|
ENCYCLICAL LETTER
1. “FRATELLI
TUTTI”.[1] With
these words, Saint Francis of Assisi addressed
his brothers and sisters and proposed to them a
way of life marked by the flavour of the Gospel.
Of the counsels Francis offered, I would like to
select the one in which he calls for a love that
transcends the barriers of geography and
distance, and declares blessed all those who
love their brother “as much when he is far away
from him as when he is with him”.[2] In
his simple and direct way, Saint Francis
expressed the essence of a fraternal openness
that allows us to acknowledge, appreciate and
love each person, regardless of physical
proximity, regardless of where he or she was
born or lives.
2. This saint of fraternal love, simplicity and
joy, who inspired me to write the Encyclical Laudato
Si’,
prompts me once more to devote this new
Encyclical to fraternity and social friendship.
Francis felt himself a brother to the sun, the
sea and the wind, yet he knew that he was even
closer to those of his own flesh. Wherever he
went, he sowed seeds of peace and walked
alongside the poor, the abandoned, the infirm
and the outcast, the least of his brothers and
sisters.
3. There is an episode in the life of Saint
Francis that shows his openness of heart, which
knew no bounds and transcended differences of
origin, nationality, colour or religion. It was
his visit to Sultan Malik-el-Kamil, in Egypt,
which entailed considerable hardship, given
Francis’ poverty, his scarce resources, the
great distances to be traveled and their
differences of language, culture and religion.
That journey, undertaken at the time of the
Crusades, further demonstrated the breadth and
grandeur of his love, which sought to embrace
everyone. Francis’ fidelity to his Lord was
commensurate with his love for his brothers and
sisters. Unconcerned for the hardships and
dangers involved, Francis went to meet the
Sultan with the same attitude that he instilled
in his disciples: if they found themselves
“among the Saracens and other nonbelievers”,
without renouncing their own identity they were
not to “engage in arguments or disputes, but to
be subject to every human creature for God’s
sake”.[3] In
the context of the times, this was an
extraordinary recommendation. We are impressed
that some eight hundred years ago Saint Francis
urged that all forms of hostility or conflict be
avoided and that a humble and fraternal
“subjection” be shown to those who did not share
his faith.
4. Francis did not wage a war of words aimed at
imposing doctrines; he simply spread the love of
God. He understood that “God is love and those
who abide in love abide in God” (1 Jn 4:16).
In this way, he became a father to all and
inspired the vision of a fraternal society.
Indeed, “only the man who approaches others, not
to draw them into his own life, but to help them
become ever more fully themselves, can truly be
called a father”.[4] In
the world of that time, bristling with
watchtowers and defensive walls, cities were a
theatre of brutal wars between powerful
families, even as poverty was spreading through
the countryside. Yet there Francis was able to
welcome true peace into his heart and free
himself of the desire to wield power over
others. He became one of the poor and sought to
live in harmony with all. Francis has inspired
these pages.
5. Issues of human fraternity and social
friendship have always been a concern of mine.
In recent years, I have spoken of them
repeatedly and in different settings. In this
Encyclical, I have sought to bring together many
of those statements and to situate them in a
broader context of reflection. In the
preparation of Laudato
Si’,
I had a source of inspiration in my brother
Bartholomew, the Orthodox Patriarch, who has
spoken forcefully of our need to care for
creation. In this case, I have felt particularly
encouraged by the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb,
with whom I met in Abu Dhabi, where we declared
that “God has created all human beings equal in
rights, duties and dignity, and has called them
to live together as brothers and sisters”.[5] This
was no mere diplomatic gesture, but a reflection
born of dialogue and common commitment. The
present Encyclical takes up and develops some of
the great themes raised in the Document that we
both signed. I have also incorporated, along
with my own thoughts, a number of letters,
documents and considerations that I have
received from many individuals and groups
throughout the world.
6. The following pages do not claim to offer a
complete teaching on fraternal love, but rather
to consider its universal scope, its openness to
every man and woman. I offer this social
Encyclical as a modest contribution to continued
reflection, in the hope that in the face of
present-day attempts to eliminate or ignore
others, we may prove capable of responding with
a new vision of fraternity and social friendship
that will not remain at the level of words.
Although I have written it from the Christian
convictions that inspire and sustain me, I have
sought to make this reflection an invitation to
dialogue among all people of good will.
7. As I was writing this letter, the Covid-19
pandemic unexpectedly erupted, exposing our
false securities. Aside from the different ways
that various countries responded to the crisis,
their inability to work together became quite
evident. For all our hyper-connectivity, we
witnessed a fragmentation that made it more
difficult to resolve problems that affect us
all. Anyone who thinks that the only lesson to
be learned was the need to improve what we were
already doing, or to refine existing systems and
regulations, is denying reality.
8. It is my desire that, in this our time, by
acknowledging the dignity of each human person,
we can contribute to the rebirth of a universal
aspiration to fraternity. Fraternity between all
men and women. “Here we have a splendid secret
that shows us how to dream and to turn our life
into a wonderful adventure. No one can face life
in isolation… We need a community that supports
and helps us, in which we can help one another
to keep looking ahead. How important it is to
dream together… By ourselves, we risk seeing
mirages, things that are not there. Dreams, on
the other hand, are built together”.[6] Let
us dream, then, as a single human family, as
fellow travelers sharing the same flesh, as
children of the same earth which is our common
home, each of us bringing the richness of his or
her beliefs and convictions, each of us with his
or her own voice, brothers and sisters all.
DARK CLOUDS OVER A CLOSED WORLD
9. Without claiming to carry out an exhaustive
analysis or to study every aspect of our
present-day experience, I intend simply to
consider certain trends in our world that hinder
the development of universal fraternity.
10. For decades, it seemed that the world had
learned a lesson from its many wars and
disasters, and was slowly moving towards various
forms of integration. For example, there was the
dream of a united Europe, capable of
acknowledging its shared roots and rejoicing in
its rich diversity. We think of “the firm
conviction of the founders of the European
Union, who envisioned a future based on the
capacity to work together in bridging divisions
and in fostering peace and fellowship between
all the peoples of this continent”.[7] There
was also a growing desire for integration in
Latin America, and several steps were taken in
this direction. In some countries and regions,
attempts at reconciliation and rapprochement
proved fruitful, while others showed great
promise.
11. Our own days, however, seem to be showing
signs of a certain regression. Ancient conflicts
thought long buried are breaking out anew, while
instances of a myopic, extremist, resentful and
aggressive nationalism are on the rise. In some
countries, a concept of popular and national
unity influenced by various ideologies is
creating new forms of selfishness and a loss of
the social sense under the guise of defending
national interests. Once more we are being
reminded that “each new generation must take up
the struggles and attainments of past
generations, while setting its sights even
higher. This is the path. Goodness, together
with love, justice and solidarity, are not
achieved once and for all; they have to be
realized each day. It is not possible to settle
for what was achieved in the past and
complacently enjoy it, as if we could somehow
disregard the fact that many of our brothers and
sisters still endure situations that cry out for
our attention”.[8]
12. “Opening up to the world” is an expression
that has been co-opted by the economic and
financial sector and is now used exclusively of
openness to foreign interests or to the freedom
of economic powers to invest without obstacles
or complications in all countries. Local
conflicts and disregard for the common good are
exploited by the global economy in order to
impose a single cultural model. This culture
unifies the world, but divides persons and
nations, for “as society becomes ever more
globalized, it makes us neighbours, but does not
make us brothers”.[9] We
are more alone than ever in an increasingly
massified world that promotes individual
interests and weakens the communitarian
dimension of life. Indeed, there are markets
where individuals become mere consumers or
bystanders. As a rule, the advance of this kind
of globalism strengthens the identity of the
more powerful, who can protect themselves, but
it tends to diminish the identity of the weaker
and poorer regions, making them more vulnerable
and dependent. In this way, political life
becomes increasingly fragile in the face of
transnational economic powers that operate with
the principle of “divide and conquer”.
The end of historical consciousness
13. As a result, there is a growing loss of the
sense of history, which leads to even further
breakup. A kind of “deconstructionism”, whereby
human freedom claims to create everything
starting from zero, is making headway in today’s
culture. The one thing it leaves in its wake is
the drive to limitless consumption and
expressions of empty individualism. Concern
about this led me to offer the young some
advice. “If someone tells young people to ignore
their history, to reject the experiences of
their elders, to look down on the past and to
look forward to a future that he himself holds
out, doesn’t it then become easy to draw them
along so that they only do what he tells them?
He needs the young to be shallow, uprooted and
distrustful, so that they can trust only in his
promises and act according to his plans. That is
how various ideologies operate: they destroy (or
deconstruct) all differences so that they can
reign unopposed. To do so, however, they need
young people who have no use for history, who
spurn the spiritual and human riches inherited
from past generations, and are ignorant of
everything that came before them”.[10]
14. These are the new forms of cultural
colonization. Let us not forget that “peoples
that abandon their tradition and, either from a
craze to mimic others or to foment violence, or
from unpardonable negligence or apathy, allow
others to rob their very soul, end up losing not
only their spiritual identity but also their
moral consistency and, in the end, their
intellectual, economic and political
independence”.[11] One
effective way to weaken historical
consciousness, critical thinking, the struggle
for justice and the processes of integration is
to empty great words of their meaning or to
manipulate them. Nowadays, what do certain words
like democracy, freedom, justice or unity really
mean? They have been bent and shaped to serve as
tools for domination, as meaningless tags that
can be used to justify any action.
15. The best way to dominate and gain control
over people is to spread despair and
discouragement, even under the guise of
defending certain values. Today, in many
countries, hyperbole, extremism and polarization
have become political tools. Employing a
strategy of ridicule, suspicion and relentless
criticism, in a variety of ways one denies the
right of others to exist or to have an opinion.
Their share of the truth and their values are
rejected and, as a result, the life of society
is impoverished and subjected to the hubris of
the powerful. Political life no longer has to do
with healthy debates about long-term plans to
improve people’s lives and to advance the common
good, but only with slick marketing techniques
primarily aimed at discrediting others. In this
craven exchange of charges and counter-charges,
debate degenerates into a permanent state of
disagreement and confrontation.
