concept of private property opposes any absolute and unconditional right over material goods.
The very right of ownership, legitimate in itself, must, in a Christian view of the world, carry out its function and observe its social purpose. Thus, in the use of the goods possessed, the general purpose that God assigned to them and the requirements of the common good prevail over the advantages, the comforts, and sometimes even the secondary necessities of private origin.38
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.39
Responsibility for the common good should move everyone—especially Christians—to use one’s resources and talents for the benefit of all mankind. Thus, one should not create new needs for oneself while others lack even what is indispensable. One should lead a moderate life, and be ready to help others in material or spiritual need with one’s work and property. This help can also be channeled through public or private institutions.
13c) Common Good and Moral Order
The fundamental principle of the common good is to acknowledge and respect the moral order. The common good includes the integral good of the person. Since the person can reach his proper end only through the objective moral order, any violation of the latter frustrates the common good:
One of the principal imperatives of the common good is the recognition of the moral order and the unfailing observance of its precepts.40
Citizens must see to it that morality is protected in all areas of civic life:
There exists for the Catholic a responsibility of a public and social order. In fact, it is well known that the decline of morality carries with it the decline of society, since it undermines its very foundation as well as that minimum of juridical order, which cannot prescind from ethics.…
In this regard, Catholics and all other men of good will must show enlightened courage, demanding from those in charge of public affairs a greater sensitivity, a more energetic defense and a more exacting evaluation of that inalienable common good, the honesty of public morals. The decadence of morals is the decadence of civilization, since there exists a causal connection between the yielding, often willed, to public license and the spread of abnormal phenomena such as violence, delinquency, lack of confidence in the law and the lack of control of the most irrational impulses. More that any other form of political system, democracy demands an informed sense of responsibility, self-discipline, righteousness and moderation in every social expression and relationship.41
14. National Sovereignty and Universal Common Good
14a) Worldwide Cooperation
Worldwide cooperation is a duty that is based on the universal destination of created goods. This demands that material and spiritual wealth be given a social function for the common good, even in relations between poor and rich nations.
Therefore, the demands of solidarity that are raised by the common good extend to international relations as well. Wealthy nations thus have an obligation toward underprivileged ones.
The more powerful a nation is, the greater becomes its international responsibility; the greater also must be its commitment to the betterment of the lot of those whose very humanity is constantly being threatened by want and need. It is my fervent hope that all the powerful nations in the world will deepen their awareness of the principle of human solidarity within the one great human family.42
Just like personal relations, international relations must be guided by justice and charity.
Probably the most difficult problem today concerns the relationships between political communities that are economically advanced and those in the process of development. Whereas the standard of living is high in the former, the latter are subject to extreme poverty. The solidarity that binds all men together as members of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery, and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights.… Mutual trust among rulers of States cannot begin nor increase except by recognition of, and respect for, the moral order.44
14b) Relations between Political Communities
(1) Rights and duties
Nations also have reciprocal rights and duties. All nations are basically equal in dignity, although each one has its peculiar cultural tradition. Respect for cultural differences must go hand in hand with the search for a common purpose, which will lead to unity of action.
(2) Basic principles of international relations
· Truth: The rights of every nation are based on the truth—what each nation actually is. This truth does not proceed from political power, but from each nation’s cultural identity, reaffirmed in the course of its history. Hence the importance of preserving native cultures.
