23. State and Society
19. The Origin of the State
19a) The Need for Authority
We have already seen that the common good cannot be secured without the efficient direction provided by authority. Authority is “the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body.”1 The obligation to submit to it is thus based on the moral force that defines it, not on its coercive power—although the use of coercive means within the limits of the common good is legitimate. Authority cannot treat free persons as mere robots, since it is precisely meant for their service.
Lest the political community be ruined while everyone follows his own opinion, an authority is needed to guide the energies of all towards the common good—not mechanically or despotically, but by acting above all as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility.2
19b) All Authority Proceeds from God
The study of the common good showed that authority, as a natural institution, proceeds from God. Sacred Scripture and Tradition attest to the same truth. In the Old Testament, we read: “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just” (Prv 8:15) St. Paul affirms: “There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1). St. Augustine repeats the same doctrine: “We do not attribute the power of giving governments and empires to any but the true God.”3 St. Gregory the Great affirms the same: “We confess that power is given from above to emperors and kings.”4 Finally, the recent Magisterium has declared: “Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God.”5
We can conclude that the dispositions of human authority are right and binding only insofar as they somehow partake of the Supreme Authority. No authority can be independent of that Supreme Authority.
19c) Authority and Moral Order
The observance of the moral law is necessary for the proper exercise of authority.
Political authority, either within the political community as such or through organizations representing the state, must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good.6
Every man has the natural moral law engraved in his heart, and knows its contents from the moment he reaches the age of reason. It consists of all the ends that fulfill the nature of man, and that can be known by human reason. These ends constitute the minimum basic moral code that every man must follow. This code includes the Ten Commandments and many of their concrete applications. Any positive legislation must therefore be inspired by natural moral law.
Within its own scope, human authority can extend the moral law in those aspects connected with civil life that the latter has not specified:
The patronage of the moral order that we attribute to St. Stanislaus is principally linked with the universal recognition of the authority of the moral law, that is to say, of the law of God. This law places an obligation upon everyone, both subjects and rulers. It constitutes the moral norm, and is an essential criterion of man’s value. Only when we begin from this law, namely the moral law, can the dignity of the human person be respected and universally recognized. Therefore, morality and law are the fundamental conditions for social order. Upon the law are built States and nations, and without it they perish.7
19d) No Authority without God
The dictates of civil authority can bind in conscience only when they are in agreement with the Law of God. No authority that ignores the Law of God can demand obedience. If there is a conflict between human and divine law, a Christian must always obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29).
Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since “it is right to obey God rather than men.” Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse.8
19e) Authority and the People
Authority does not come from the people. But the people have the right to choose the persons who will exercise it, and the way in which they will do it:
The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority.9
The investiture of political power—that is, the act of entrusting authority to a specific person or persons--does not come from God. Otherwise, God would see to the appointment of leaders in an explicit way, without human intervention. If that were the case, leaders would be answerable only to God or to themselves. Therefore, the divine origin of authority is not an obstacle for the defense of freedom and political pluralism; subjects have the right and duty to take part in public life and determine the regime, political system, parties, and persons who will govern the political community.
It is clear that the political community and public authority are based on human nature, and therefore that they need belong to an order established by God; nevertheless, the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.10
20. The Purpose of the State
20a) A Service to Society
The state must regulate social life and serve society. Rulers must avoid disorders in the exercise of civic rights. They must ensure that the private interests of some individuals do not prevail over the rest, and that there is due harmony between the reciprocal rights and duties of each person.
One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate supervision and co-ordination of men’s respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way,
· that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs;
· that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties;
· that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated.11
20b) State and Person
(1) Respect for the person
The state must respect human persons and human activity, since only the person is entitled to respect on his own account. State ordinances and institutions must be placed at the service of each person:
The intelligence, with which man is endowed, puts him above all creatures of the visible world, and is the foundation of his peculiar dignity, making him a being “naturally free and existing for his own sake”--naturaliter liber et propter seipsum existens. It is precisely from this superior dignity that there is derived also the consequence that the social body and its organization do not have complete authority over man, as the Angelic Doctor pointed out precisely: “Man is not ordained to the political community according to the whole of himself or according to all his affairs.”12
(2) Protection of personal rights
The state must protect the rights of all persons, especially the most destitute ones, who cannot stand for their own rights.
Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to special consideration.13
Laws and ordinances that trample upon or ignore human rights do not bind at all.14
(3) Facilitating the fulfillment of duties
The state must take into account the rights of the citizens in its norms and regulations. But it must also consider them as subjects of duties, and supply them the means and opportunities that are needed for the fulfillment of those duties.15
(4) Facilitating personal fulfillment
The state must help persons develop themselves. Human persons reach their perfection by integrally fulfilling the demands of their being, and this fulfillment should not be subject to the state.
However, while such difficulties and experiences can at times call for exceptional measures … they never, never justify any attack on the inviolable dignity of the human person and on the authentic rights that protect that dignity. If certain ideologies and certain ways of interpreting legitimate concerns for national security were to result in subjugating to the State man and his rights and dignity, they would to that extent cease to be human and would be unable to claim without gross deception any Christian reference.16
20c) State and Common Good
(1) The attainment of the common good
All the authority of the state is directed to the attainment of the common good. The state cannot ignore the requirements of justice that are necessary for the common good. As we have seen, these requirements can be summarized in the respect of personal rights and the equitable distribution of the burdens and benefits of the common good. John Paul II mentions some of the specific tasks of the state:
The State, the justification of which is the sovereignty of society, and to which is entrusted the safeguarding of independence, must never lose sight of its first objective, which is the common good of all its citizens—all its citizens without distinction, and not just the welfare of one particular group or category. The State must reject anything unworthy of the freedom and of the human rights of its people, thus banishing all elements such as abuse of authority, corruption, domination of the weak, the denial to the people of their right share in political life and decisions, tyranny or the use of violence and terrorism.17
(2) Respect for the supernatural order
The achievement of the common good must respect the demands of the eternal and supernatural order, since the natural common good is in harmony with the supernatural good of the souls. Both the dignity of the human person and the pursuit of justice and peace are goals common to the state and to the Church.
In their own proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing. Yet, by a different title, each serves the personal and social vocation of the same human beings.18
21. Duties of the State Mentioned by the Magisterium
21a) To Help and Respect the Church
The state must help the Church and respect her freedom. If the due independence of the Church in the fulfillment of her supernatural mission is not respected, the State would fail to protect the dignity of man, since the religious dimension is what measures the true greatness of man.
To violate religious freedom, oppress it, limit it, and stifle it, is the greatest affront to man, for the spiritual and religious dimension is the one on the basis of which every other human greatness is measured.19
21b) To Safeguard Morals
As an image and likeness of God, man requires above all the supernatural goods. Human dignity demands that the state respect the moral dignity of the person, which has been granted by God himself. The state must thus strive to build a healthy moral environment, which will encourage citizens to practice virtue. It is obvious that seeing to the production and equitable distribution of material goods does not exhaust the responsibilities of the state.
Man indeed can be wounded in his inner relationship with truth, in his conscience, in his most personal belief, in his view of the world, in his religious faith, and in the sphere of what are known as civil liberties.… Structures of social life often exist in which the practical exercise of these freedoms condemns man, in fact if not formally, to become a second-class or third-class citizen, to see compromised his chances of social advancement, his professional career or his access to certain posts of responsibility, and to lose even the possibility of educating his children freely.20
21c) To Defend Freedom
The state must protect the liberties of individuals and of the different social groups and classes. Ordinarily, state authorities must encourage personal and social initiatives, rather than take their place. The state must coordinate and direct them according to the interests of the common good. In this field, the function of the state must be directed by the principle of subsidiarity, which we will study in more detail later.
However extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights.21
Public authority must not invade the rights and freedoms of citizens; it can only demand their cooperation for the attainment of the common good.22
The common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.23
21d) To Promote Social Justice
The state must implement a policy of social justice and security. Social justice demands that working conditions may not be left to particular contracts exclusively, since, in that case, workers could easily be at a disadvantage. The state cannot ignore basic rights like having a dignified and healthy working environment, or receiving a salary that will sufficiently cover unavoidable personal and family needs.
Among the several purposes of a society [association of workers], one should be to try to arrange for a continuous supply of work at all times and seasons; as well as to create a fund out of which the members may be effectively helped in their needs, not only in the cases of accident, but also in sickness, old age, and distress.24
In many countries, the first priority nowadays is creating jobs for everyone. This task corresponds primarily to the state, which should implement global policies in order to exploit the great reserves of unused resources, and thus promote full employment.25
Another responsibility of the state is social security. This includes measures ranging from life insurance, medical care, accident prevention, disability and old age pensions, safety and good moral conditions in the workplace, as well as the protection of the rights to rest and leisure. These measures should benefit both the worker and his family.
21e) To Observe Distributive Justice
Every human being must have access to a certain quantity of goods that are absolutely necessary for life; this condition is inseparable from human dignity. Aside from this, citizens are entitled to an equitable distribution of social benefits and burdens. In this regard, the state must favor especially the underprivileged, whose only resource is their work:
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.26
On the other hand, justice demands that all citizens contribute to the support of common social services. This contribution must be made in an equitable and solidaristic manner, in spite of the practical difficulties of assigning to each person and group the amount that exactly corresponds to them:
Citizens, who must be defended in their rights, must at the same time be educated to take their just share of public charges, in the form of taxes or dues, for it is also a form of justice when one benefits from public services and the multiple conditions of a peaceful life in common; and it is also an equitable form of solidarity with other members of the national or international community or with other generations.27
21f) To Foster Economic and Social Development
The improvement of social services is one of the signs of economic and social development, and social progress should not lag behind economic development. Pope John XXIII lists some of the basic social services: “Such services include road building, transportation, communications, drinking water, housing, medical care, ample facilities for the practice of religion, and aids to recreation.”28
True development, moreover, should start by affirming the spiritual values in each human being, and putting social and economic progress at their service:
The construction of a new social order presupposes, over and above the essential technological skills, a lofty inspiration, a courageous motivation, belief in man’s future, in his dignity, in his destiny.… All those who desire the defense and progress of man must therefore love man for his own sake; and for this it is essential to count upon the values of the spirit, which are alone capable of transforming hearts and deeply-rooted attitudes.29
21g) To Protect Private Property
The state must seek to extend the right to private property to as many individuals as possible. This will be made easier by policies favoring savings and investment:
The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided.30
Likewise, reforms must be undertaken to ensure that farmers enjoy appropriate living standards, that private ownership is not abused to the detriment of others, and that productive properties are not left idle.31
21h) To Be a Prudent Administrator
It is difficult to lay down general criteria for the priorities in the administration of public funds. A basic and always valid principle is that of covering the fundamental needs—both material and cultural—of all citizens. Another goal is to avoid unnecessary military build ups:
It is an increasing outlay of means that are socially unproductive, which causes fatal psychological consequences in relations among States and in the internal life of the States themselves.32
21i) To Intervene in Certain Cases
When private associations harm the common good, the state has to step in to amend or dissolve them. When the right to private property is exercised without regard for the common interest, the state must ensure that these properties—especially land—are exploited for the benefit of all. “But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals and not to impose unreasonable regulations under pretense of public benefit. For laws only bind when they are in accordance with right reason, and, hence, with the eternal law of God.”33 “The transfer of goods from private to public ownership may be undertaken only by competent authority, in accordance with the demands and within the limits of the common good, and it must be accompanied by adequate compensation.”34
22. The Principle of Subsidiarity
Based on the previous Magisterium, Pius XI gave a general formulation of the principle of the subsidiary role of the state:
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things that were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, a most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: 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 great 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 social body, and never destroy and absorb them.
The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, and restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be, the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.35
The principle of subsidiarity defines, focuses, and exhausts the essential role of the state and the authorities as the governing element of society.
The term subsidiarity is the functional definition of the state; the functional definition of the citizen is participation. To participate is to take an active part, that is, not to be a merely passive subject. The convergence of these two functions creates the proper environment for the common good to appear, develop, and expand.
When these basic principles—subsidiarity and participation—are applied to economic life, they give birth to two complementary derived principles: on the part of the state, the principle of intervention; on the part of the individual, the principle of primacy of private initiative. When state intervention is not based on the principle of subsidiarity, excessive interventionism arises. On the other hand, if the exercise of private initiative is separated from its intrinsic function of service and participation in the common good, “might is right” becomes the order of the day and general disorder and injustice sets in.
22a) State Intervention in Labor
One of the applications of the principle of subsidiarity is in the field of labor. Work is both a duty and a right of man. The right to choose a job and to negotiate the conditions is prior to the state, whose role in this field is only to protect and assist. The first step in this task of protection is to create enough jobs for all:
The first and fundamental concern of one and all, rulers, politicians, trade-union leaders and owners of enterprises, must be this: to give work to everyone. To expect the solution of the problem as the more or less automatic result of an economic order and development, of whatever kind, in which employment appears as a secondary consequence, is not realistic and therefore is not admissible.36
It is also the competence of the state to ordain the division and distribution of work to the common good, and to urge that work conditions are such that man can fulfill his personal vocation: “In any case, any legitimate and beneficial state intervention in the field of work must be such as to preserve and respect its personal character, both in principle and, within the limits of possibility, as regards execution.”37
22b) Personal Initiative and State Intervention in the Economy
Regarding state intervention in economic affairs, the doctrine of the Church rejects both extremes: total abstention, and takeover of all economic decisions. The role of the state in the economy, as in other fields, is to foster and assist personal initiative, and to seek the common good, with a special interest for the underprivileged:
As for the State, its whole raison d’être is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, “the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue.” It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women, and children.38
Direct state intervention is justified only as a temporary substitution. It must be inspired not merely by technical criteria—planning, organization—but by higher ethical principles: justice, social charity. These principles must inform the whole economy.39
22c) Subsidiarity in the Field of Education
Parents are the first and primordial educators. Theirs is the ultimate responsibility for the education of their children. As a consequence, they have the right to delegate part of that education to appropriate educational institutions that are in agreement with their moral and religious convictions. This is no right of the state, whose role is to facilitate the exercise of this primary and inalienable parental right, instead of encroaching upon it.
Public authority has a subsidiary role in this area, and it is not abdicating of its rights when it places itself at the service of the parents; on the contrary, this is precisely its greatness: to defend and promote the free exercise of educational rights.40
22d) General Consequences of the Principle of Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity establishes that the state must not take over tasks that can be done by a smaller community. On the contrary, these communities have the right to demand from the state the proper conditions for their performance: assistance, general coordination. The latter is needed because the end of these smaller communities is more limited than that of the state, and must be inserted in the wider frame of the common good of the nation.