16. Amid the fray of conflicting interests,
where victory consists in eliminating one’s
opponents, how is it possible to raise our
sights to recognize our neighbours or to help
those who have fallen along the way? A plan that
would set great goals for the development of our
entire human family nowadays sounds like
madness. We are growing ever more distant from
one another, while the slow and demanding march
towards an increasingly united and just world is
suffering a new and dramatic setback.
17. To care for the world in which we live means
to care for ourselves. Yet we need to think of
ourselves more and more as a single family
dwelling in a common home. Such care does not
interest those economic powers that demand quick
profits. Often the voices raised in defence of
the environment are silenced or ridiculed, using
apparently reasonable arguments that are merely
a screen for special interests. In this shallow,
short-sighted culture that we have created,
bereft of a shared vision, “it is foreseeable
that, once certain resources have been depleted,
the scene will be set for new wars, albeit under
the guise of noble claims”.[12]
18. Some parts of our human family, it appears,
can be readily sacrificed for the sake of others
considered worthy of a carefree existence.
Ultimately, “persons are no longer seen as a
paramount value to be cared for and respected,
especially when they are poor and disabled, ‘not
yet useful’ – like the unborn, or ‘no longer
needed’ – like the elderly. We have grown
indifferent to all kinds of wastefulness,
starting with the waste of food, which is
deplorable in the extreme”.[13]
19. A decline in the birthrate, which leads to
the aging of the population, together with the
relegation of the elderly to a sad and lonely
existence, is a subtle way of stating that it is
all about us, that our individual concerns are
the only thing that matters. In this way, “what
is thrown away are not only food and dispensable
objects, but often human beings themselves”.[14] We
have seen what happened with the elderly in
certain places in our world as a result of the
coronavirus. They did not have to die that way.
Yet something similar had long been occurring
during heat waves and in other situations: older
people found themselves cruelly abandoned. We
fail to realize that, by isolating the elderly
and leaving them in the care of others without
the closeness and concern of family members, we
disfigure and impoverish the family itself. We
also end up depriving young people of a
necessary connection to their roots and a wisdom
that the young cannot achieve on their own.
20. This way of discarding others can take a
variety of forms, such as an obsession with
reducing labour costs with no concern for its
grave consequences, since the unemployment that
it directly generates leads to the expansion of
poverty.[15] In
addition, a readiness to discard others finds
expression in vicious attitudes that we thought
long past, such as racism, which retreats
underground only to keep reemerging. Instances
of racism continue to shame us, for they show
that our supposed social progress is not as real
or definitive as we think.
21. Some economic rules have proved effective
for growth, but not for integral human
development.[16] Wealth
has increased, but together with inequality,
with the result that “new forms of poverty are
emerging”.[17] The
claim that the modern world has reduced poverty
is made by measuring poverty with criteria from
the past that do not correspond to present-day
realities. In other times, for example, lack of
access to electric energy was not considered a
sign of poverty, nor was it a source of
hardship. Poverty must always be understood and
gauged in the context of the actual
opportunities available in each concrete
historical period.
Insufficiently universal human rights
22. It frequently becomes clear that, in
practice, human rights are not equal for all.
Respect for those rights “is the preliminary
condition for a country’s social and economic
development. When the dignity of the human
person is respected, and his or her rights
recognized and guaranteed, creativity and
interdependence thrive, and the creativity of
the human personality is released through
actions that further the common good”.[18] Yet,
“by closely observing our contemporary
societies, we see numerous contradictions that
lead us to wonder whether the equal dignity of
all human beings, solemnly proclaimed seventy
years ago, is truly recognized, respected,
protected and promoted in every situation. In
today’s world, many forms of injustice persist,
fed by reductive anthropological visions and by
a profit-based economic model that does not
hesitate to exploit, discard and even kill human
beings. While one part of humanity lives in
opulence, another part sees its own dignity
denied, scorned or trampled upon, and its
fundamental rights discarded or violated”.[19] What
does this tell us about the equality of rights
grounded in innate human dignity?
23. Similarly, the organization of societies
worldwide is still far from reflecting clearly
that women possess the same dignity and
identical rights as men. We say one thing with
words, but our decisions and reality tell
another story. Indeed, “doubly poor are those
women who endure situations of exclusion,
mistreatment and violence, since they are
frequently less able to defend their rights”.[20]
24. We should also recognize that “even though
the international community has adopted numerous
agreements aimed at ending slavery in all its
forms, and has launched various strategies to
combat this phenomenon, millions of people today
– children, women and men of all ages – are
deprived of freedom and forced to live in
conditions akin to slavery… Today, as in the
past, slavery is rooted in a notion of the human
person that allows him or her to be treated as
an object… Whether by coercion, or deception, or
by physical or psychological duress, human
persons created in the image and likeness of God
are deprived of their freedom, sold and reduced
to being the property of others. They are
treated as means to an end… [Criminal networks]
are skilled in using modern means of
communication as a way of luring young men and
women in various parts of the world”.[21] A
perversion that exceeds all limits when it
subjugates women and then forces them to abort.
An abomination that goes to the length of
kidnapping persons for the sake of selling their
organs. Trafficking in persons and other
contemporary forms of enslavement are a
worldwide problem that needs to be taken
seriously by humanity as a whole: “since
criminal organizations employ global networks to
achieve their goals, efforts to eliminate this
phenomenon also demand a common and, indeed, a
global effort on the part of various sectors of
society”.[22]
25. War, terrorist attacks, racial or religious
persecution, and many other affronts to human
dignity are judged differently, depending on how
convenient it proves for certain, primarily
economic, interests. What is true as long as it
is convenient for someone in power stops being
true once it becomes inconvenient. These
situations of violence, sad to say, “have become
so common as to constitute a real ‘third world
war’ fought piecemeal”.[23]
26. This should not be surprising, if we realize
that we no longer have common horizons that
unite us; indeed, the first victim of every war
is “the human family’s innate vocation to
fraternity”. As a result, “every threatening
situation breeds mistrust and leads people to
withdraw into their own safety zone”.[24] Our
world is trapped in a strange contradiction: we
believe that we can “ensure stability and peace
through a false sense of security sustained by a
mentality of fear and mistrust”.[25]
27. Paradoxically, we have certain ancestral
fears that technological development has not
succeeded in eliminating; indeed, those fears
have been able to hide and spread behind new
technologies. Today too, outside the ancient
town walls lies the abyss, the territory of the
unknown, the wilderness. Whatever comes from
there cannot be trusted, for it is unknown,
unfamiliar, not part of the village. It is the
territory of the “barbarian”, from whom we must
defend ourselves at all costs. As a result, new
walls are erected for self-preservation, the
outside world ceases to exist and leaves only
“my” world, to the point that others, no longer
considered human beings possessed of an
inalienable dignity, become only “them”. Once
more, we encounter “the temptation to build a
culture of walls, to raise walls, walls in the
heart, walls on the land, in order to prevent
this encounter with other cultures, with other
people. And those who raise walls will end up as
slaves within the very walls they have built.
They are left without horizons, for they lack
this interchange with others”.[26]
28. The loneliness, fear and insecurity
experienced by those who feel abandoned by the
system creates a fertile terrain for various
“mafias”. These flourish because they claim to
be defenders of the forgotten, often by
providing various forms of assistance even as
they pursue their criminal interests. There also
exists a typically “mafioso” pedagogy that, by
appealing to a false communitarian mystique,
creates bonds of dependency and fealty from
which it is very difficult to break free.
GLOBALIZATION AND PROGRESS WITHOUT A SHARED
ROADMAP
29. With the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, we do
not ignore the positive advances made in the
areas of science, technology, medicine, industry
and welfare, above all in developed countries.
Nonetheless, “we wish to emphasize that,
together with these historical advances, great
and valued as they are, there exists a moral
deterioration that influences international
action and a weakening of spiritual values and
responsibility. This contributes to a general
feeling of frustration, isolation and
desperation”. We see “outbreaks of tension and a
buildup of arms and ammunition in a global
context dominated by uncertainty,
disillusionment, fear of the future, and
controlled by narrow economic interests”. We can
also point to “major political crises,
situations of injustice and the lack of an
equitable distribution of natural resources… In
the face of such crises that result in the
deaths of millions of children – emaciated from
poverty and hunger – there is an unacceptable
silence on the international level”.[27] This
panorama, for all its undeniable advances, does
not appear to lead to a more humane future.
30. In today’s world, the sense of belonging to
a single human family is fading, and the dream
of working together for justice and peace seems
an outdated utopia. What reigns instead is a
cool, comfortable and globalized indifference,
born of deep disillusionment concealed behind a
deceptive illusion: thinking that we are
all-powerful, while failing to realize that we
are all in the same boat. This illusion,
unmindful of the great fraternal values, leads
to “a sort of cynicism. For that is the
temptation we face if we go down the road of
disenchantment and disappointment… Isolation and
withdrawal into one’s own interests are never
the way to restore hope and bring about renewal.
Rather, it is closeness; it is the culture of
encounter. Isolation, no; closeness, yes.
Culture clash, no; culture of encounter, yes”.[28]
31. In this world that races ahead, yet lacks a
shared roadmap, we increasingly sense that “the
gap between concern for one’s personal
well-being and the prosperity of the larger
human family seems to be stretching to the point
of complete division between individuals and
human community… It is one thing to feel forced
to live together, but something entirely
different to value the richness and beauty of
those seeds of common life that need to be
sought out and cultivated”.[29] Technology
is constantly advancing, yet “how wonderful it
would be if the growth of scientific and
technological innovation could come with more
equality and social inclusion. How wonderful
would it be, even as we discover faraway
planets, to rediscover the needs of the brothers
and sisters who orbit around us”.[30]
PANDEMICS AND OTHER CALAMITIES IN HISTORY
32. True, a worldwide tragedy like the Covid-19
pandemic momentarily revived the sense that we
are a global community, all in the same boat,
where one person’s problems are the problems of
all. Once more we realized that no one is saved
alone; we can only be saved together. As I said
in those days, “the storm has exposed our
vulnerability and uncovered those false and
superfluous certainties around which we
constructed our daily schedules, our projects,
our habits and priorities… Amid this storm, the
façade of those stereotypes with which we
camouflaged our egos, always worrying about
appearances, has fallen away, revealing once
more the ineluctable and blessed awareness that
we are part of one another, that we are brothers
and sisters of one another”.[31]
33. The world was relentlessly moving towards an
economy that, thanks to technological progress,
sought to reduce “human costs”; there were those
who would have had us believe that freedom of
the market was sufficient to keep everything
secure. Yet the brutal and unforeseen blow of
this uncontrolled pandemic forced us to recover
our concern for human beings, for everyone,
rather than for the benefit of a few. Today we
can recognize that “we fed ourselves on dreams
of splendour and grandeur, and ended up
consuming distraction, insularity and solitude.