Truth also requires that the mass media respect the reputation of each people and report without bias. “Truth must never be distorted, justice neglected, love forgotten, if one is to observe ethical standards. To forget or lose sight of these is to produce bias, scandal, submission to the powerful, compliance with ‘reasons of state.’”44
· Justice: Some of the rights that must be respected as a matter of justice are the rights to existence, to progress, to the exploitation of natural resources for national development, and to the protection of national reputation. The duty to improve the lot of ethnic minorities is especially important. This should not lead us to forget, however, universal values—common to all—which help different ethnic groups live together in the same territory:
Emigration is a massive phenomenon of our time, a permanent phenomenon, which is even assuming new forms, and which concerns all continents, and nearly all countries. It raises serious human and spiritual problems.… But it also implies a chance of human and spiritual enrichment, opening, welcoming of foreigners, and mutual renewal thanks to this contact.45
· Christian solidarity and fraternity: Universal cooperation, through the different forms of association, will facilitate the attainment of common objectives. This solidarity, however, will be precarious unless it is founded on the fraternity of all people:
This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation:
i) mutual solidarity—the aid that the richer nations must give to developing nations;
ii) social justice—the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations;
iii) universal charity—the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and the progress of some is not bought at the expense of others.46
· Freedom: Each nation has its own sphere of initiative and development, which other nations must not invade:
Furthermore, relations between States must be regulated by the principle of freedom. This means that no country has the right to take any action that would constitute an unjust oppression of other countries, or an unwarranted interference in their affairs. On the contrary, all should help to develop in others an increasing awareness of their duties, an adventurous and enterprising spirit, and the resolution to take the initiative for their own advancement in every field of endeavor.47
(3) Justice and aid
Justice also places demands on the relationship between developed and underdeveloped nations. The laws of supply and demand are not enough to satisfy the requirements of justice, and neither is free market competition. It is on the observance of just principles that the construction of a stable and lasting peace depends:
All of humanity must think of the parable of the rich man and the beggar. Humanity must translate it into contemporary terms of economy and politics, in terms of all human rights, in terms of relations between the First, Second and Third Worlds. We cannot stand idly by when thousands of human beings are dying of hunger. Nor can we remain indifferent when the rights of the human spirit are trampled upon, when violence is done to the human conscience in matters of truth, religion and cultural creativity.48
Footnotes:
1. GS, 74; cf. CCC, 1905–1912.
2. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 78; cf. DH, 6.
3. Pius XII, Enc. Summi Pontificatus, 24.
4. Pius XI, Enc. Divini Redemptoris, 51.
5. Cf. CCC, 1906–1909.
6. Cf. GS, 26.
7. Pius XII, Address, June 1, 1941.
8. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 28.
9. Pius XII, Enc. En Ouvrant, 8.
10. Cf. DH, 7.
11. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Catholic Jurists, Nov. 25, 1978.
12. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 83.
13. Leo XIII, Enc. Immortale Dei, 2.
14. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 35.
15. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Libertas, 14.
16. John Paul II, Message to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, April 26, 1979.
17. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 26.
18. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Libertas, 15ff.
19. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 35.
20. Cf. Ibid., 33.
21. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 34.
22. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 13.
23. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 115.
24. Ibid., 120.
25. St. Josemaría Escrivá, Friends of God, 171.
26. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 26.
27. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” Aug. 6, 1984, 7.9.
28. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 31.
29. Paul VI, Enc. Ecclesiam Suam, 101.
30. GS, 26.
31. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 57–59.
32. John Paul II, Address to the UN General Assembly, Oct. 2, 1979.
33. GS, 78.
34. John Paul II, Address to Workers at Morumbi Stadium, Sao Paolo, Brazil, July 3, 1980.
35. John Paul II, Address to a Meeting of Midwives, Jan. 26, 1980, no. 3.
36. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 54.
37. Ibid., 100.
38. John Paul II, Homily for Farmers in Recife, Brazil, July 7, 1980.
39. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 23.
40. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 85.
41. John Paul II, Address to Convention on Public Morality, Nov. 29, 1982.
42. John Paul II, Address to President Carter, Oct. 6, 1979; cf. CCC, 1939–1942, 2437–2442.
43. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 157, 207.
44. John Paul II, Message to the 15th World Day of Social Communications, May 10, 1981.
45. John Paul II, Address to the World Congress on the Problems of Migration, Mar. 15, 1979.
46. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 44.
47. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 120.
48. John Paul II, Homily of the Mass at Yankee Stadium, New York, Oct. 2, 1979.
The unity of society is shown through the concerted effort of all its members to attain the common good. “The common good embraces the sum total of all those conditions of social life which enable individuals, families, and organizations to achieve complete and efficacious fulfilment.”1 These conditions can be summed up in the rights and duties of each person and social group. These rights and duties are natural, and therefore prior to any particular juridical ordination. They do not stem from human will. “We must however, reject the view that the will of the individual or the group is the primary and only source of a citizen’s rights and duties, and of the binding force of political constitutions and the government’s authority.”2 Public authority, citizens, and each intermediate association must all contribute to the common good in their own ways. The aspects of the common good range from external goods—material possessions that are necessary for health and welfare—to spiritual goods in which man has the right to participate—peace, culture, education, social order, and the different aspects of freedom.