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.41
22e) Subsidiarity in International Relations
The principle of subsidiarity also can be applied to international relations. In this field, there is a need for a supranational authority, with the capacity to solve conflicts that exceed the competence of individual nations. The exercise of such authority, however, must always be at the service of national communities, without invading their proper and independent spheres of authority:
The special function of this universal authority must be to evaluate and find a solution to economic, social, political and cultural problems that affect the universal common good. These are problems that, because of their extreme gravity, vastness, and urgency, must be considered too difficult for the rulers of individual States to solve with any degree of success. But it is no part of the duty of universal authority to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of individual States, or to arrogate any of their functions to itself.42
23. Socialization
23a) Notion of Socialization
The concept of socialization can easily lead to confusion. Leo XIII understood it—without explicitly using that term—as the complete transfer of private property to the state. On the other hand, he also referred to the natural right of association.43 Pius XI used the verb to socialize and the adjective socialized, but he referred exclusively to socialist ideology.44 The term socialization was first used in its current meaning in the encyclical Mater et Magistra: the multiplication of social relations in daily life that prevent human depersonalization.45
Modern life has brought many forms of association and interdependence for all sorts of purposes: economic, social, cultural, recreational, professional, political. This development has greatly reduced distances between persons and peoples. “Nowadays for various reasons mutual relationships and interdependence increase from day to day and give rise to a variety of associations and organizations, both public and private.”46
Private intermediate associations are a direct product of socialization.47 Some of the advantages of these associations are greater closeness and solidarity among men (which is a sign of their spiritual union), advances of urbanization and industrialization, and an increased speed of social communications.48 Their disadvantages are most obvious in periods of rapid change, when these changes are not wholly assimilated by the affected population. They may excessively program and suffocate the interpersonal environment in which human relations must take place, as we will see below.
23b) The Present Acceleration of Socialization
The process of socialization is accelerated by the increasing sophistication of the means of communication, urban civilization, mass media, tourism, and greater facility of migration. Still, socialization alone does not bring about a moral improvement in the persons affected.
On the whole, the bonds uniting man to his fellows multiply without ceasing, and “socialization” creates yet other bonds, without, however, a corresponding personal development, and truly personal relationships.49
23c) Causes of Socialization
The encyclical Mater et Magistra cites, among the factors that foster socialization, scientific and technical progress, the increase of economic productivity, and higher standards of living. Its root, however, is to be sought in “a natural, well-nigh irresistible urge in man to combine with his fellow-men for the attainment of aims and objectives that are beyond the means or the capabilities of single individuals.”50
23d) The Morality of Socialization
(1) Nationalization
In the first sense cited above—that of nationalization—socialization may be carried out only when it is necessary for the common good. It has a positive value only insofar as it brings about a progress toward the attainment of the common good. We must not forget that the subject of the common good is the human person and the intermediate associations, which stand between the individual and the state. It is not the role of the state to absorb private initiatives, but to foster them.51
Having the state displace the individual in the ownership and administration of the means of production is the wrong way of understanding socialization. “We can speak of socializing only when … on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working with every one else.”52
(2) Social relations
The Church accepts socialization—in its second, wider meaning—as morally good, provided that the sphere of freedom of individual initiative is respected.
The process of socialization is also positive insofar as it promotes greater unity and draws people together. “The Church, moreover, acknowledges the good to be found in the social dynamism of today, particularly progress towards unity, healthy socialization, and civil and economic cooperation.”53 Socialization is no longer healthy when it degenerates into a one-track programming of human activities, leaving no room for free individual initiative.54
(3) Advantages of socialization
Still referring to the second meaning of the term socialization, we should mention the following advantages in the social and economic field: easier access to health care and to professional formation, greater organization of labor, and the greater availability of recreational facilities. Besides, the new means of communication facilitate solidarity with far-away peoples.55
(4) Disadvantages of socialization
The main danger of socialization is that, in the pursuit of social and economic development, it may be forgotten that the only proper subject of that development is the human person. The fulfillment of the person would thus be subordinated to technical criteria that, by themselves, cannot bring man more freedom. Socialization is taken here in the second sense discussed above.
Socialization swells the bureaucratic apparatus beyond measure; establishes more and more meticulous juridical regulations of human relations in every aspect of social life; and uses methods that involve a great danger; what is now known as “dehumanization.” Modern man sees how, in many cases, excessive restrictions are applied to the sphere where he is allowed to think by himself, act by his own initiative, exercise his responsibilities, affirm and enrich his personality.56
24. Culture in Personal and Social Life
If we focus on its origin, culture is an expression of personal subjectivity in its two aspects, material and spiritual. It is not the echo or reflection of conditions that are external to man, as is the case with the means of production. Culture stands in relation to what man is, to his essence; and therefore is not properly an object of possession. “A culture without human subjectivity and without human causality is inconceivable; in the cultural field, man is always the first fact; man is the prime and fundamental fact of culture.”57
If we focus on its end, culture is a right of every man, according to each one’s conditions and capacity. “It is one of the properties of the human person that he can achieve true and full humanity only by means of culture, that is, through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. Whenever, therefore, there is a question of human life, nature and culture are intimately linked together.”58
In our times, growing specialization has brought the danger of cultural compartmentalization. The different fields of knowledge face the prospect of becoming isolated from each other, losing the fundamental unifying principles of every true wisdom. Besides, this compartmentalization affects the interior unity of man as well; knowledge should not represent for man an external partial good, independent from the rest of his life; it should be something connatural to him, influencing the different spheres of his behavior. Every true knowledge ultimately leads to God, who is the ultimate source both of human reason and of revelation.
Some people try to resurrect a supposed incompatibility between faith and science, between human knowledge and divine revelation. But such incompatibility could only arise—and then only apparently—from a misunderstanding of the elements of the problem.…
We can never be afraid of developing human knowledge, because all intellectual effort, if it is serious, is aimed at truth. And Christ has said: “I am the truth.”59
Culture is a source of unity in social life, offering citizens a common history and heritage. By holding fast to her culture, noted Pope John Paul II, Poland has affirmed her identity through the centuries, being able to face great external pressures. This shows the importance of preserving the native cultures of different peoples.
The scope of public authority extends, not to determining the proper nature of cultural forms, but to building up the environment and the provision of assistance favorable to the development of culture, without overlooking minority groups in the nation. This is the reason why one must avoid at all costs distorting culture from its proper purposes and its exploitation by political or economical forces.60
25. Culture and Morals
As a free expression of man, culture belongs to the moral order. Morality reverts from free acts to the person, creating habits and modes of expression. “The moral order is at the basis of all human culture.”61 Culture reflects moral values. To acquire and cultivate these values, one must resist the materialist temptations of our society, which seek to inhibit them. Among such values we can cite inner joy, respect for life, respect for the laws of the family, giving primacy to truth in one’s behavior, and all the human virtues. Such principles give birth to true culture. “There is no doubt that the first and fundamental dimension of culture is healthy morality: moral culture.”62
Besides, Christianity fosters culture in personal and social life. In personal life, Christianity considers man as he truly is, as a subject open to transcendent values, able to consider them and give them a creative expression. In social life, Christian values inspire their own model of society, where technical progress is at the service of the true human dignity. The blossoming of culture will bring about the rejection of idols like immediate success, consumerism, and other forms of practical and ideological materialism. Conversely, the Christian message and a moral life as the measure of man are, by themselves, creators of culture.
The good news of Christ continuously renews the life and culture of fallen man.… It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes and restores them in Christ. In this way the Church carries out its mission and in that very act it stimulates and advances human and civil culture, as well as contributing by its activity, including liturgical activity, to man’s interior freedom.63
26. The State and Human Rights and Duties
26a) Rights and Duties
The objective rights of man, because of their universality, must be respected by every legal system. Some of these rights refer to the material component of man, some to his spiritual dimension. Nevertheless, it is the spiritual nature of man—a nature that is endowed with intelligence and free will—that makes both possible.