We gorged ourselves on networking, and lost the
taste of fraternity. We looked for quick and
safe results, only to find ourselves overwhelmed
by impatience and anxiety. Prisoners of a
virtual reality, we lost the taste and flavour
of the truly real”.[32] The
pain, uncertainty and fear, and the realization
of our own limitations, brought on by the
pandemic have only made it all the more urgent
that we rethink our styles of life, our
relationships, the organization of our societies
and, above all, the meaning of our existence.
34. If everything is connected, it is hard to
imagine that this global disaster is unrelated
to our way of approaching reality, our claim to
be absolute masters of our own lives and of all
that exists. I do not want to speak of divine
retribution, nor would it be sufficient to say
that the harm we do to nature is itself the
punishment for our offences. The world is itself
crying out in rebellion. We are reminded of the
well-known verse of the poet Virgil that evokes
the “tears of things”, the misfortunes of life
and history.[33]
35. All too quickly, however, we forget the
lessons of history, “the teacher of life”.[34] Once
this health crisis passes, our worst response
would be to plunge even more deeply into
feverish consumerism and new forms of egotistic
self-preservation. God willing, after all this,
we will think no longer in terms of “them” and
“those”, but only “us”. If only this may prove
not to be just another tragedy of history from
which we learned nothing. If only we might keep
in mind all those elderly persons who died for
lack of respirators, partly as a result of the
dismantling, year after year, of healthcare
systems. If only this immense sorrow may not
prove useless, but enable us to take a step
forward towards a new style of life. If only we
might rediscover once for all that we need one
another, and that in this way our human family
can experience a rebirth, with all its faces,
all its hands and all its voices, beyond the
walls that we have erected.
36. Unless we recover the shared passion to
create a community of belonging and solidarity
worthy of our time, our energy and our
resources, the global illusion that misled us
will collapse and leave many in the grip of
anguish and emptiness. Nor should we naively
refuse to recognize that “obsession with a
consumerist lifestyle, above all when few people
are capable of maintaining it, can only lead to
violence and mutual destruction”.[35] The
notion of “every man for himself” will rapidly
degenerate into a free-for-all that would prove
worse than any pandemic.
AN ABSENCE OF HUMAN DIGNITY ON THE BORDERS
37. Certain populist political regimes, as well
as certain liberal economic approaches, maintain
that an influx of migrants is to be prevented at
all costs. Arguments are also made for the
propriety of limiting aid to poor countries, so
that they can hit rock bottom and find
themselves forced to take austerity measures.
One fails to realize that behind such
statements, abstract and hard to support, great
numbers of lives are at stake. Many migrants
have fled from war, persecution and natural
catastrophes. Others, rightly, “are seeking
opportunities for themselves and their families.
They dream of a better future and they want to
create the conditions for achieving it”.[36]
38. Sadly, some “are attracted by Western
culture, sometimes with unrealistic expectations
that expose them to grave disappointments.
Unscrupulous traffickers, frequently linked to
drug cartels or arms cartels, exploit the
weakness of migrants, who too often experience
violence, trafficking, psychological and
physical abuse and untold sufferings on their
journey”.[37] Those
who emigrate “experience separation from their
place of origin, and often a cultural and
religious uprooting as well. Fragmentation is
also felt by the communities they leave behind,
which lose their most vigorous and enterprising
elements, and by families, especially when one
or both of the parents migrates, leaving the
children in the country of origin”.[38] For
this reason, “there is also a need to reaffirm
the right not to emigrate, that is, to remain in
one’s homeland”.[39]
39. Then too, “in some host countries, migration
causes fear and alarm, often fomented and
exploited for political purposes. This can lead
to a xenophobic mentality, as people close in on
themselves, and it needs to be addressed
decisively”.[40] Migrants
are not seen as entitled like others to
participate in the life of society, and it is
forgotten that they possess the same intrinsic
dignity as any person. Hence they ought to be
“agents in their own redemption”.[41] No
one will ever openly deny that they are human
beings, yet in practice, by our decisions and
the way we treat them, we can show that we
consider them less worthy, less important, less
human. For Christians, this way of thinking and
acting is unacceptable, since it sets certain
political preferences above deep convictions of
our faith: the inalienable dignity of each human
person regardless of origin, race or religion,
and the supreme law of fraternal love.
40. “Migrations, more than ever before, will
play a pivotal role in the future of our world”.[42] At
present, however, migration is affected by the
“loss of that sense of responsibility for our
brothers and sisters on which every civil
society is based”.[43] Europe,
for example, seriously risks taking this path.
Nonetheless, “aided by its great cultural and
religious heritage, it has the means to defend
the centrality of the human person and to find
the right balance between its twofold moral
responsibility to protect the rights of its
citizens and to assure assistance and acceptance
to migrants”.[44]
41. I realize that some people are hesitant and
fearful with regard to migrants. I consider this
part of our natural instinct of self-defence.
Yet it is also true that an individual and a
people are only fruitful and productive if they
are able to develop a creative openness to
others. I ask everyone to move beyond those
primal reactions because “there is a problem
when doubts and fears condition our way of
thinking and acting to the point of making us
intolerant, closed and perhaps even – without
realizing it – racist. In this way, fear
deprives us of the desire and the ability to
encounter the other”.[45]
42. Oddly enough, while closed and intolerant
attitudes towards others are on the rise,
distances are otherwise shrinking or
disappearing to the point that the right to
privacy scarcely exists. Everything has become a
kind of spectacle to be examined and inspected,
and people’s lives are now under constant
surveillance. Digital communication wants to
bring everything out into the open; people’s
lives are combed over, laid bare and bandied
about, often anonymously. Respect for others
disintegrates, and even as we dismiss, ignore or
keep others distant, we can shamelessly peer
into every detail of their lives.
42. Digital campaigns of hatred and destruction,
for their part, are not – as some would have us
believe – a positive form of mutual support, but
simply an association of individuals united
against a perceived common enemy. “Digital media
can also expose people to the risk of addiction,
isolation and a gradual loss of contact with
concrete reality, blocking the development of
authentic interpersonal relationships”.[46] They
lack the physical gestures, facial expressions,
moments of silence, body language and even the
smells, the trembling of hands, the blushes and
perspiration that speak to us and are a part of
human communication. Digital relationships,
which do not demand the slow and gradual
cultivation of friendships, stable interaction
or the building of a consensus that matures over
time, have the appearance of sociability. Yet
they do not really build community; instead,
they tend to disguise and expand the very
individualism that finds expression in
xenophobia and in contempt for the vulnerable.
Digital connectivity is not enough to build
bridges. It is not capable of uniting humanity.
44. Even as individuals maintain their
comfortable consumerist isolation, they can
choose a form of constant and febrile bonding
that encourages remarkable hostility, insults,
abuse, defamation and verbal violence
destructive of others, and this with a lack of
restraint that could not exist in physical
contact without tearing us all apart. Social
aggression has found unparalleled room for
expansion through computers and mobile devices.
45. This has now given free rein to ideologies.
Things that until a few years ago could not be
said by anyone without risking the loss of
universal respect can now be said with impunity,
and in the crudest of terms, even by some
political figures. Nor should we forget that
“there are huge economic interests operating in
the digital world, capable of exercising forms
of control as subtle as they are invasive,
creating mechanisms for the manipulation of
consciences and of the democratic process. The
way many platforms work often ends up favouring
encounter between persons who think alike,
shielding them from debate. These closed
circuits facilitate the spread of fake news and
false information, fomenting prejudice and
hate”.[47]
46. We should also recognize that destructive
forms of fanaticism are at times found among
religious believers, including Christians; they
too “can be caught up in networks of verbal
violence through the internet and the various
forums of digital communication. Even in
Catholic media, limits can be overstepped,
defamation and slander can become commonplace,
and all ethical standards and respect for the
good name of others can be abandoned”.[48] How
can this contribute to the fraternity that our
common Father asks of us?
47. True wisdom demands an encounter with
reality. Today, however, everything can be
created, disguised and altered. A direct
encounter even with the fringes of reality can
thus prove intolerable. A mechanism of selection
then comes into play, whereby I can immediately
separate likes from dislikes, what I consider
attractive from what I deem distasteful. In the
same way, we can choose the people with whom we
wish to share our world. Persons or situations
we find unpleasant or disagreeable are simply
deleted in today’s virtual networks; a virtual
circle is then created, isolating us from the
real world in which we are living.
48. The ability to sit down and listen to
others, typical of interpersonal encounters, is
paradigmatic of the welcoming attitude shown by
those who transcend narcissism and accept
others, caring for them and welcoming them into
their lives. Yet “today’s world is largely a
deaf world… At times, the frantic pace of the
modern world prevents us from listening
attentively to what another person is saying.
Halfway through, we interrupt him and want to
contradict what he has not even finished saying.
We must not lose our ability to listen”. Saint
Francis “heard the voice of God, he heard the
voice of the poor, he heard the voice of the
infirm and he heard the voice of nature. He made
of them a way of life. My desire is that the
seed that Saint Francis planted may grow in the
hearts of many”.[49]
49. As silence and careful listening disappear,
replaced by a frenzy of texting, this basic
structure of sage human communication is at
risk. A new lifestyle is emerging, where we
create only what we want and exclude all that we
cannot control or know instantly and
superficially. This process, by its intrinsic
logic, blocks the kind of serene reflection that
could lead us to a shared wisdom.