The ultimate and full expression of the common good is God—common good by causality of all the beings of the universe. This Supreme Good is the source of authority, wanted by God in order to guarantee the temporal common good of citizens. It is thus in the common good that all the reasons for the legitimacy of the state lie. The teaching of the Church rejects the unconditional subordination of all private initiatives to state authority.
To consider the State as something ultimate, to which everything else should be subordinated and directed, cannot fail to harm the true and lasting prosperity of nations. This can happen either when unrestricted dominion comes to be conferred on the State as having a mandate from the nation, people, or even a social order, or when the State arrogates such dominion to itself as absolute master, despotically, without any mandate whatsoever.3
11. Common Good: The Good of All Men
11a) A Common Undertaking
All citizens must contribute to the common good, though not all in the same way. Social justice, which extends to all citizens, covers both the participation in the common good and the contribution to its maintenance by sharing the resulting burdens.
Besides commutative justice, there is also social justice with its own set of obligations, from which neither employers nor workingmen can escape. Now it is of the very essence of social justice to demand from each individual all that is necessary for the common good.4
11b) Essential Elements of the Common Good
The common good embraces three essential elements5:
i) Respect for the person: Society must allow each person to accomplish his vocation. Particularly, the common good consists of the conditions that facilitate the exercise of natural freedom, which are indispensable for the development of human vocation: “the right to act according to the dictates of conscience and to safeguard his privacy, and rightful freedom even in matters of religion.”6
ii) Social welfare and development: The authority should facilitate what each needs to live a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, adequate information, the right to found one’s family, etc.
iii) Peace: The authority should provide safety for society and its members. The common good is the basis of the right to individual and collective legitimate defense.
11c) Attainment of the Common Good
These conditions must be met for the attainment of the common good:
(1) All citizens should enjoy a sphere of freedom. Only persons who are autonomous in their social activity and who can freely exercise their rights and fulfill their social duties can devote their energies to the common good.
To protect the inviolable sphere of human rights and facilitate the fulfillment of human duties is the essential business of all public authority. Does not, indeed, in this consist the genuine meaning of the common good that the State is called upon to promote? From this ensues that the care for that “common good” does not require so extensive a power over the members of the community that in virtue of it the public authority would be entitled to restrict the development of the individual activity.7
Coercion on the part of the state is justified only under the principle of subsidiarity. This means that such coercion must be an answer to a previous violation of the common good by a citizen. “Whenever the general interest of any particular class suffers, or is threatened with harm, that can in no other way be met or prevented, the public authority must step in to deal with it.”8
(2) The basic rights of the person must be protected. The legitimate authority must safeguard the legitimate rights of man that are grounded on his nature. “The State cannot violate the just freedoms of the human person without undermining its own authority.”9 Only in exceptional circumstances can the exercise of some secondary rights be postponed.10 The role of the state is to foster individual and social initiatives. Only in cases of need can the state supplant these initiatives, and only for as long as the circumstances that justify that intervention last.
These freedoms would not be respected, either in the letter or in the spirit, if the tendency prevailed to attribute to the state and to the other territorial expressions of the public authority a centralizing and exclusive function of organization and direct management of the services or of rigid control, which would end up by distorting their own legitimate function of promotion, propulsion, integration and even—if necessary—of substitution of the initiative of the free social formations according to the principle of subsidiarity.11
(3) Each individual must be promoted. The exercise of civil liberties by all citizens must be fostered. In this regard, no group of citizens may be discriminated against by reason of their race, financial means, or political power. All have the same fundamental rights. Any discrimination as regards the demands of human dignity is therefore unjust.