Among the rights that refer to the material aspect of man are the rights to life and physical integrity, to a decent standard of living, to private property, and the different economic and labor rights. Among those that refer to man’s spiritual aspect are freedom of conscience (or absence of coercion in the sphere of one’s intimate decisions), the freedom to profess one’s religion in public and in private, and the freedom to participate in the different expressions of the common good—familial, professional, cultural, and political.
Rights can also be divided into passive or static rights, like the right to life and to public order, and active rights, whose exercise may even be a duty. The latter include being active in certain social spheres, and accepting religious truth.
Still another way of classifying rights is to consider their origin. Some rights stem from human nature, others from the national or cultural community, and others are acquired through personal effort. Nevertheless, even the second and third kinds ultimately proceed from natural inclinations that human nature itself does not specify in all their details.
The exercise of these rights implies certain duties, without which rights would lose all their force as true rights:
These rights, however, must be conceived in their correct meaning. The right to freedom, for example, does not, of course, include the right to moral evil, as if it were possible to claim, among other things, the right to suppress human life, as in abortion, or the right to use things harmful to oneself or to others. Likewise one should not deal with the rights of man without envisaging also his correlative duties, which express precisely his own responsibility and his respect of the rights of others and of the community.64
26b) Respect for Human Rights
The Church denounces all the violations of human rights perpetrated in the modern world. Under certain circumstances, the state may suspend the exercise of some secondary or derived rights, if it is required by higher considerations of the common good. Nevertheless, civic liberties must be restored as soon as these circumstances have changed. As for the more personal and inalienable rights, since they are an intrinsic part of common good itself, they can never be subordinated to other considerations. Such are the rights to physical security, to the choice of state in life, to not receiving offenses to one’s dignity, to true information, to freedom in the education of one’s children, to freedom of conscience, and to religious freedom.
If restrictions are imposed temporarily for the common good on the exercise of human rights, these restrictions are to be lifted as soon as possible after the situation has changed. In any case it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on totalitarian methods or dictatorship which violate the rights of persons or social groups.65
Whenever violated human rights must be restored, as demanded by justice, the Church warns against the use of violent or revolutionary methods, inspired by class struggle. Every injustice must be blamed not on structures, but on the heart of men, on individuals—on their sins, which are always personal.
The truth of mankind requires that this battle be fought in ways consistent with human dignity. That is why the systematic and deliberate recourse to blind violence, no matter from which side it comes, must be condemned. To put one’s trust in violent means in the hope of restoring more justice is to become the victim of a fatal illusion; violence begets violence and degrades man.… Therefore, it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about that will truly be in the service of man.66
Footnotes:
1. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 46; cf. CCC, 1897–1904.
2. GS, 74.
3. St. Augustine De Civ. Dei 5.21.
4. St. Gregory the Great, In Epist. Lib. 2.61.
5. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 51; cf. CCC, 1884.
6. GS, 74.
7. John Paul II, Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Polish Episcopal Conference, June 5, 1979, in Pilgrim to Poland: John Paul II (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1979), 147.
8. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 51.
9. Ibid., 52.
10. GS, 74.
11. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 62.
12. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. 7, 1979; cf. ST, II-II, q. 64, a. 3; I-II, q. 21, a. 4 ad 3; CCC, 1907.
13. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 27.
14. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 61.
15. Cf. Ibid., 60.
16. John Paul II, Address to the Organization of American States (OEA), Washington, Oct. 6, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 165.
17. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Nairobi, Kenya, May 6, 1980; cf. CCC, 1905–1912.
18. John Paul II, Address to President Carter, Oct. 6, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 163.
19. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Jan. 12, 1981; cf. GS, 76.
20. John Paul II, Address to the UN General Assembly, Oct. 2, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 39.
21. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 55.
22. Cf. GS, 75.
23. Cf. CCC, 1909.
24. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 40.
25. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 17–18.
26. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 27.
27. John Paul II, Address to a Group of Tax Experts, Nov. 7, 1980.
28. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 64; cf. CCC, 1908.
29. John Paul II, Address to Scientists and UN University Students in Hiroshima, Japan, Feb. 25, 1981.
30. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 33.
31. Cf. GS, 71.
32. John Paul II, Address to the Sacred College of Cardinals, Dec. 22, 1979.
33. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 35.
34. GS, 71.
35. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 79–80; cf. CCC, 1883–1885.
36. John Paul II, Address to Workers at Morumbi Stadium, Sao Paulo, Brazil, July 3, 1980.
37. Pius XII, Pentecost Radio Message, June 1, 1941.
38. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 20; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum, 1.15.
39. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 88.
40. John Paul II, Homily at the Mass for Families, Madrid, Nov. 2, 1982.
41. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 79.
42. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 140–141; cf. CCC, 1911.
43. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 11, 34.
44. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 119.
45. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 59, 65; cf. CCC, 1882–1885.
46. GS, 25.
47. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 59–60.
48. Cf. GS, 6, 42.
49. Ibid., 6.
50. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 60.
51. Cf. Ibid., 64–67.
52. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
53. GS, 42.
54. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 62.
55. Cf. John XXIII, Address to the Social Week of France, July 1960; Enc. Mater et Magistra, 61.
56. John XXIII, Address to the Social Week of France, July 1960.
57. John Paul II, Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980.
58. GS, 53.
59. St. Josemaría Escrivá, Christ is Passing By, 10.
60. GS, 59.
61. John Paul II, Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Polish Episcopal Conference, June 5, 1979, in Pilgrim to Poland: John Paul II, 148.
62. John Paul II, Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980.
63. GS, 58.
64. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Jan. 14, 1980; cf. CCC, 2237.
65. GS, 75.
66. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” 11.7–8.
19a) The Need for Authority
We have already seen that the common good cannot be secured without the efficient direction provided by authority. Authority is “the natural and necessary link for ensuring the cohesion of the social body.”1 The obligation to submit to it is thus based on the moral force that defines it, not on its coercive power—although the use of coercive means within the limits of the common good is legitimate. Authority cannot treat free persons as mere robots, since it is precisely meant for their service.
Lest the political community be ruined while everyone follows his own opinion, an authority is needed to guide the energies of all towards the common good—not mechanically or despotically, but by acting above all as a moral force based on freedom and a sense of responsibility.2
19b) All Authority Proceeds from God
The study of the common good showed that authority, as a natural institution, proceeds from God. Sacred Scripture and Tradition attest to the same truth. In the Old Testament, we read: “By me kings reign, and rulers decree what is just” (Prv 8:15) St. Paul affirms: “There is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God” (Rom 13:1). St. Augustine repeats the same doctrine: “We do not attribute the power of giving governments and empires to any but the true God.”3 St. Gregory the Great affirms the same: “We confess that power is given from above to emperors and kings.”4 Finally, the recent Magisterium has declared: “Governmental authority, therefore, is a postulate of the moral order and derives from God.”5
We can conclude that the dispositions of human authority are right and binding only insofar as they somehow partake of the Supreme Authority. No authority can be independent of that Supreme Authority.
19c) Authority and Moral Order
The observance of the moral law is necessary for the proper exercise of authority.
Political authority, either within the political community as such or through organizations representing the state, must be exercised within the limits of the moral order and directed toward the common good.6
Every man has the natural moral law engraved in his heart, and knows its contents from the moment he reaches the age of reason. It consists of all the ends that fulfill the nature of man, and that can be known by human reason. These ends constitute the minimum basic moral code that every man must follow. This code includes the Ten Commandments and many of their concrete applications. Any positive legislation must therefore be inspired by natural moral law.