50. Together, we can seek the truth in dialogue,
in relaxed conversation or in passionate debate.
To do so calls for perseverance; it entails
moments of silence and suffering, yet it can
patiently embrace the broader experience of
individuals and peoples. The flood of
information at our fingertips does not make for
greater wisdom. Wisdom is not born of quick
searches on the internet nor is it a mass of
unverified data. That is not the way to mature
in the encounter with truth. Conversations
revolve only around the latest data; they become
merely horizontal and cumulative. We fail to
keep our attention focused, to penetrate to the
heart of matters, and to recognize what is
essential to give meaning to our lives. Freedom
thus becomes an illusion that we are peddled,
easily confused with the ability to navigate the
internet. The process of building fraternity, be
it local or universal, can only be undertaken by
spirits that are free and open to authentic
encounters.
FORMS OF SUBJECTION AND OF SELF-CONTEMPT
51. Certain economically prosperous countries
tend to be proposed as cultural models for less
developed countries; instead, each of those
countries should be helped to grow in its own
distinct way and to develop its capacity for
innovation while respecting the values of its
proper culture. A shallow and pathetic desire to
imitate others leads to copying and consuming in
place of creating, and fosters low national
self-esteem. In the affluent sectors of many
poor countries, and at times in those who have
recently emerged from poverty, there is a
resistance to native ways of thinking and
acting, and a tendency to look down on one’s own
cultural identity, as if it were the sole cause
of every ill.
52. Destroying self-esteem is an easy way to
dominate others. Behind these trends that tend
to level our world, there flourish powerful
interests that take advantage of such low
self-esteem, while attempting, through the media
and networks, to create a new culture in the
service of the elite. This plays into the
opportunism of financial speculators and
raiders, and the poor always end up the losers.
Then too, ignoring the culture of their people
has led to the inability of many political
leaders to devise an effective development plan
that could be freely accepted and sustained over
time.
53. We forget that “there is no worse form of
alienation than to feel uprooted, belonging to
no one. A land will be fruitful, and its people
bear fruit and give birth to the future, only to
the extent that it can foster a sense of
belonging among its members, create bonds of
integration between generations and different
communities, and avoid all that makes us
insensitive to others and leads to further
alienation”.[50]
54. Despite these dark clouds, which may not be
ignored, I would like in the following pages to
take up and discuss many new paths of hope. For
God continues to sow abundant seeds of goodness
in our human family. The recent pandemic enabled
us to recognize and appreciate once more all
those around us who, in the midst of fear,
responded by putting their lives on the line. We
began to realize that our lives are interwoven
with and sustained by ordinary people valiantly
shaping the decisive events of our shared
history: doctors, nurses, pharmacists,
storekeepers and supermarket workers, cleaning
personnel, caretakers, transport workers, men
and women working to provide essential services
and public safety, volunteers, priests and
religious… They understood that no one is saved
alone.[51]
55. I invite everyone to renewed hope, for hope
“speaks to us of something deeply rooted in
every human heart, independently of our
circumstances and historical conditioning. Hope
speaks to us of a thirst, an aspiration, a
longing for a life of fulfillment, a desire to
achieve great things, things that fill our heart
and lift our spirit to lofty realities like
truth, goodness and beauty, justice and love…
Hope is bold; it can look beyond personal
convenience, the petty securities and
compensations which limit our horizon, and it
can open us up to grand ideals that make life
more beautiful and worthwhile”.[52] Let
us continue, then, to advance along the paths of
hope.
56. The previous chapter should not be read as a
cool and detached description of today’s
problems, for “the joys and hopes, the grief and
anguish of the people of our time, especially of
those who are poor or afflicted, are the joys
and hopes, the grief and anguish of the
followers of Christ as well. Nothing that is
genuinely human fails to find an echo in their
hearts”.[53] In
the attempt to search for a ray of light in the
midst of what we are experiencing, and before
proposing a few lines of action, I now wish to
devote a chapter to a parable told by Jesus
Christ two thousand years ago. Although this
Letter is addressed to all people of good will,
regardless of their religious convictions, the
parable is one that any of us can relate to and
find challenging.
“Just then a lawyer stood up to test Jesus.
‘Teacher,’ he said, ‘what must I do to inherit
eternal life?’ He said to him, ‘What is written
in the law? What do you read there?’ He
answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with
all your heart, and with all your soul, and with
all your strength, and with all your mind; and
your neighbour as yourself.’ And he said to him,
‘You have given the right answer; do this, and
you will live.’ But wanting to justify himself,
he asked Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbour?’ Jesus
replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to
Jericho, and fell into the hands of robbers, who
stripped him, beat him, and went away, leaving
him half dead. Now by chance a priest was going
down that road; and when he saw him, he passed
by on the other side. So likewise a Levite, when
he came to the place and saw him, passed by on
the other side. But a Samaritan while traveling
came near him; and when he saw him, he was moved
with pity. He went to him and bandaged his
wounds, having poured oil and wine on them. Then
he put him on his own animal, brought him to an
inn, and took care of him. The next day he took
out two denarii, gave them to the innkeeper, and
said, ‘Take care of him; and when I come back, I
will repay you whatever more you spend.’ Which
of these three, do you think, was a neighbour to
the man who fell into the hands of the robbers?”
He said, ‘The one who showed him mercy.’ Jesus
said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”(Lk 10:25-37).
57. This parable has to do with an age-old
problem. Shortly after its account of the
creation of the world and of man, the Bible
takes up the issue of human relationships. Cain
kills his brother Abel and then hears God ask:
“Where is your brother Abel?” (Gen 4:9).
His answer is one that we ourselves all too
often give: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” (ibid.).
By the very question he asks, God leaves no room
for an appeal to determinism or fatalism as a
justification for our own indifference. Instead,
he encourages us to create a different culture,
in which we resolve our conflicts and care for
one another.
58. The Book of Job sees our origin in the one
Creator as the basis of certain common rights:
“Did not he who made me in the womb also make
him? And did not the same one fashion us in the
womb?” (Job 31:15). Many centuries later,
Saint Irenaeus would use the image of a melody
to make the same point: “One who seeks the truth
should not concentrate on the differences
between one note and another, thinking as if
each was created separately and apart from the
others; instead, he should realize that one and
the same person composed the entire melody”.[54]
59. In earlier Jewish traditions, the imperative
to love and care for others appears to have been
limited to relationships between members of the
same nation. The ancient commandment to “love
your neighbour as yourself” (Lev 19:18)
was usually understood as referring to one’s
fellow citizens, yet the boundaries gradually
expanded, especially in the Judaism that
developed outside of the land of Israel. We
encounter the command not to do to others what
you would not want them to do to you (cf. Tob 4:15).
In the first century before Christ, Rabbi Hillel
stated: “This is the entire Torah. Everything
else is commentary”.[55] The
desire to imitate God’s own way of acting
gradually replaced the tendency to think only of
those nearest us: “The compassion of man is for
his neighbour, but the compassion of the Lord is
for all living beings” (Sir 18:13).
60. In the New Testament, Hillel’s precept was
expressed in positive terms: “In everything, do
to others as you would have them do to you; for
this is the law and the prophets” (Mt 7:12).
This command is universal in scope, embracing
everyone on the basis of our shared humanity,
since the heavenly Father “makes his sun rise on
the evil and on the good” (Mt 5:45).
Hence the summons to “be merciful, just as your
Father is merciful” (Lk 6:36).
61. In the oldest texts of the Bible, we find a
reason why our hearts should expand to embrace
the foreigner. It derives from the enduring
memory of the Jewish people that they themselves
had once lived as foreigners in Egypt:
“You shall not wrong or oppress a stranger, for
you were strangers in the land of Egypt” (Ex 22:21).
“You shall not oppress a stranger; you know the
heart of a stranger, for you were strangers in
the land of Egypt” (Ex 23:9).
“When a stranger resides with you in your land,
you shall not do him wrong. The stranger who
resides with you shall be to you as the citizen
among you; you shall love the stranger as
yourself, for you were strangers in the land of
Egypt” (Lev
19:33-34).
“When you gather the grapes of your vineyard, do
not glean what is left; it shall be for the
sojourner, the orphan, and the widow. Remember
that you were a slave in the land of Egypt” (Deut 24:21-22).
The call to fraternal love echoes throughout the
New Testament:
“For the whole law is summed up in a single
commandment, ‘You shall love your neighbour as
yourself’” (Gal 5:14).
“Whoever loves a brother or sister lives in the
light, and in such a person there is no cause
for stumbling. But whoever hates another
believer is in the darkness” (1
Jn 2:10-11).
“We know that we have passed from death to life
because we love one another. Whoever does not
love abides in death” (1
Jn 3:14).
“Those who do not love a brother or sister whom
they have seen, cannot love God whom they have
not seen” (1
Jn 4:20).
62. Yet this call to love could be
misunderstood. Saint Paul, recognizing the
temptation of the earliest Christian communities
to form closed and isolated groups, urged his
disciples to abound in love “for one another and
for all” (1 Thess 3:12). In the Johannine
community, fellow Christians were to be
welcomed, “even though they are strangers to
you” (3 Jn 5). In this context, we can
better understand the significance of the
parable of the Good Samaritan: love does not
care if a brother or sister in need comes from
one place or another. For “love shatters the
chains that keep us isolated and separate; in
their place, it builds bridges. Love enables us
to create one great family, where all of us can
feel at home… Love exudes compassion and
dignity”.[56]
63. Jesus tells the story of a man assaulted by
thieves and lying injured on the wayside.
Several persons passed him by, but failed to
stop. These were people holding important social
positions, yet lacking in real concern for the
common good. They would not waste a couple of
minutes caring for the injured man, or even in
calling for help. Only one person stopped,
approached the man and cared for him personally,
even spending his own money to provide for his
needs. He also gave him something that in our
frenetic world we cling to tightly: he gave him
his time. Certainly, he had his own plans for
that day, his own needs, commitments and
desires. Yet he was able to put all that aside
when confronted with someone in need. Without
even knowing the injured man, he saw him as
deserving of his time and attention.