(4) Social authority is necessary. The existence of a social authority that is geared toward the common good is a demand of nature. The reason for its existence is the common good. It is not for the social authority to establish the common good, but to safeguard it with solicitude. To this end, it must have the prerogative of supreme sovereignty within its sphere. This order, however, is not absolute; social authority cannot go beyond the reason for its legitimacy, the common good. “A ruling authority is indispensable to civil society. This is a fact that follows from the moral order itself. Such authority, therefore, cannot be misdirected against the moral order. It would immediately cease to exist, being deprived of its whole raison d’être.”12 Thus understood, authority proceeds from God, given its natural character. “But, as no society can hold together unless some one be over all, directing all to strive earnestly for the common good, every political body must have a ruling authority, and this authority, no less than society itself, has its source in nature, and has, consequently, God for its Author.”13
12. Erroneous Doctrines on the Common Good
12a) Liberalism
The Church has condemned the manner in which liberalism understands the relationship between the individual good and the common good. For liberalism, free individuals need not care for the common good, but only for their personal profit. The common good is thus reduced to a more or less automatic consequence of the creation and increase of capital. Liberalism presents itself under two aspects. One is a generic attitude, an exaltation of freedom in human actions to the point of claiming emancipation from any divine law. This view is equivalent to laicism in social life, according to the terminology introduced by Leo XIII. “At the very root of philosophical liberalism is an erroneous affirmation of the autonomy of the individual in his activity, his motivation and the exercise of his liberty.”14 Liberalism confuses liberty with libertinism, that is, individual wantonness as rule of behavior. Besides, it is ultimately rooted in a hidden rebellion of man against God.15
The other aspect, more restricted in scope, is economic liberalism. This doctrine rejects any ethical limitation of the free play of market forces.
Contractual processes which seek to determine the amount of just prices cannot simply be left to the play of the market forces—which in fact are never natural but always constructed by people—nor to the dominant influence of small groups or to that of numbers. Every contract is a human matter, conducted by people and directed towards serving people.16
Liberalism also leads to economic reductionism. This is patent in the exclusive pursuit of individual welfare, leaving no room for an effective solidarity.
Nor can the Christian adhere to liberal ideology which believes it exalts individual freedom by withdrawing it from every limitation, by stimulating it through exclusive seeking of interest and power, and by considering social solidarity as more or less automatic consequence of individual initiatives, not as an aim and a major criterion of the value of social organization.17
Leo XIII distinguishes three degrees of liberalism:
i) The first degree denies any divine authority over man and claims that human reason is the sole source of truth.
ii) The second degree does not deny the existence of God, and even affirms that man should submit to natural law, but never to revealed divine law.
iii) The third degree admits man’s subjection to natural and revealed divine laws, but only in private life. Public life, it argues, is outside the jurisdiction of divine law, whether natural or revealed.18
In view of this, we can easily understand the critical assessment of each degree of liberalism. The first is the greatest perversion of freedom. The second supports a mistaken view of Church-state separation, which leads to the practical denial of the social existence of the Church, and subjects her to political power. The third, likewise, merits criticism, because it seeks to confine faith to the sphere of private life, generating the different forms of laicism.
Liberalism has evolved since it first appeared in the nineteenth century, tending to support private initiative against state control. Nevertheless, given its erroneous philosophical roots, it “calls for careful discernment on the part of the Christians.”19
12b) Socialism
Socialist ideology is likewise incompatible with Christian doctrine, because of:
· its wrong concept of the relationship between individual and society,
· its historical materialism,
· its rejection of transcendence.20
These traits are common to all forms of socialism. The production of material goods is taken as the purpose of the social organization, overlooking the true scope of the notions of freedom and social authority.21 Being a form of materialism, the supreme finality of human society—and, consequently, of the state—is laid in the production and enjoyment of material goods in this life. This is linked to an immanentistic world view, that is, the denial of any practical or theoretical dependence of society on transcendental realities, such as God and eternal law. Hence the fundamental postulate of its programs of social or political action: total independence from an order established by God, the Creator of nature.
As a consequence of these basic tenets, socialism shows the following traits:
· Absolute juridical positivism: What human law allows is lawful; what it prescribes is obligatory; what it forbids is unlawful. And this is so just because it is the law, whether it be divorce, abortion, or any other action.
· Economic reductionism: All problems are reduced almost exclusively to economic problems: price, short-term or long-term earnings, etc. Human needs are reduced to material needs. The common good of society is often depicted as a salary distribution that would keep the majority satisfied.
· Antireligious character: The socialist world view is clearly incompatible with the acknowledgment of the relative value of material goods, which necessarily follows from a religious, transcendent view of the world, man, and society. This antireligious nature has had different manifestations, from communism’s bloody persecutions to merely declaring religion a “private affair.”