Within its own scope, human authority can extend the moral law in those aspects connected with civil life that the latter has not specified:
The patronage of the moral order that we attribute to St. Stanislaus is principally linked with the universal recognition of the authority of the moral law, that is to say, of the law of God. This law places an obligation upon everyone, both subjects and rulers. It constitutes the moral norm, and is an essential criterion of man’s value. Only when we begin from this law, namely the moral law, can the dignity of the human person be respected and universally recognized. Therefore, morality and law are the fundamental conditions for social order. Upon the law are built States and nations, and without it they perish.7
19d) No Authority without God
The dictates of civil authority can bind in conscience only when they are in agreement with the Law of God. No authority that ignores the Law of God can demand obedience. If there is a conflict between human and divine law, a Christian must always obey God rather than men (cf. Acts 5:29).
Consequently, laws and decrees passed in contravention of the moral order, and hence of the divine will, can have no binding force in conscience, since “it is right to obey God rather than men.” Indeed, the passing of such laws undermines the very nature of authority and results in shameful abuse.8
19e) Authority and the People
Authority does not come from the people. But the people have the right to choose the persons who will exercise it, and the way in which they will do it:
The fact that authority comes from God does not mean that men have no power to choose those who are to rule the State, or to decide upon the type of government they want, and determine the procedure and limitations of rulers in the exercise of their authority.9
The investiture of political power—that is, the act of entrusting authority to a specific person or persons--does not come from God. Otherwise, God would see to the appointment of leaders in an explicit way, without human intervention. If that were the case, leaders would be answerable only to God or to themselves. Therefore, the divine origin of authority is not an obstacle for the defense of freedom and political pluralism; subjects have the right and duty to take part in public life and determine the regime, political system, parties, and persons who will govern the political community.
It is clear that the political community and public authority are based on human nature, and therefore that they need belong to an order established by God; nevertheless, the choice of the political regime and the appointment of rulers are left to the free decision of the citizens.10
20. The Purpose of the State
20a) A Service to Society
The state must regulate social life and serve society. Rulers must avoid disorders in the exercise of civic rights. They must ensure that the private interests of some individuals do not prevail over the rest, and that there is due harmony between the reciprocal rights and duties of each person.
One of the principal duties of any government, moreover, is the suitable and adequate supervision and co-ordination of men’s respective rights in society. This must be done in such a way,
· that the exercise of their rights by certain citizens does not obstruct other citizens in the exercise of theirs;
· that the individual, standing upon his own rights, does not impede others in the performance of their duties;
· that the rights of all be effectively safeguarded, and completely restored if they have been violated.11
20b) State and Person
(1) Respect for the person
The state must respect human persons and human activity, since only the person is entitled to respect on his own account. State ordinances and institutions must be placed at the service of each person:
The intelligence, with which man is endowed, puts him above all creatures of the visible world, and is the foundation of his peculiar dignity, making him a being “naturally free and existing for his own sake”--naturaliter liber et propter seipsum existens. It is precisely from this superior dignity that there is derived also the consequence that the social body and its organization do not have complete authority over man, as the Angelic Doctor pointed out precisely: “Man is not ordained to the political community according to the whole of himself or according to all his affairs.”12
(2) Protection of personal rights
The state must protect the rights of all persons, especially the most destitute ones, who cannot stand for their own rights.
Rights must be religiously respected wherever they exist, and it is the duty of the public authority to prevent and to punish injury, and to protect every one in the possession of his own. Still, when there is question of defending the rights of individuals, the poor and badly off have a claim to special consideration.13
Laws and ordinances that trample upon or ignore human rights do not bind at all.14
(3) Facilitating the fulfillment of duties
The state must take into account the rights of the citizens in its norms and regulations. But it must also consider them as subjects of duties, and supply them the means and opportunities that are needed for the fulfillment of those duties.15
(4) Facilitating personal fulfillment
The state must help persons develop themselves. Human persons reach their perfection by integrally fulfilling the demands of their being, and this fulfillment should not be subject to the state.
However, while such difficulties and experiences can at times call for exceptional measures … they never, never justify any attack on the inviolable dignity of the human person and on the authentic rights that protect that dignity. If certain ideologies and certain ways of interpreting legitimate concerns for national security were to result in subjugating to the State man and his rights and dignity, they would to that extent cease to be human and would be unable to claim without gross deception any Christian reference.16
20c) State and Common Good
(1) The attainment of the common good
All the authority of the state is directed to the attainment of the common good. The state cannot ignore the requirements of justice that are necessary for the common good. As we have seen, these requirements can be summarized in the respect of personal rights and the equitable distribution of the burdens and benefits of the common good. John Paul II mentions some of the specific tasks of the state:
The State, the justification of which is the sovereignty of society, and to which is entrusted the safeguarding of independence, must never lose sight of its first objective, which is the common good of all its citizens—all its citizens without distinction, and not just the welfare of one particular group or category. The State must reject anything unworthy of the freedom and of the human rights of its people, thus banishing all elements such as abuse of authority, corruption, domination of the weak, the denial to the people of their right share in political life and decisions, tyranny or the use of violence and terrorism.17
(2) Respect for the supernatural order
The achievement of the common good must respect the demands of the eternal and supernatural order, since the natural common good is in harmony with the supernatural good of the souls. Both the dignity of the human person and the pursuit of justice and peace are goals common to the state and to the Church.
In their own proper spheres, the political community and the Church are mutually independent and self-governing. Yet, by a different title, each serves the personal and social vocation of the same human beings.18
21. Duties of the State Mentioned by the Magisterium
21a) To Help and Respect the Church
The state must help the Church and respect her freedom. If the due independence of the Church in the fulfillment of her supernatural mission is not respected, the State would fail to protect the dignity of man, since the religious dimension is what measures the true greatness of man.
To violate religious freedom, oppress it, limit it, and stifle it, is the greatest affront to man, for the spiritual and religious dimension is the one on the basis of which every other human greatness is measured.19
21b) To Safeguard Morals
As an image and likeness of God, man requires above all the supernatural goods. Human dignity demands that the state respect the moral dignity of the person, which has been granted by God himself. The state must thus strive to build a healthy moral environment, which will encourage citizens to practice virtue. It is obvious that seeing to the production and equitable distribution of material goods does not exhaust the responsibilities of the state.
Man indeed can be wounded in his inner relationship with truth, in his conscience, in his most personal belief, in his view of the world, in his religious faith, and in the sphere of what are known as civil liberties.… Structures of social life often exist in which the practical exercise of these freedoms condemns man, in fact if not formally, to become a second-class or third-class citizen, to see compromised his chances of social advancement, his professional career or his access to certain posts of responsibility, and to lose even the possibility of educating his children freely.20
21c) To Defend Freedom
The state must protect the liberties of individuals and of the different social groups and classes. Ordinarily, state authorities must encourage personal and social initiatives, rather than take their place. The state must coordinate and direct them according to the interests of the common good. In this field, the function of the state must be directed by the principle of subsidiarity, which we will study in more detail later.
However extensive and far-reaching the influence of the State on the economy may be, it must never be exerted to the extent of depriving the individual citizen of his freedom of action. It must rather augment his freedom while effectively guaranteeing the protection of his essential personal rights.21
Public authority must not invade the rights and freedoms of citizens; it can only demand their cooperation for the attainment of the common good.22
The common good requires peace, that is, the stability and security of a just order. It presupposes that authority should ensure by morally acceptable means the security of society and its members. It is the basis of the right to legitimate personal and collective defense.23
21d) To Promote Social Justice
The state must implement a policy of social justice and security. Social justice demands that working conditions may not be left to particular contracts exclusively, since, in that case, workers could easily be at a disadvantage. The state cannot ignore basic rights like having a dignified and healthy working environment, or receiving a salary that will sufficiently cover unavoidable personal and family needs.