64. Which of these persons do you identify with?
This question, blunt as it is, is direct and
incisive. Which of these characters do you
resemble? We need to acknowledge that we are
constantly tempted to ignore others, especially
the weak. Let us admit that, for all the
progress we have made, we are still “illiterate”
when it comes to accompanying, caring for and
supporting the most frail and vulnerable members
of our developed societies. We have become
accustomed to looking the other way, passing by,
ignoring situations until they affect us
directly.
65. Someone is assaulted on our streets, and
many hurry off as if they did not notice. People
hit someone with their car and then flee the
scene. Their only desire is to avoid problems;
it does not matter that, through their fault,
another person could die. All these are signs of
an approach to life that is spreading in various
and subtle ways. What is more, caught up as we
are with our own needs, the sight of a person
who is suffering disturbs us. It makes us
uneasy, since we have no time to waste on other
people’s problems. These are symptoms of an
unhealthy society. A society that seeks
prosperity but turns its back on suffering.
66. May we not sink to such depths! Let us look
to the example of the Good Samaritan. Jesus’
parable summons us to rediscover our vocation as
citizens of our respective nations and of the
entire world, builders of a new social bond.
This summons is ever new, yet it is grounded in
a fundamental law of our being: we are called to
direct society to the pursuit of the common good
and, with this purpose in mind, to persevere in
consolidating its political and social order,
its fabric of relations, its human goals. By his
actions, the Good Samaritan showed that “the
existence of each and every individual is deeply
tied to that of others: life is not simply time
that passes; life is a time for interactions”.[57]
67. The parable eloquently presents the basic
decision we need to make in order to rebuild our
wounded world. In the face of so much pain and
suffering, our only course is to imitate the
Good Samaritan. Any other decision would make us
either one of the robbers or one of those who
walked by without showing compassion for the
sufferings of the man on the roadside. The
parable shows us how a community can be rebuilt
by men and women who identify with the
vulnerability of others, who reject the creation
of a society of exclusion, and act instead as
neighbours, lifting up and rehabilitating the
fallen for the sake of the common good. At the
same time, it warns us about the attitude of
those who think only of themselves and fail to
shoulder the inevitable responsibilities of life
as it is.
68. The parable clearly does not indulge in
abstract moralizing, nor is its message merely
social and ethical. It speaks to us of an
essential and often forgotten aspect of our
common humanity: we were created for a
fulfilment that can only be found in love. We
cannot be indifferent to suffering; we cannot
allow anyone to go through life as an outcast.
Instead, we should feel indignant, challenged to
emerge from our comfortable isolation and to be
changed by our contact with human suffering.
That is the meaning of dignity.
69. The parable is clear and straightforward,
yet it also evokes the interior struggle that
each of us experiences as we gradually come to
know ourselves through our relationships with
our brothers and sisters. Sooner or later, we
will all encounter a person who is suffering.
Today there are more and more of them. The
decision to include or exclude those lying
wounded along the roadside can serve as a
criterion for judging every economic, political,
social and religious project. Each day we have
to decide whether to be Good Samaritans or
indifferent bystanders. And if we extend our
gaze to the history of our own lives and that of
the entire world, all of us are, or have been,
like each of the characters in the parable. All
of us have in ourselves something of the wounded
man, something of the robber, something of the
passers-by, and something of the Good Samaritan.
70. It is remarkable how the various characters
in the story change, once confronted by the
painful sight of the poor man on the roadside.
The distinctions between Judean and Samaritan,
priest and merchant, fade into insignificance.
Now there are only two kinds of people: those
who care for someone who is hurting and those
who pass by; those who bend down to help and
those who look the other way and hurry off.
Here, all our distinctions, labels and masks
fall away: it is the moment of truth. Will we
bend down to touch and heal the wounds of
others? Will we bend down and help another to
get up? This is today’s challenge, and we should
not be afraid to face it. In moments of crisis,
decisions become urgent. It could be said that,
here and now, anyone who is neither a robber nor
a passer-by is either injured himself or bearing
an injured person on his shoulders.
71. The story of the Good Samaritan is
constantly being repeated. We can see this
clearly as social and political inertia is
turning many parts of our world into a desolate
byway, even as domestic and international
disputes and the robbing of opportunities are
leaving great numbers of the marginalized
stranded on the roadside. In his parable, Jesus
does not offer alternatives; he does not ask
what might have happened had the injured man or
the one who helped him yielded to anger or a
thirst for revenge. Jesus trusts in the best of
the human spirit; with this parable, he
encourages us to persevere in love, to restore
dignity to the suffering and to build a society
worthy of the name.
72. The parable begins with the robbers. Jesus
chose to start when the robbery has already
taken place, lest we dwell on the crime itself
or the thieves who committed it. Yet we know
them well. We have seen, descending on our
world, the dark shadows of neglect and violence
in the service of petty interests of power, gain
and division. The real question is this: will we
abandon the injured man and run to take refuge
from the violence, or will we pursue the
thieves? Will the wounded man end up being the
justification for our irreconcilable divisions,
our cruel indifference, our intestine conflicts?
73. The parable then asks us to take a closer
look at the passers-by. The nervous indifference
that makes them pass to the other side of the
road – whether innocently or not, whether the
result of disdain or mere distraction – makes
the priest and the Levite a sad reflection of
the growing gulf between ourselves and the world
around us. There are many ways to pass by at a
safe distance: we can retreat inwards, ignore
others, or be indifferent to their plight. Or
simply look elsewhere, as in some countries, or
certain sectors of them, where contempt is shown
for the poor and their culture, and one looks
the other way, as if a development plan imported
from without could edge them out. This is how
some justify their indifference: the poor, whose
pleas for help might touch their hearts, simply
do not exist. The poor are beyond the scope of
their interest.
74. One detail about the passers-by does stand
out: they were religious, devoted to the worship
of God: a priest and a Levite. This detail
should not be overlooked. It shows that belief
in God and the worship of God are not enough to
ensure that we are actually living in a way
pleasing to God. A believer may be untrue to
everything that his faith demands of him, and
yet think he is close to God and better than
others. The guarantee of an authentic openness
to God, on the other hand, is a way of
practising the faith that helps open our hearts
to our brothers and sisters. Saint John
Chrysostom expressed this pointedly when he
challenged his Christian hearers: “Do you wish
to honour the body of the Saviour? Do not
despise it when it is naked. Do not honour it in
church with silk vestments while outside it is
naked and numb with cold”.[58] Paradoxically,
those who claim to be unbelievers can sometimes
put God’s will into practice better than
believers.
75. “Robbers” usually find secret allies in
those who “pass by and look the other way”.
There is a certain interplay between those who
manipulate and cheat society, and those who,
while claiming to be detached and impartial
critics, live off that system and its benefits.
There is a sad hypocrisy when the impunity of
crime, the use of institutions for personal or
corporate gain, and other evils apparently
impossible to eradicate, are accompanied by a
relentless criticism of everything, a constant
sowing of suspicion that results in distrust and
confusion. The complaint that “everything is
broken” is answered by the claim that “it can’t
be fixed”, or “what can I do?” This feeds into
disillusionment and despair, and hardly
encourages a spirit of solidarity and
generosity. Plunging people into despair closes
a perfectly perverse circle: such is the agenda
of the invisible dictatorship of hidden
interests that have gained mastery over both
resources and the possibility of thinking and
expressing opinions.
76. Let us turn at last to the injured man.
There are times when we feel like him, badly
hurt and left on side of the road. We can also
feel helpless because our institutions are
neglected and lack resources, or simply serve
the interests of a few, without and within.
Indeed, “globalized society often has an elegant
way of shifting its gaze. Under the guise of
being politically correct or ideologically
fashionable, we look at those who suffer without
touching them. We televise live pictures of
them, even speaking about them with euphemisms
and with apparent tolerance”.[59]
77. Each day offers us a new opportunity, a new
possibility. We should not expect everything
from those who govern us, for that would be
childish. We have the space we need for
co-responsibility in creating and putting into
place new processes and changes. Let us take an
active part in renewing and supporting our
troubled societies. Today we have a great
opportunity to express our innate sense of
fraternity, to be Good Samaritans who bear the
pain of other people’s troubles rather than
fomenting greater hatred and resentment. Like
the chance traveller in the parable, we need
only have a pure and simple desire to be a
people, a community, constant and tireless in
the effort to include, integrate and lift up the
fallen. We may often find ourselves succumbing
to the mentality of the violent, the blindly
ambitious, those who spread mistrust and lies.
Others may continue to view politics or the
economy as an arena for their own power plays.
For our part, let us foster what is good and
place ourselves at its service.
78. We can start from below and, case by case,
act at the most concrete and local levels, and
then expand to the farthest reaches of our
countries and our world, with the same care and
concern that the Samaritan showed for each of
the wounded man’s injuries. Let us seek out
others and embrace the world as it is, without
fear of pain or a sense of inadequacy, because
there we will discover all the goodness that God
has planted in human hearts. Difficulties that
seem overwhelming are opportunities for growth,
not excuses for a glum resignation that can lead
only to acquiescence. Yet let us not do this
alone, as individuals. The Samaritan discovered
an innkeeper who would care for the man; we too
are called to unite as a family that is stronger
than the sum of small individual members. For
“the whole is greater than the part, but it is
also greater than the sum of its parts”.[60] Let
us renounce the pettiness and resentment of
useless in-fighting and constant confrontation.
Let us stop feeling sorry for ourselves and
acknowledge our crimes, our apathy, our lies.
Reparation and reconciliation will give us new
life and set us all free from fear.
79. The Samaritan who stopped along the way
departed without expecting any recognition or
gratitude. His effort to assist another person
gave him great satisfaction in life and before
his God, and thus became a duty. All of us have
a responsibility for the wounded, those of our
own people and all the peoples of the earth. Let
us care for the needs of every man and woman,
young and old, with the same fraternal spirit of
care and closeness that marked the Good
Samaritan.