In a certain way, the errors of socialism and liberalism are similar. By tracing the origin of all laws to the explicit will of the majority, both liberalism and socialism implicitly reject an obligatory natural order, which is an expression of the will of God and is prior to any human juridical ordination. Both also lead to economic reductionism.
Finally, liberalism and socialism coincide in banishing the whole order of transcendence as unnecessary for the progress of society or even as an obstacle to be overcome.
Nevertheless, what is most characteristic of socialism, setting it apart from other errors that share this materialistic reductionism, is collectivism. It implies an inversion of the relationship between the individual and society. In all forms of socialism, the primary and basic human reality is society, represented by the state. The latter can be understood as a stage of “transition” toward a society without state (communism) or as a stable institution (state socialism).
According to collectivism, individual persons and natural societies—especially the family—are subordinated to society as a whole, which is the primary subject of rights. Therefore, personal rights and freedoms always have a secondary, derived nature. In every historical period, they are subordinated to the progress of society. There is no room in this conception for personal or family rights with precedence over any social interest.
Collectivism has a great variety of practical consequences. Its concrete applications are also very different, since they depend on what is perceived in each occasion as advantageous for the social development program that is established by the state.
The intrinsic evil of socialist principles becomes particularly grievous when applied to the family. Sometimes, because of circumstantial interests, the state may “grant” ample freedoms. Still, it often does not recognize the right to get married, the indissolubility of the marriage bond, parental authority within the family, etc.
Another evil consequence of the socialist view of the person-state relationship is its educational policy. It denies the priority of the family over the state in educational matters.
Finally, what is usually considered as the identifying trait of socialism is the rejection of private ownership of the means of production. In some forms of socialism, socialization—the concentration of all means of production in the hands of the state—is considered the perfect state of socialist economy. Communism, on the other hand, considers socialization as an intermediate stage for the ideal situation, which is the abolition of all ownership, including consumer goods, housing, etc.
The Church rejects dialectical materialism, which is the theoretical root of most forms of socialism. Dialectical materialism denies the primacy of the person over material objects, since both are inscribed in the same process, ruled by necessary laws.
Materialism, including its dialectical form, is incapable of providing sufficient and definitive bases for thinking about human work, in order that the primacy of man over the capital instrument, the primacy of the person over things, may find in it adequate and irrefutable confirmation and support. In dialectical materialism too man is not first and foremost the subject of work and the efficient cause of the production process, but continues to be understood and treated, in dependence on what is material, as a kind of “resultant” of the economic or production relations prevailing at a given period.22
We should not confuse socialism with any group or political program that, moved by general ideas of social justice, takes up the defense of workers’ rights, and the right to equal opportunities for all citizens. These ideals cannot be considered exclusive of any political orientation. “Such just demands and desire have nothing in them now that is inconsistent with Christian truth, and much less are they special to socialism. Those who work solely toward such ends have, therefore, no reason to become socialists.”23 The terms socialist and Christian are mutually exclusive:
Religious socialism, Christian socialism, are contradictory terms; no one can be at the same time a good Catholic and a true socialist.24
The condemnation of Marxism is not based on circumstantial reasons, but on the intrinsic traits of this philosophy:
It is urgent to repeat (and here I am not speaking politics, I am simply pointing out the Church’s teaching) that Marxism is incompatible with the Christian faith.25
The Magisterium of the Church is quite explicit:
The Christian cannot adhere to the Marxist ideology, to its atheistic materialism, to its dialectic of violence and to the way it absorbs individual freedom in the collectivity, at the same time denying all transcendence to man and his personal and collective history.26
Let us recall the fact that atheism and the denial of the human person, his liberty and his rights, are at the core of the Marxist theory. This theory, then, contains errors that directly threaten the truths of the faith regarding the eternal destiny of individual persons.27
As in the case of liberalism, we must distinguish in socialism the erroneous doctrine—cast in terms that are irreconcilable with Christian dogma and morals—from the historical movements that embodied it. The latter developed at different times for specific economic, social, cultural, or political purposes, and have evolved with time. We cannot forget, though, that they originated from that erroneous ideology. Catholics must always respect, in their practical application, the Christian principles of responsible freedom and openness to the person’s spiritual values, which are the foundation of a person’s dignity. Depending on the specific circumstances, Catholics must discern how far they can assume some concrete solutions, while rejecting the principles on which they are based:
Distinctions must be made to guide concrete choices between the various levels of expression of socialism: a generous aspiration and a seeking for a more just society, historical movements with a political organization and aim, and an ideology which claims to give a complete and self-sufficient picture of man. Nevertheless, these distinctions must not lead one to consider such levels as completely separate and independent. The concrete link that, according to circumstances, exists between them must be clearly marked out. This insight will enable Christians to see the degree of commitment possible along these lines, while safeguarding the values, especially those of liberty, responsibility and openness to the spiritual, which guarantee the integral development of man.28
12c) Communism
The Church condemns communism on account of its explicit profession of atheism, which attempts to undermine any transcendent dimension of the human person. This atheism is manifested in its materialistic concept of history that is based on the dialectics of violence and class struggle, in its collectivization of the means of production, in the totalitarian claims of the communist state, and in the suppression of legitimate liberties:
For these reasons We are driven to repudiate such ideologies that deny God and oppress the Church.… These ideologies are often identified with economic, social and political regimes; atheistic communism is a glaring instance of this. Yet is it really so much we who condemn them? One may say that it is rather they and their politicians who are clearly repudiating us, and for doctrinaire reasons subjecting us to violent oppression. Truth to tell, the voice we raise against them is more the complaint of a victim than the sentence of a judge.29
13. The Universal Common Good
13a) Concept of the Universal Common Good
The growing interdependence of peoples in the contemporary world highlights the universal dimension of the common good; the whole human family is called to participate in it. Solidarity is not restricted to a single social group; it must extend to all the inhabitants of the planet. “Every group must take into account the needs and legitimate aspirations of every other group, and still more of the human family as a whole.”30
The concept of common good extends to the whole person, including the demands of the body and spirit.31 The material goods that are required by man, however, are included in the common good only when they are ordained to the goods of the spirit. “The pre-eminence of the values of the spirit defines the proper sense of earthly material goods and the way to use them. This pre-eminence is therefore at the basis of a just peace.”32
The common good is not fixed or determined in all its concrete demands. It is a changing reality, a continuous task depending on the historical circumstances of the moment:
While the common good of mankind ultimately derives from the eternal law, it depends in the concrete upon circumstances which change as time goes on; consequently, peace will never be achieved once and for all, but must be built up continually.33
13b) Contents of the Common Good
(1) The purpose of public powers
The common good is the very reason for the existence of public powers. It is also the only valid criterion for justifying the state as an institution and the actuation of public authorities.
All power finds its justification solely in the common good, in the realization of a just social order. Consequently, power must never be used to protect the interests of one group to the detriment of the others.34
(2) The purpose of human authority
The common good is also the reason for the existence of human authority and laws. The moral justification of civil laws does not lie only in the legitimacy of the promulgating authority.
The law, in fact, takes its binding value from the function it carries out—in faithfulness to divine law—in the service of the common good; and this, in its turn, is such to the extent to which it promotes the well-being of the person.35
The reason why human laws must be obeyed is not to be found in the laws themselves, but in the divine eternal law. Human laws participate in the divine law when they apply natural precepts to specific contingent circumstances. Thus, the effect of positive law exceeds its own positive reach—and constitutes a moral obligation—only when it fulfills the moral function that legitimizes it. Conversely, when a positive law claims absolute value and is severed from the natural moral order, it must be rejected in conscience.
The attainment of the common good is the sole reason for the existence of civil authorities. In working for the common good, therefore, the authorities must obviously respect its nature, and at the same time adjust their legislation to meet the requirements of the given situation.36
(3) Mutual relations
The common good requires the existence of exchanges between individuals and intermediate societies or associations. The universality of the common good is against the compartmentalization or isolation of the different groups that coexist in each nation. This diversity fosters mutual enrichment through the necessary interchanges.