Among the several purposes of a society [association of workers], one should be to try to arrange for a continuous supply of work at all times and seasons; as well as to create a fund out of which the members may be effectively helped in their needs, not only in the cases of accident, but also in sickness, old age, and distress.24
In many countries, the first priority nowadays is creating jobs for everyone. This task corresponds primarily to the state, which should implement global policies in order to exploit the great reserves of unused resources, and thus promote full employment.25
Another responsibility of the state is social security. This includes measures ranging from life insurance, medical care, accident prevention, disability and old age pensions, safety and good moral conditions in the workplace, as well as the protection of the rights to rest and leisure. These measures should benefit both the worker and his family.
21e) To Observe Distributive Justice
Every human being must have access to a certain quantity of goods that are absolutely necessary for life; this condition is inseparable from human dignity. Aside from this, citizens are entitled to an equitable distribution of social benefits and burdens. In this regard, the state must favor especially the underprivileged, whose only resource is their work:
The richer class have many ways of shielding themselves, and stand less in need of help from the State; whereas the mass of the poor have no resources of their own to fall back upon, and must chiefly depend upon the assistance of the State. And it is for this reason that wage-earners, since they mostly belong in the mass of the needy, should be specially cared for and protected by the government.26
On the other hand, justice demands that all citizens contribute to the support of common social services. This contribution must be made in an equitable and solidaristic manner, in spite of the practical difficulties of assigning to each person and group the amount that exactly corresponds to them:
Citizens, who must be defended in their rights, must at the same time be educated to take their just share of public charges, in the form of taxes or dues, for it is also a form of justice when one benefits from public services and the multiple conditions of a peaceful life in common; and it is also an equitable form of solidarity with other members of the national or international community or with other generations.27
21f) To Foster Economic and Social Development
The improvement of social services is one of the signs of economic and social development, and social progress should not lag behind economic development. Pope John XXIII lists some of the basic social services: “Such services include road building, transportation, communications, drinking water, housing, medical care, ample facilities for the practice of religion, and aids to recreation.”28
True development, moreover, should start by affirming the spiritual values in each human being, and putting social and economic progress at their service:
The construction of a new social order presupposes, over and above the essential technological skills, a lofty inspiration, a courageous motivation, belief in man’s future, in his dignity, in his destiny.… All those who desire the defense and progress of man must therefore love man for his own sake; and for this it is essential to count upon the values of the spirit, which are alone capable of transforming hearts and deeply-rooted attitudes.29
21g) To Protect Private Property
The state must seek to extend the right to private property to as many individuals as possible. This will be made easier by policies favoring savings and investment:
The law, therefore, should favor ownership, and its policy should be to induce as many as possible of the people to become owners. Many excellent results will follow from this; and, first of all, property will certainly become more equitably divided.30
Likewise, reforms must be undertaken to ensure that farmers enjoy appropriate living standards, that private ownership is not abused to the detriment of others, and that productive properties are not left idle.31
21h) To Be a Prudent Administrator
It is difficult to lay down general criteria for the priorities in the administration of public funds. A basic and always valid principle is that of covering the fundamental needs—both material and cultural—of all citizens. Another goal is to avoid unnecessary military build ups:
It is an increasing outlay of means that are socially unproductive, which causes fatal psychological consequences in relations among States and in the internal life of the States themselves.32
21i) To Intervene in Certain Cases
When private associations harm the common good, the state has to step in to amend or dissolve them. When the right to private property is exercised without regard for the common interest, the state must ensure that these properties—especially land—are exploited for the benefit of all. “But every precaution should be taken not to violate the rights of individuals and not to impose unreasonable regulations under pretense of public benefit. For laws only bind when they are in accordance with right reason, and, hence, with the eternal law of God.”33 “The transfer of goods from private to public ownership may be undertaken only by competent authority, in accordance with the demands and within the limits of the common good, and it must be accompanied by adequate compensation.”34
22. The Principle of Subsidiarity
Based on the previous Magisterium, Pius XI gave a general formulation of the principle of the subsidiary role of the state:
As history abundantly proves, it is true that on account of changed conditions many things that were done by small associations in former times cannot be done now save by large associations. Still, a most weighty principle, which cannot be set aside or changed, remains fixed and unshaken in social philosophy: 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 great 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 social body, and never destroy and absorb them.
The supreme authority of the State ought, therefore, to let subordinate groups handle matters and concerns of lesser importance, which would otherwise dissipate its efforts greatly. Thereby the State will more freely, powerfully, and effectively do all those things that belong to it alone because it alone can do them: directing, watching, urging, and restraining, as occasion requires and necessity demands. Therefore, those in power should be sure that the more perfectly a graduated order is kept among the various associations, in observance of the principle of “subsidiary function,” the stronger social authority and effectiveness will be, the happier and more prosperous the condition of the State.35
The principle of subsidiarity defines, focuses, and exhausts the essential role of the state and the authorities as the governing element of society.
The term subsidiarity is the functional definition of the state; the functional definition of the citizen is participation. To participate is to take an active part, that is, not to be a merely passive subject. The convergence of these two functions creates the proper environment for the common good to appear, develop, and expand.
When these basic principles—subsidiarity and participation—are applied to economic life, they give birth to two complementary derived principles: on the part of the state, the principle of intervention; on the part of the individual, the principle of primacy of private initiative. When state intervention is not based on the principle of subsidiarity, excessive interventionism arises. On the other hand, if the exercise of private initiative is separated from its intrinsic function of service and participation in the common good, “might is right” becomes the order of the day and general disorder and injustice sets in.
22a) State Intervention in Labor
One of the applications of the principle of subsidiarity is in the field of labor. Work is both a duty and a right of man. The right to choose a job and to negotiate the conditions is prior to the state, whose role in this field is only to protect and assist. The first step in this task of protection is to create enough jobs for all:
The first and fundamental concern of one and all, rulers, politicians, trade-union leaders and owners of enterprises, must be this: to give work to everyone. To expect the solution of the problem as the more or less automatic result of an economic order and development, of whatever kind, in which employment appears as a secondary consequence, is not realistic and therefore is not admissible.36
It is also the competence of the state to ordain the division and distribution of work to the common good, and to urge that work conditions are such that man can fulfill his personal vocation: “In any case, any legitimate and beneficial state intervention in the field of work must be such as to preserve and respect its personal character, both in principle and, within the limits of possibility, as regards execution.”37
22b) Personal Initiative and State Intervention in the Economy
Regarding state intervention in economic affairs, the doctrine of the Church rejects both extremes: total abstention, and takeover of all economic decisions. The role of the state in the economy, as in other fields, is to foster and assist personal initiative, and to seek the common good, with a special interest for the underprivileged:
As for the State, its whole raison d’être is the realization of the common good in the temporal order. It cannot, therefore, hold aloof from economic matters. On the contrary, it must do all in its power to promote the production of a sufficient supply of material goods, “the use of which is necessary for the practice of virtue.” It has also the duty to protect the rights of all its people, and particularly of its weaker members, the workers, women, and children.38
Direct state intervention is justified only as a temporary substitution. It must be inspired not merely by technical criteria—planning, organization—but by higher ethical principles: justice, social charity. These principles must inform the whole economy.39
22c) Subsidiarity in the Field of Education
Parents are the first and primordial educators. Theirs is the ultimate responsibility for the education of their children. As a consequence, they have the right to delegate part of that education to appropriate educational institutions that are in agreement with their moral and religious convictions. This is no right of the state, whose role is to facilitate the exercise of this primary and inalienable parental right, instead of encroaching upon it.