80. Jesus told the parable of the Good Samaritan
in answer to the question: Who is my neighbour?
The word “neighbour”, in the society of Jesus’
time, usually meant those nearest us. It was
felt that help should be given primarily to
those of one’s own group and race. For some Jews
of that time, Samaritans were looked down upon,
considered impure. They were not among those to
be helped. Jesus, himself a Jew, completely
transforms this approach. He asks us not to
decide who is close enough to be our neighbour,
but rather that we ourselves become neighbours
to all.
81. Jesus asks us to be present to those in need
of help, regardless of whether or not they
belong to our social group. In this case, the
Samaritan became a neighbour to the
wounded Judean. By approaching and making
himself present, he crossed all cultural and
historical barriers. Jesus concludes the parable
by saying: “Go and do likewise” (Lk 10:37).
In other words, he challenges us to put aside
all differences and, in the face of suffering,
to draw near to others with no questions asked.
I should no longer say that I have neighbours to
help, but that I must myself be a neighbour to
others.
82. The parable, though, is troubling, for Jesus
says that that the wounded man was a Judean,
while the one who stopped and helped him was a
Samaritan. This detail is quite significant for
our reflection on a love that includes everyone.
The Samaritans lived in a region where pagan
rites were practised. For the Jews, this made
them impure, detestable, dangerous. In fact, one
ancient Jewish text referring to nations that
were hated, speaks of Samaria as “not even a
people” (Sir 50:25); it also refers to
“the foolish people that live in Shechem”
(50:26).
83. This explains why a Samaritan woman, when
asked by Jesus for a drink, answered curtly:
“How is it that you, a Jew, ask a drink of me, a
woman of Samaria?” (Jn 4:9). The most
offensive charge that those who sought to
discredit Jesus could bring was that he was
“possessed” and “a Samaritan” (Jn 8:48).
So this encounter of mercy between a Samaritan
and a Jew is highly provocative; it leaves no
room for ideological manipulation and challenges
us to expand our frontiers. It gives a universal
dimension to our call to love, one that
transcends all prejudices, all historical and
cultural barriers, all petty interests.
84. Finally, I would note that in another
passage of the Gospel Jesus says: “I was a
stranger and you welcomed me” (Mt 25:35).
Jesus could speak those words because he had an
open heart, sensitive to the difficulties of
others. Saint Paul urges us to “rejoice with
those who rejoice, weep with those who weep” (Rom 12:15).
When our hearts do this, they are capable of
identifying with others without worrying about
where they were born or come from. In the
process, we come to experience others as our
“own flesh” (Is 58:7).
85. For Christians, the words of Jesus have an
even deeper meaning. They compel us to recognize
Christ himself in each of our abandoned or
excluded brothers and sisters (cf. Mt 25:40.45).
Faith has untold power to inspire and sustain
our respect for others, for believers come to
know that God loves every man and woman with
infinite love and “thereby confers infinite
dignity” upon all humanity.[61] We
likewise believe that Christ shed his blood for
each of us and that no one is beyond the scope
of his universal love. If we go to the ultimate
source of that love which is the very life of
the triune God, we encounter in the community of
the three divine Persons the origin and perfect
model of all life in society. Theology continues
to be enriched by its reflection on this great
truth.
86. I sometimes wonder why, in light of this, it
took so long for the Church unequivocally to
condemn slavery and various forms of violence.
Today, with our developed spirituality and
theology, we have no excuses. Still, there are
those who appear to feel encouraged or at least
permitted by their faith to support varieties of
narrow and violent nationalism, xenophobia and
contempt, and even the mistreatment of those who
are different. Faith, and the humanism it
inspires, must maintain a critical sense in the
face of these tendencies, and prompt an
immediate response whenever they rear their
head. For this reason, it is important that
catechesis and preaching speak more directly and
clearly about the social meaning of existence,
the fraternal dimension of spirituality, our
conviction of the inalienable dignity of each
person, and our reasons for loving and accepting
all our brothers and sisters.
ENVISAGING AND ENGENDERING AN OPEN WORLD
87. Human beings are so made that they cannot
live, develop and find fulfilment except “in the
sincere gift of self to others”.[62] Nor
can they fully know themselves apart from an
encounter with other persons: “I communicate
effectively with myself only insofar as I
communicate with others”.[63] No
one can experience the true beauty of life
without relating to others, without having real
faces to love. This is part of the mystery of
authentic human existence. “Life exists where
there is bonding, communion, fraternity; and
life is stronger than death when it is built on
true relationships and bonds of fidelity. On the
contrary, there is no life when we claim to be
self-sufficient and live as islands: in these
attitudes, death prevails”.[64]
88. In the depths of every heart, love creates
bonds and expands existence, for it draws people
out of themselves and towards others.[65] Since
we were made for love, in each one of us “a law
of ekstasis” seems to operate: “the lover
‘goes outside’ the self to find a fuller
existence in another”.[66] For
this reason, “man always has to take up the
challenge of moving beyond himself”.[67]
89. Nor can I reduce my life to relationships
with a small group, even my own family; I cannot
know myself apart from a broader network of
relationships, including those that have
preceded me and shaped my entire life. My
relationship with those whom I respect has to
take account of the fact that they do not live
only for me, nor do I live only for them. Our
relationships, if healthy and authentic, open us
to others who expand and enrich us. Nowadays,
our noblest social instincts can easily be
thwarted by self-centred chats that give the
impression of being deep relationships. On the
contrary, authentic and mature love and true
friendship can only take root in hearts open to
growth through relationships with others. As
couples or friends, we find that our hearts
expand as we step out of ourselves and embrace
others. Closed groups and self-absorbed couples
that define themselves in opposition to others
tend to be expressions of selfishness and mere
self-preservation.
90. Significantly, many small communities living
in desert areas developed a remarkable system of
welcoming pilgrims as an exercise of the sacred
duty of hospitality. The medieval monastic
communities did likewise, as we see from the
Rule of Saint Benedict. While acknowledging that
it might detract from the discipline and silence
of monasteries, Benedict nonetheless insisted
that “the poor and pilgrims be treated with the
utmost care and attention”.[68] Hospitality
was one specific way of rising to the challenge
and the gift present in an encounter with those
outside one’s own circle. The monks realized
that the values they sought to cultivate had to
be accompanied by a readiness to move beyond
themselves in openness to others.
91. People can develop certain habits that might
appear as moral values: fortitude, sobriety,
hard work and similar virtues. Yet if the acts
of the various moral virtues are to be rightly
directed, one needs to take into account the
extent to which they foster openness and union
with others. That is made possible by the
charity that God infuses. Without charity, we
may perhaps possess only apparent virtues,
incapable of sustaining life in common. Thus,
Saint Thomas Aquinas could say – quoting Saint
Augustine – that the temperance of a greedy
person is in no way virtuous.[69] Saint
Bonaventure, for his part, explained that the
other virtues, without charity, strictly
speaking do not fulfil the commandments “the way
God wants them to be fulfilled”.[70]
92. The spiritual stature of a person’s life is
measured by love, which in the end remains “the
criterion for the definitive decision about a
human life’s worth or lack thereof”.[71] Yet
some believers think that it consists in the
imposition of their own ideologies upon everyone
else, or in a violent defence of the truth, or
in impressive demonstrations of strength. All of
us, as believers, need to recognize that love
takes first place: love must never be put at
risk, and the greatest danger lies in failing to
love (cf. 1 Cor 13:1-13).
93. Saint Thomas Aquinas sought to describe the
love made possible by God’s grace as a movement
outwards towards another, whereby we consider
“the beloved as somehow united to ourselves”.[72] Our
affection for others makes us freely desire to
seek their good. All this originates in a sense
of esteem, an appreciation of the value of the
other. This is ultimately the idea behind the
word “charity”: those who are loved are “dear”
to me; “they are considered of great value”.[73] And
“the love whereby someone becomes pleasing (grata)
to another is the reason why the latter bestows
something on him freely (gratis)”.[74]
94. Love, then, is more than just a series of
benevolent actions. Those actions have their
source in a union increasingly directed towards
others, considering them of value, worthy,
pleasing and beautiful apart from their physical
or moral appearances. Our love for others, for
who they are, moves us to seek the best
for their lives. Only by cultivating this way of
relating to one another will we make possible a
social friendship that excludes no one and a
fraternity that is open to all.
95. Love also impels us towards universal
communion. No one can mature or find fulfilment
by withdrawing from others. By its very nature,
love calls for growth in openness and the
ability to accept others as part of a continuing
adventure that makes every periphery converge in
a greater sense of mutual belonging. As Jesus
told us: “You are all brothers” (Mt 23:8).
96. This need to transcend our own limitations
also applies to different regions and countries.
Indeed, “the ever-increasing number of
interconnections and communications in today’s
world makes us powerfully aware of the unity and
common destiny of the nations. In the dynamics
of history, and in the diversity of ethnic
groups, societies and cultures, we see the seeds
of a vocation to form a community composed of
brothers and sisters who accept and care for one
another”.[75]
Open societies that integrate everyone
97. Some peripheries are close to us, in city
centres or within our families. Hence there is
an aspect of universal openness in love that is
existential rather than geographical. It has to
do with our daily efforts to expand our circle
of friends, to reach those who, even though they
are close to me, I do not naturally consider a
part of my circle of interests. Every brother or
sister in need, when abandoned or ignored by the
society in which I live, becomes an existential
foreigner, even though born in the same country.
They may be citizens with full rights, yet they
are treated like foreigners in their own
country. Racism is a virus that quickly mutates
and, instead of disappearing, goes into hiding,
and lurks in waiting.
98. I would like to mention some of those
“hidden exiles” who are treated as foreign
bodies in society.[76] Many
persons with disabilities “feel that they exist
without belonging and without participating”.