There are many parts of the world where we find groupings of people of more or less different ethnic origin. Nothing must be allowed to prevent reciprocal relations between them.37
(4) The right to material goods
All people have the right to find on earth all that they need. The common good demands that the goods of the earth be placed at the service of all. The legitimate right of private ownership is tied to a social function: service to the common interest. The Christian concept of private property opposes any absolute and unconditional right over material goods.
The very right of ownership, legitimate in itself, must, in a Christian view of the world, carry out its function and observe its social purpose. Thus, in the use of the goods possessed, the general purpose that God assigned to them and the requirements of the common good prevail over the advantages, the comforts, and sometimes even the secondary necessities of private origin.38
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life.39
Responsibility for the common good should move everyone—especially Christians—to use one’s resources and talents for the benefit of all mankind. Thus, one should not create new needs for oneself while others lack even what is indispensable. One should lead a moderate life, and be ready to help others in material or spiritual need with one’s work and property. This help can also be channeled through public or private institutions.
13c) Common Good and Moral Order
The fundamental principle of the common good is to acknowledge and respect the moral order. The common good includes the integral good of the person. Since the person can reach his proper end only through the objective moral order, any violation of the latter frustrates the common good:
One of the principal imperatives of the common good is the recognition of the moral order and the unfailing observance of its precepts.40
Citizens must see to it that morality is protected in all areas of civic life:
There exists for the Catholic a responsibility of a public and social order. In fact, it is well known that the decline of morality carries with it the decline of society, since it undermines its very foundation as well as that minimum of juridical order, which cannot prescind from ethics.…
In this regard, Catholics and all other men of good will must show enlightened courage, demanding from those in charge of public affairs a greater sensitivity, a more energetic defense and a more exacting evaluation of that inalienable common good, the honesty of public morals. The decadence of morals is the decadence of civilization, since there exists a causal connection between the yielding, often willed, to public license and the spread of abnormal phenomena such as violence, delinquency, lack of confidence in the law and the lack of control of the most irrational impulses. More that any other form of political system, democracy demands an informed sense of responsibility, self-discipline, righteousness and moderation in every social expression and relationship.41
14. National Sovereignty and Universal Common Good
14a) Worldwide Cooperation
Worldwide cooperation is a duty that is based on the universal destination of created goods. This demands that material and spiritual wealth be given a social function for the common good, even in relations between poor and rich nations.
Therefore, the demands of solidarity that are raised by the common good extend to international relations as well. Wealthy nations thus have an obligation toward underprivileged ones.
The more powerful a nation is, the greater becomes its international responsibility; the greater also must be its commitment to the betterment of the lot of those whose very humanity is constantly being threatened by want and need. It is my fervent hope that all the powerful nations in the world will deepen their awareness of the principle of human solidarity within the one great human family.42
Just like personal relations, international relations must be guided by justice and charity.
Probably the most difficult problem today concerns the relationships between political communities that are economically advanced and those in the process of development. Whereas the standard of living is high in the former, the latter are subject to extreme poverty. The solidarity that binds all men together as members of a common family makes it impossible for wealthy nations to look with indifference upon the hunger, misery, and poverty of other nations whose citizens are unable to enjoy even elementary human rights.… Mutual trust among rulers of States cannot begin nor increase except by recognition of, and respect for, the moral order.44
14b) Relations between Political Communities
(1) Rights and duties
Nations also have reciprocal rights and duties. All nations are basically equal in dignity, although each one has its peculiar cultural tradition. Respect for cultural differences must go hand in hand with the search for a common purpose, which will lead to unity of action.
(2) Basic principles of international relations
· Truth: The rights of every nation are based on the truth—what each nation actually is. This truth does not proceed from political power, but from each nation’s cultural identity, reaffirmed in the course of its history. Hence the importance of preserving native cultures.