Public authority has a subsidiary role in this area, and it is not abdicating of its rights when it places itself at the service of the parents; on the contrary, this is precisely its greatness: to defend and promote the free exercise of educational rights.40
22d) General Consequences of the Principle of Subsidiarity
The principle of subsidiarity establishes that the state must not take over tasks that can be done by a smaller community. On the contrary, these communities have the right to demand from the state the proper conditions for their performance: assistance, general coordination. The latter is needed because the end of these smaller communities is more limited than that of the state, and must be inserted in the wider frame of the common good of the nation.
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.41
22e) Subsidiarity in International Relations
The principle of subsidiarity also can be applied to international relations. In this field, there is a need for a supranational authority, with the capacity to solve conflicts that exceed the competence of individual nations. The exercise of such authority, however, must always be at the service of national communities, without invading their proper and independent spheres of authority:
The special function of this universal authority must be to evaluate and find a solution to economic, social, political and cultural problems that affect the universal common good. These are problems that, because of their extreme gravity, vastness, and urgency, must be considered too difficult for the rulers of individual States to solve with any degree of success. But it is no part of the duty of universal authority to limit the sphere of action of the public authority of individual States, or to arrogate any of their functions to itself.42
23. Socialization
23a) Notion of Socialization
The concept of socialization can easily lead to confusion. Leo XIII understood it—without explicitly using that term—as the complete transfer of private property to the state. On the other hand, he also referred to the natural right of association.43 Pius XI used the verb to socialize and the adjective socialized, but he referred exclusively to socialist ideology.44 The term socialization was first used in its current meaning in the encyclical Mater et Magistra: the multiplication of social relations in daily life that prevent human depersonalization.45
Modern life has brought many forms of association and interdependence for all sorts of purposes: economic, social, cultural, recreational, professional, political. This development has greatly reduced distances between persons and peoples. “Nowadays for various reasons mutual relationships and interdependence increase from day to day and give rise to a variety of associations and organizations, both public and private.”46
Private intermediate associations are a direct product of socialization.47 Some of the advantages of these associations are greater closeness and solidarity among men (which is a sign of their spiritual union), advances of urbanization and industrialization, and an increased speed of social communications.48 Their disadvantages are most obvious in periods of rapid change, when these changes are not wholly assimilated by the affected population. They may excessively program and suffocate the interpersonal environment in which human relations must take place, as we will see below.
23b) The Present Acceleration of Socialization
The process of socialization is accelerated by the increasing sophistication of the means of communication, urban civilization, mass media, tourism, and greater facility of migration. Still, socialization alone does not bring about a moral improvement in the persons affected.
On the whole, the bonds uniting man to his fellows multiply without ceasing, and “socialization” creates yet other bonds, without, however, a corresponding personal development, and truly personal relationships.49
23c) Causes of Socialization
The encyclical Mater et Magistra cites, among the factors that foster socialization, scientific and technical progress, the increase of economic productivity, and higher standards of living. Its root, however, is to be sought in “a natural, well-nigh irresistible urge in man to combine with his fellow-men for the attainment of aims and objectives that are beyond the means or the capabilities of single individuals.”50
23d) The Morality of Socialization
(1) Nationalization
In the first sense cited above—that of nationalization—socialization may be carried out only when it is necessary for the common good. It has a positive value only insofar as it brings about a progress toward the attainment of the common good. We must not forget that the subject of the common good is the human person and the intermediate associations, which stand between the individual and the state. It is not the role of the state to absorb private initiatives, but to foster them.51
Having the state displace the individual in the ownership and administration of the means of production is the wrong way of understanding socialization. “We can speak of socializing only when … on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider himself a part-owner of the great workbench at which he is working with every one else.”52
(2) Social relations
The Church accepts socialization—in its second, wider meaning—as morally good, provided that the sphere of freedom of individual initiative is respected.
The process of socialization is also positive insofar as it promotes greater unity and draws people together. “The Church, moreover, acknowledges the good to be found in the social dynamism of today, particularly progress towards unity, healthy socialization, and civil and economic cooperation.”53 Socialization is no longer healthy when it degenerates into a one-track programming of human activities, leaving no room for free individual initiative.54
(3) Advantages of socialization
Still referring to the second meaning of the term socialization, we should mention the following advantages in the social and economic field: easier access to health care and to professional formation, greater organization of labor, and the greater availability of recreational facilities. Besides, the new means of communication facilitate solidarity with far-away peoples.55
(4) Disadvantages of socialization
The main danger of socialization is that, in the pursuit of social and economic development, it may be forgotten that the only proper subject of that development is the human person. The fulfillment of the person would thus be subordinated to technical criteria that, by themselves, cannot bring man more freedom. Socialization is taken here in the second sense discussed above.
Socialization swells the bureaucratic apparatus beyond measure; establishes more and more meticulous juridical regulations of human relations in every aspect of social life; and uses methods that involve a great danger; what is now known as “dehumanization.” Modern man sees how, in many cases, excessive restrictions are applied to the sphere where he is allowed to think by himself, act by his own initiative, exercise his responsibilities, affirm and enrich his personality.56
24. Culture in Personal and Social Life
If we focus on its origin, culture is an expression of personal subjectivity in its two aspects, material and spiritual. It is not the echo or reflection of conditions that are external to man, as is the case with the means of production. Culture stands in relation to what man is, to his essence; and therefore is not properly an object of possession. “A culture without human subjectivity and without human causality is inconceivable; in the cultural field, man is always the first fact; man is the prime and fundamental fact of culture.”57
If we focus on its end, culture is a right of every man, according to each one’s conditions and capacity. “It is one of the properties of the human person that he can achieve true and full humanity only by means of culture, that is, through the cultivation of the goods and values of nature. Whenever, therefore, there is a question of human life, nature and culture are intimately linked together.”58
In our times, growing specialization has brought the danger of cultural compartmentalization. The different fields of knowledge face the prospect of becoming isolated from each other, losing the fundamental unifying principles of every true wisdom. Besides, this compartmentalization affects the interior unity of man as well; knowledge should not represent for man an external partial good, independent from the rest of his life; it should be something connatural to him, influencing the different spheres of his behavior. Every true knowledge ultimately leads to God, who is the ultimate source both of human reason and of revelation.
Some people try to resurrect a supposed incompatibility between faith and science, between human knowledge and divine revelation. But such incompatibility could only arise—and then only apparently—from a misunderstanding of the elements of the problem.…
We can never be afraid of developing human knowledge, because all intellectual effort, if it is serious, is aimed at truth. And Christ has said: “I am the truth.”59
Culture is a source of unity in social life, offering citizens a common history and heritage. By holding fast to her culture, noted Pope John Paul II, Poland has affirmed her identity through the centuries, being able to face great external pressures. This shows the importance of preserving the native cultures of different peoples.
The scope of public authority extends, not to determining the proper nature of cultural forms, but to building up the environment and the provision of assistance favorable to the development of culture, without overlooking minority groups in the nation. This is the reason why one must avoid at all costs distorting culture from its proper purposes and its exploitation by political or economical forces.60
25. Culture and Morals
As a free expression of man, culture belongs to the moral order. Morality reverts from free acts to the person, creating habits and modes of expression. “The moral order is at the basis of all human culture.”61 Culture reflects moral values. To acquire and cultivate these values, one must resist the materialist temptations of our society, which seek to inhibit them. Among such values we can cite inner joy, respect for life, respect for the laws of the family, giving primacy to truth in one’s behavior, and all the human virtues. Such principles give birth to true culture. “There is no doubt that the first and fundamental dimension of culture is healthy morality: moral culture.”62
Besides, Christianity fosters culture in personal and social life. In personal life, Christianity considers man as he truly is, as a subject open to transcendent values, able to consider them and give them a creative expression. In social life, Christian values inspire their own model of society, where technical progress is at the service of the true human dignity. The blossoming of culture will bring about the rejection of idols like immediate success, consumerism, and other forms of practical and ideological materialism. Conversely, the Christian message and a moral life as the measure of man are, by themselves, creators of culture.