Much still prevents them from being fully
enfranchised. Our concern should be not only to
care for them but to ensure their “active
participation in the civil and ecclesial
community. That is a demanding and even tiring
process, yet one that will gradually contribute
to the formation of consciences capable of
acknowledging each individual as a unique and
unrepeatable person”. I think, too, of “the
elderly who, also due to their disability, are
sometimes considered a burden”. Yet each of them
is able to offer “a unique contribution to the
common good through their remarkable life
stories”. Let me repeat: we need to have “the
courage to give a voice to those who are
discriminated against due to their disability,
because sadly, in some countries even today,
people find it hard to acknowledge them as
persons of equal dignity”.[77]
Inadequate understandings of universal love
99. A love capable of transcending borders is
the basis of what in every city and country can
be called “social friendship”. Genuine social
friendship within a society makes true universal
openness possible. This is a far cry from the
false universalism of those who constantly
travel abroad because they cannot tolerate or
love their own people. Those who look down on
their own people tend to create within society
categories of first and second class, people of
greater or lesser dignity, people enjoying
greater or fewer rights. In this way, they deny
that there is room for everybody.
100. I am certainly not proposing an
authoritarian and abstract universalism, devised
or planned by a small group and presented as an
ideal for the sake of levelling, dominating and
plundering. One model of globalization in fact
“consciously aims at a one-dimensional
uniformity and seeks to eliminate all
differences and traditions in a superficial
quest for unity… If a certain kind of
globalization claims to make everyone uniform,
to level everyone out, that globalization
destroys the rich gifts and uniqueness of each
person and each people”.[78] This
false universalism ends up depriving the world
of its various colours, its beauty and,
ultimately, its humanity. For “the future is not
monochrome; if we are courageous, we can
contemplate it in all the variety and diversity
of what each individual person has to offer. How
much our human family needs to learn to live
together in harmony and peace, without all of us
having to be the same!”[79]
BEYOND A WORLD OF “ASSOCIATES”
101. Let us now return to the parable of the
Good Samaritan, for it still has much to say to
us. An injured man lay on the roadside. The
people walking by him did not heed their
interior summons to act as neighbours; they were
concerned with their duties, their social
status, their professional position within
society. They considered themselves important
for the society of the time, and were anxious to
play their proper part. The man on the roadside,
bruised and abandoned, was a distraction, an
interruption from all that; in any event, he was
hardly important. He was a “nobody”,
undistinguished, irrelevant to their plans for
the future. The Good Samaritan transcended these
narrow classifications. He himself did not fit
into any of those categories; he was simply a
foreigner without a place in society. Free of
every label and position, he was able to
interrupt his journey, change his plans, and
unexpectedly come to the aid of an injured
person who needed his help.
102. What would be the reaction to that same
story nowadays, in a world that constantly
witnesses the emergence and growth of social
groups clinging to an identity that separates
them from others? How would it affect those who
organize themselves in a way that prevents any
foreign presence that might threaten their
identity and their closed and self-referential
structures? There, even the possibility of
acting as a neighbour is excluded; one is a
neighbour only to those who serve their purpose.
The word “neighbour” loses all meaning; there
can only be “associates”, partners in the
pursuit of particular interests.[80]
Liberty, equality and fraternity
103. Fraternity is born not only of a climate of
respect for individual liberties, or even of a
certain administratively guaranteed equality.
Fraternity necessarily calls for something
greater, which in turn enhances freedom and
equality. What happens when fraternity is not
consciously cultivated, when there is a lack of
political will to promote it through education
in fraternity, through dialogue and through the
recognition of the values of reciprocity and
mutual enrichment? Liberty becomes nothing more
than a condition for living as we will,
completely free to choose to whom or what we
will belong, or simply to possess or exploit.
This shallow understanding has little to do with
the richness of a liberty directed above all to
love.
104. Nor is equality achieved by an abstract
proclamation that “all men and women are equal”.
Instead, it is the result of the conscious and
careful cultivation of fraternity. Those capable
only of being “associates” create closed worlds.
Within that framework, what place is there for
those who are not part of one’s group of
associates, yet long for a better life for
themselves and their families?
105. Individualism does not make us more free,
more equal, more fraternal. The mere sum of
individual interests is not capable of
generating a better world for the whole human
family. Nor can it save us from the many ills
that are now increasingly globalized. Radical
individualism is a virus that is extremely
difficult to eliminate, for it is clever. It
makes us believe that everything consists in
giving free rein to our own ambitions, as if by
pursuing ever greater ambitions and creating
safety nets we would somehow be serving the
common good.
A UNIVERSAL LOVE THAT PROMOTES PERSONS
106. Social friendship and universal fraternity
necessarily call for an acknowledgement of the
worth of every human person, always and
everywhere. If each individual is of such great
worth, it must be stated clearly and firmly that
“the mere fact that some people are born in
places with fewer resources or less development
does not justify the fact that they are living
with less dignity”.[81] This
is a basic principle of social life that tends
to be ignored in a variety of ways by those who
sense that it does not fit into their worldview
or serve their purposes.
107. Every human being has the right to live
with dignity and to develop integrally; this
fundamental right cannot be denied by any
country. People have this right even if they are
unproductive, or were born with or developed
limitations. This does not detract from their
great dignity as human persons, a dignity based
not on circumstances but on the intrinsic worth
of their being. Unless this basic principle is
upheld, there will be no future either for
fraternity or for the survival of humanity.
108. Some societies accept this principle in
part. They agree that opportunities should be
available to everyone, but then go on to say
that everything depends on the individual. From
this skewed perspective, it would be pointless
“to favour an investment in efforts to help the
slow, the weak or the less talented to find
opportunities in life”.[82] Investments
in assistance to the vulnerable could prove
unprofitable; they might make things less
efficient. No. What we need in fact are states
and civil institutions that are present and
active, that look beyond the free and efficient
working of certain economic, political or
ideological systems, and are primarily concerned
with individuals and the common good.
109. Some people are born into economically
stable families, receive a fine education, grow
up well nourished, or naturally possess great
talent. They will certainly not need a proactive
state; they need only claim their freedom. Yet
the same rule clearly does not apply to a
disabled person, to someone born in dire
poverty, to those lacking a good education and
with little access to adequate health care. If a
society is governed primarily by the criteria of
market freedom and efficiency, there is no place
for such persons, and fraternity will remain
just another vague ideal.
110. Indeed, “to claim economic freedom while
real conditions bar many people from actual
access to it, and while possibilities for
employment continue to shrink, is to practise
doublespeak”.[83] Words
like freedom, democracy or fraternity prove
meaningless, for the fact is that “only when our
economic and social system no longer produces
even a single victim, a single person cast
aside, will we be able to celebrate the feast of
universal fraternity”.[84] A
truly human and fraternal society will be
capable of ensuring in an efficient and stable
way that each of its members is accompanied at
every stage of life. Not only by providing for
their basic needs, but by enabling them to give
the best of themselves, even though their
performance may be less than optimum, their pace
slow or their efficiency limited.
111. The human person, with his or her
inalienable rights, is by nature open to
relationship. Implanted deep within us is the
call to transcend ourselves through an encounter
with others. For this reason, “care must be
taken not to fall into certain errors which can
arise from a misunderstanding of the concept of
human rights and from its misuse. Today there is
a tendency to claim ever broader individual – I
am tempted to say individualistic – rights.
Underlying this is a conception of the human
person as detached from all social and
anthropological contexts, as if the person were
a “monad” (monás), increasingly
unconcerned with others… Unless the rights of
each individual are harmoniously ordered to the
greater good, those rights will end up being
considered limitless and consequently will
become a source of conflicts and violence”.[85]
112. Nor can we fail to mention that seeking and
pursuing the good of others and of the entire
human family also implies helping individuals
and societies to mature in the moral values that
foster integral human development. The New
Testament describes one fruit of the Holy Spirit
(cf. Gal 5:22) as agathosyne; the
Greek word expresses attachment to the good,
pursuit of the good. Even more, it suggests a
striving for excellence and what is best for
others, their growth in maturity and health, the
cultivation of values and not simply material
wellbeing. A similar expression exists in
Latin: benevolentia. This is an attitude
that “wills the good” of others; it bespeaks a
yearning for goodness, an inclination towards
all that is fine and excellent, a desire to fill
the lives of others with what is beautiful,
sublime and edifying.
113. Here, regrettably, I feel bound to
reiterate that “we have had enough of immorality
and the mockery of ethics, goodness, faith and
honesty. It is time to acknowledge that
light-hearted superficiality has done us no
good. Once the foundations of social life are
corroded, what ensues are battles over
conflicting interests”.[86] Let
us return to promoting the good, for ourselves
and for the whole human family, and thus advance
together towards an authentic and integral
growth. Every society needs to ensure that
values are passed on; otherwise, what is handed
down are selfishness, violence, corruption in
its various forms, indifference and, ultimately,
a life closed to transcendence and entrenched in
individual interests.
114. I would like especially to mention
solidarity, which, “as a moral virtue and social
attitude born of personal conversion, calls for
commitment on the part of those responsible for
education and formation. I think first of
families, called to a primary and vital mission
of education. Families are the first place where
the values of love and fraternity, togetherness
and sharing, concern and care for others are
lived out and handed on. They are also the
privileged milieu for transmitting the faith,
beginning with those first simple gestures of
devotion which mothers teach their children.