Truth also requires that the mass media respect the reputation of each people and report without bias. “Truth must never be distorted, justice neglected, love forgotten, if one is to observe ethical standards. To forget or lose sight of these is to produce bias, scandal, submission to the powerful, compliance with ‘reasons of state.’”44
· Justice: Some of the rights that must be respected as a matter of justice are the rights to existence, to progress, to the exploitation of natural resources for national development, and to the protection of national reputation. The duty to improve the lot of ethnic minorities is especially important. This should not lead us to forget, however, universal values—common to all—which help different ethnic groups live together in the same territory:
Emigration is a massive phenomenon of our time, a permanent phenomenon, which is even assuming new forms, and which concerns all continents, and nearly all countries. It raises serious human and spiritual problems.… But it also implies a chance of human and spiritual enrichment, opening, welcoming of foreigners, and mutual renewal thanks to this contact.45
· Christian solidarity and fraternity: Universal cooperation, through the different forms of association, will facilitate the attainment of common objectives. This solidarity, however, will be precarious unless it is founded on the fraternity of all people:
This duty concerns first and foremost the wealthier nations. Their obligations stem from the human and supernatural brotherhood of man, and present a three-fold obligation:
i) mutual solidarity—the aid that the richer nations must give to developing nations;
ii) social justice—the rectification of trade relations between strong and weak nations;
iii) universal charity—the effort to build a more humane world community, where all can give and receive, and the progress of some is not bought at the expense of others.46
· Freedom: Each nation has its own sphere of initiative and development, which other nations must not invade:
Furthermore, relations between States must be regulated by the principle of freedom. This means that no country has the right to take any action that would constitute an unjust oppression of other countries, or an unwarranted interference in their affairs. On the contrary, all should help to develop in others an increasing awareness of their duties, an adventurous and enterprising spirit, and the resolution to take the initiative for their own advancement in every field of endeavor.47
(3) Justice and aid
Justice also places demands on the relationship between developed and underdeveloped nations. The laws of supply and demand are not enough to satisfy the requirements of justice, and neither is free market competition. It is on the observance of just principles that the construction of a stable and lasting peace depends:
All of humanity must think of the parable of the rich man and the beggar. Humanity must translate it into contemporary terms of economy and politics, in terms of all human rights, in terms of relations between the First, Second and Third Worlds. We cannot stand idly by when thousands of human beings are dying of hunger. Nor can we remain indifferent when the rights of the human spirit are trampled upon, when violence is done to the human conscience in matters of truth, religion and cultural creativity.48
Footnotes:
1. GS, 74; cf. CCC, 1905–1912.
2. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 78; cf. DH, 6.
3. Pius XII, Enc. Summi Pontificatus, 24.
4. Pius XI, Enc. Divini Redemptoris, 51.
5. Cf. CCC, 1906–1909.
6. Cf. GS, 26.
7. Pius XII, Address, June 1, 1941.
8. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 28.
9. Pius XII, Enc. En Ouvrant, 8.
10. Cf. DH, 7.
11. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Catholic Jurists, Nov. 25, 1978.
12. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 83.
13. Leo XIII, Enc. Immortale Dei, 2.
14. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 35.
15. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Libertas, 14.
16. John Paul II, Message to the UN Conference on Trade and Development, April 26, 1979.
17. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 26.
18. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Libertas, 15ff.
19. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 35.
20. Cf. Ibid., 33.
21. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 34.
22. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 13.
23. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 115.
24. Ibid., 120.
25. St. Josemaría Escrivá, Friends of God, 171.
26. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 26.
27. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” Aug. 6, 1984, 7.9.
28. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 31.
29. Paul VI, Enc. Ecclesiam Suam, 101.
30. GS, 26.
31. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 57–59.
32. John Paul II, Address to the UN General Assembly, Oct. 2, 1979.
33. GS, 78.
34. John Paul II, Address to Workers at Morumbi Stadium, Sao Paolo, Brazil, July 3, 1980.
35. John Paul II, Address to a Meeting of Midwives, Jan. 26, 1980, no. 3.
36. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 54.
37. Ibid., 100.
38. John Paul II, Homily for Farmers in Recife, Brazil, July 7, 1980.
39. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 23.
40. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 85.
41. John Paul II, Address to Convention on Public Morality, Nov. 29, 1982.
42. John Paul II, Address to President Carter, Oct. 6, 1979; cf. CCC, 1939–1942, 2437–2442.
43. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 157, 207.
44. John Paul II, Message to the 15th World Day of Social Communications, May 10, 1981.
45. John Paul II, Address to the World Congress on the Problems of Migration, Mar. 15, 1979.
46. Paul VI, Enc. Populorum Progressio, 44.
47. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 120.
48. John Paul II, Homily of the Mass at Yankee Stadium, New York, Oct. 2, 1979.