The good news of Christ continuously renews the life and culture of fallen man.… It never ceases to purify and elevate the morality of peoples. It takes the spiritual qualities and endowments of every age and nation, and with supernatural riches it causes them to blossom, as it were, from within; it fortifies, completes and restores them in Christ. In this way the Church carries out its mission and in that very act it stimulates and advances human and civil culture, as well as contributing by its activity, including liturgical activity, to man’s interior freedom.63
26. The State and Human Rights and Duties
26a) Rights and Duties
The objective rights of man, because of their universality, must be respected by every legal system. Some of these rights refer to the material component of man, some to his spiritual dimension. Nevertheless, it is the spiritual nature of man—a nature that is endowed with intelligence and free will—that makes both possible.
Among the rights that refer to the material aspect of man are the rights to life and physical integrity, to a decent standard of living, to private property, and the different economic and labor rights. Among those that refer to man’s spiritual aspect are freedom of conscience (or absence of coercion in the sphere of one’s intimate decisions), the freedom to profess one’s religion in public and in private, and the freedom to participate in the different expressions of the common good—familial, professional, cultural, and political.
Rights can also be divided into passive or static rights, like the right to life and to public order, and active rights, whose exercise may even be a duty. The latter include being active in certain social spheres, and accepting religious truth.
Still another way of classifying rights is to consider their origin. Some rights stem from human nature, others from the national or cultural community, and others are acquired through personal effort. Nevertheless, even the second and third kinds ultimately proceed from natural inclinations that human nature itself does not specify in all their details.
The exercise of these rights implies certain duties, without which rights would lose all their force as true rights:
These rights, however, must be conceived in their correct meaning. The right to freedom, for example, does not, of course, include the right to moral evil, as if it were possible to claim, among other things, the right to suppress human life, as in abortion, or the right to use things harmful to oneself or to others. Likewise one should not deal with the rights of man without envisaging also his correlative duties, which express precisely his own responsibility and his respect of the rights of others and of the community.64
26b) Respect for Human Rights
The Church denounces all the violations of human rights perpetrated in the modern world. Under certain circumstances, the state may suspend the exercise of some secondary or derived rights, if it is required by higher considerations of the common good. Nevertheless, civic liberties must be restored as soon as these circumstances have changed. As for the more personal and inalienable rights, since they are an intrinsic part of common good itself, they can never be subordinated to other considerations. Such are the rights to physical security, to the choice of state in life, to not receiving offenses to one’s dignity, to true information, to freedom in the education of one’s children, to freedom of conscience, and to religious freedom.
If restrictions are imposed temporarily for the common good on the exercise of human rights, these restrictions are to be lifted as soon as possible after the situation has changed. In any case it is inhuman for public authority to fall back on totalitarian methods or dictatorship which violate the rights of persons or social groups.65
Whenever violated human rights must be restored, as demanded by justice, the Church warns against the use of violent or revolutionary methods, inspired by class struggle. Every injustice must be blamed not on structures, but on the heart of men, on individuals—on their sins, which are always personal.
The truth of mankind requires that this battle be fought in ways consistent with human dignity. That is why the systematic and deliberate recourse to blind violence, no matter from which side it comes, must be condemned. To put one’s trust in violent means in the hope of restoring more justice is to become the victim of a fatal illusion; violence begets violence and degrades man.… Therefore, it is only by making an appeal to the moral potential of the person and to the constant need for interior conversion, that social change will be brought about that will truly be in the service of man.66
Footnotes:
1. Paul VI, Ap. Letter Octogesima Adveniens, 46; cf. CCC, 1897–1904.
2. GS, 74.
3. St. Augustine De Civ. Dei 5.21.
4. St. Gregory the Great, In Epist. Lib. 2.61.
5. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 51; cf. CCC, 1884.
6. GS, 74.
7. John Paul II, Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Polish Episcopal Conference, June 5, 1979, in Pilgrim to Poland: John Paul II (Boston: St. Paul Editions, 1979), 147.
8. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 51.
9. Ibid., 52.
10. GS, 74.
11. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 62.
12. John Paul II, Address to the Italian Union of Catholic Jurists, Dec. 7, 1979; cf. ST, II-II, q. 64, a. 3; I-II, q. 21, a. 4 ad 3; CCC, 1907.
13. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 27.
14. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 61.
15. Cf. Ibid., 60.
16. John Paul II, Address to the Organization of American States (OEA), Washington, Oct. 6, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 165.
17. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Nairobi, Kenya, May 6, 1980; cf. CCC, 1905–1912.
18. John Paul II, Address to President Carter, Oct. 6, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 163.
19. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Jan. 12, 1981; cf. GS, 76.
20. John Paul II, Address to the UN General Assembly, Oct. 2, 1979, in John Paul II: The Pope’s Challenge, 39.
21. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 55.
22. Cf. GS, 75.
23. Cf. CCC, 1909.
24. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 40.
25. Cf. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 17–18.
26. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 27.
27. John Paul II, Address to a Group of Tax Experts, Nov. 7, 1980.
28. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 64; cf. CCC, 1908.
29. John Paul II, Address to Scientists and UN University Students in Hiroshima, Japan, Feb. 25, 1981.
30. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 33.
31. Cf. GS, 71.
32. John Paul II, Address to the Sacred College of Cardinals, Dec. 22, 1979.
33. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 35.
34. GS, 71.
35. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 79–80; cf. CCC, 1883–1885.
36. John Paul II, Address to Workers at Morumbi Stadium, Sao Paulo, Brazil, July 3, 1980.
37. Pius XII, Pentecost Radio Message, June 1, 1941.
38. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 20; cf. St. Thomas Aquinas, De Regimine Principum, 1.15.
39. Cf. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 88.
40. John Paul II, Homily at the Mass for Families, Madrid, Nov. 2, 1982.
41. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 79.
42. John XXIII, Enc. Pacem in Terris, 140–141; cf. CCC, 1911.
43. Cf. Leo XIII, Enc. Rerum Novarum, 11, 34.
44. Pius XI, Enc. Quadragesimo Anno, 119.
45. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 59, 65; cf. CCC, 1882–1885.
46. GS, 25.
47. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 59–60.
48. Cf. GS, 6, 42.
49. Ibid., 6.
50. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 60.
51. Cf. Ibid., 64–67.
52. John Paul II, Enc. Laborem Exercens, 14.
53. GS, 42.
54. Cf. John XXIII, Enc. Mater et Magistra, 62.
55. Cf. John XXIII, Address to the Social Week of France, July 1960; Enc. Mater et Magistra, 61.
56. John XXIII, Address to the Social Week of France, July 1960.
57. John Paul II, Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980.
58. GS, 53.
59. St. Josemaría Escrivá, Christ is Passing By, 10.
60. GS, 59.
61. John Paul II, Address to the Plenary Assembly of the Polish Episcopal Conference, June 5, 1979, in Pilgrim to Poland: John Paul II, 148.
62. John Paul II, Address to UNESCO, June 2, 1980.
63. GS, 58.
64. John Paul II, Address to the Diplomatic Corps, Jan. 14, 1980; cf. CCC, 2237.
65. GS, 75.
66. Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the “Theology of Liberation,” 11.7–8.