Teachers, who have the challenging task of
training children and youth in schools or other
settings, should be conscious that their
responsibility extends also to the moral,
spiritual and social aspects of life. The values
of freedom, mutual respect and solidarity can be
handed on from a tender age… Communicators also
have a responsibility for education and
formation, especially nowadays, when the means
of information and communication are so
widespread”.[87]
115. At a time when everything seems to
disintegrate and lose consistency, it is good
for us to appeal to the “solidity”[88] born
of the consciousness that we are responsible for
the fragility of others as we strive to build a
common future. Solidarity finds concrete
expression in service, which can take a variety
of forms in an effort to care for others. And
service in great part means “caring for
vulnerability, for the vulnerable members of our
families, our society, our people”. In offering
such service, individuals learn to “set aside
their own wishes and desires, their pursuit of
power, before the concrete gaze of those who are
most vulnerable… Service always looks to their
faces, touches their flesh, senses their
closeness and even, in some cases, ‘suffers’
that closeness and tries to help them. Service
is never ideological, for we do not serve ideas,
we serve people”.[89]
116. The needy generally “practise the special
solidarity that exists among those who are poor
and suffering, and which our civilization seems
to have forgotten or would prefer in fact to
forget. Solidarity is a word that is not always
well received; in certain situations, it has
become a dirty word, a word that dare not be
said. Solidarity means much more than engaging
in sporadic acts of generosity. It means
thinking and acting in terms of community. It
means that the lives of all are prior to the
appropriation of goods by a few. It also means
combatting the structural causes of poverty,
inequality, the lack of work, land and housing,
the denial of social and labour rights. It means
confronting the destructive effects of the
empire of money… Solidarity, understood in its
most profound meaning, is a way of making
history, and this is what popular movements are
doing”.[90]
117. When we speak of the need to care for our
common home, our planet, we appeal to that spark
of universal consciousness and mutual concern
that may still be present in people’s hearts.
Those who enjoy a surplus of water yet choose to
conserve it for the sake of the greater human
family have attained a moral stature that allows
them to look beyond themselves and the group to
which they belong. How marvellously human! The
same attitude is demanded if we are to recognize
the rights of all people, even those born beyond
our own borders.
RE-ENVISAGING THE SOCIAL ROLE OF PROPERTY
118. The world exists for everyone, because all
of us were born with the same dignity.
Differences of colour, religion, talent, place
of birth or residence, and so many others,
cannot be used to justify the privileges of some
over the rights of all. As a community, we have
an obligation to ensure that every person lives
with dignity and has sufficient opportunities
for his or her integral development.
119. In the first Christian centuries, a number
of thinkers developed a universal vision in
their reflections on the common destination of
created goods.[91] This
led them to realize that if one person lacks
what is necessary to live with dignity, it is
because another person is detaining it. Saint
John Chrysostom summarizes it in this way: “Not
to share our wealth with the poor is to rob them
and take away their livelihood. The riches we
possess are not our own, but theirs as well”.[92] In
the words of Saint Gregory the Great, “When we
provide the needy with their basic needs, we are
giving them what belongs to them, not to us”.[93]
120. Once more, I would like to echo a statement
of Saint John Paul II whose forcefulness has
perhaps been insufficiently recognized: “God
gave the earth to the whole human race for the
sustenance of all its members, without excluding
or favouring anyone”.[94] For
my part, I would observe that “the Christian
tradition has never recognized the right to
private property as absolute or inviolable, and
has stressed the social purpose of all forms of
private property”.[95] The
principle of the common use of created goods is
the “first principle of the whole ethical and
social order”;[96] it
is a natural and inherent right that takes
priority over others.[97] All
other rights having to do with the goods
necessary for the integral fulfilment of
persons, including that of private property or
any other type of property, should – in the
words of Saint Paul VI – “in no way hinder [this
right], but should actively facilitate its
implementation”.[98] The
right to private property can only be considered
a secondary natural right, derived from the
principle of the universal destination of
created goods. This has concrete consequences
that ought to be reflected in the workings of
society. Yet it often happens that secondary
rights displace primary and overriding rights,
in practice making them irrelevant.
121. No one, then, can remain excluded because
of his or her place of birth, much less because
of privileges enjoyed by others who were born in
lands of greater opportunity. The limits and
borders of individual states cannot stand in the
way of this. As it is unacceptable that some
have fewer rights by virtue of being women, it
is likewise unacceptable that the mere place of
one’s birth or residence should result in his or
her possessing fewer opportunities for a
developed and dignified life.
122. Development must not aim at the amassing of
wealth by a few, but must ensure “human rights –
personal and social, economic and political,
including the rights of nations and of peoples”.[99] The
right of some to free enterprise or market
freedom cannot supersede the rights of peoples
and the dignity of the poor, or, for that
matter, respect for the natural environment, for
“if we make something our own, it is only to
administer it for the good of all”.[100]
123. Business activity is essentially “a noble
vocation, directed to producing wealth and
improving our world”.[101] God
encourages us to develop the talents he gave us,
and he has made our universe one of immense
potential. In God’s plan, each individual is
called to promote his or her own development,[102] and
this includes finding the best economic and
technological means of multiplying goods and
increasing wealth. Business abilities, which are
a gift from God, should always be clearly
directed to the development of others and to
eliminating poverty, especially through the
creation of diversified work opportunities. The
right to private property is always accompanied
by the primary and prior principle of the
subordination of all private property to the
universal destination of the earth’s goods, and
thus the right of all to their use.[103]
124. Nowadays, a firm belief in the common
destination of the earth’s goods requires that
this principle also be applied to nations, their
territories and their resources. Seen from the
standpoint not only of the legitimacy of private
property and the rights of its citizens, but
also of the first principle of the common
destination of goods, we can then say that each
country also belongs to the foreigner, inasmuch
as a territory’s goods must not be denied to a
needy person coming from elsewhere. As the
Bishops of the United States have taught, there
are fundamental rights that “precede any society
because they flow from the dignity granted to
each person as created by God”.[104]
125. This presupposes a different way of
understanding relations and exchanges between
countries. If every human being possesses an
inalienable dignity, if all people are my
brothers and sisters, and if the world truly
belongs to everyone, then it matters little
whether my neighbour was born in my country or
elsewhere. My own country also shares
responsibility for his or her development,
although it can fulfil that responsibility in a
variety of ways. It can offer a generous welcome
to those in urgent need, or work to improve
living conditions in their native lands by
refusing to exploit those countries or to drain
them of natural resources, backing corrupt
systems that hinder the dignified development of
their peoples. What applies to nations is true
also for different regions within each country,
since there too great inequalities often exist.
At times, the inability to recognize equal human
dignity leads the more developed regions in some
countries to think that they can jettison the
“dead weight” of poorer regions and so increase
their level of consumption.
126. We are really speaking about a new network
of international relations, since there is no
way to resolve the serious problems of our world
if we continue to think only in terms of mutual
assistance between individuals or small groups.
Nor should we forget that “inequity affects not
only individuals but entire countries; it
compels us to consider an ethics of
international relations”.[105] Indeed,
justice requires recognizing and respecting not
only the rights of individuals, but also social
rights and the rights of peoples.[106] This
means finding a way to ensure “the fundamental
right of peoples to subsistence and progress”,[107] a
right which is at times severely restricted by
the pressure created by foreign debt. In many
instances, debt repayment not only fails to
promote development but gravely limits and
conditions it. While respecting the principle
that all legitimately acquired debt must be
repaid, the way in which many poor countries
fulfil this obligation should not end up
compromising their very existence and growth.
127. Certainly, all this calls for an
alternative way of thinking. Without an attempt
to enter into that way of thinking, what I am
saying here will sound wildly unrealistic. On
the other hand, if we accept the great principle
that there are rights born of our inalienable
human dignity, we can rise to the challenge of
envisaging a new humanity. We can aspire to a
world that provides land, housing and work for
all. This is the true path of peace, not the
senseless and myopic strategy of sowing fear and
mistrust in the face of outside threats. For a
real and lasting peace will only be possible “on
the basis of a global ethic of solidarity and
cooperation in the service of a future shaped by
interdependence and shared responsibility in the
whole human family”.[108]
A HEART OPEN TO THE WHOLE WORLD
128. If the conviction that all human beings are
brothers and sisters is not to remain an
abstract idea but to find concrete embodiment,
then numerous related issues emerge, forcing us
to see things in a new light and to develop new
responses.
129. Complex challenges arise when our neighbour
happens to be an immigrant.[109] Ideally,
unnecessary migration ought to be avoided; this
entails creating in countries of origin the
conditions needed for a dignified life and
integral development. Yet until substantial
progress is made in achieving this goal, we are
obliged to respect the right of all individuals
to find a place that meets their basic needs and
those of their families, and where they can find
personal fulfilment. Our response to the arrival
of migrating persons can be summarized by four
words: welcome, protect, promote and integrate.
For “it is not a case of implementing welfare
programmes from the top down, but rather of
undertaking a journey together, through these
four actions, in order to build cities and
countries that, while preserving their
respective cultural and religious identity, are
open to differences and know how to promote them
in the spirit of human fraternity”.[110]
130. This implies taking certain indispensable
steps, especially in response to those who are
fleeing grave humanitarian crises. As examples,
we may cite: increasing and simplifying the
granting of visas; adopting programmes of
individual and community sponsorship; opening
humanitarian corridors for the most vulnerable
refugees; providing suitable and dignified
housing; guaranteeing personal security and
access to basic services; ensuring adequate
consular assistance and the right to retain
personal identity documents; equitable access to
the justice system; the possibility of opening
bank accounts and the guarantee of the minimum
needed to survive; freedom of movement and the
possibility of employment; protecting minors and
ensuring their regular access to education;
providing for programmes of temporary
guardianship or shelter; guaranteeing religious
freedom; promoting integration into society;
supporting the reuniting of families; and
preparing local communities for the process of
integration.[111]
131. For those who are not recent arrivals and
already participate in the fabric of society, it
is important to apply the concept of
“citizenship”, which “is based on the equality
of rights and duties, under which all enjoy
justice. It is therefore crucial to establish in
our societies the concept of full
citizenship and to reject the discriminatory
use of the term minorities, which
engenders feelings of isolation and inferiority.
Its misuse paves the way for hostility and
discord; it undoes any successes and takes away
the religious and civil rights of some citizens
who are thus discriminated against”.[112]
132. Even when they take such essential steps,
states are not able, on their own, to implement
adequate solutions, “since the consequences of
the decisions made by each inevitably have
repercussions on the entire international
community”. As a result, “our response can only
be the fruit of a common effort”[113] to
develop a form of global governance with regard
to movements of migration. Thus, there is “a
need for mid-term and long-term planning which
is not limited to emergency responses. Such
planning should include effective assistance for
integrating migrants in their receiving
countries, while also promoting the development
of their countries of origin through policies
inspired by solidarity, yet not linking
assistance to ideological strategies and
practices alien or contrary to the cultures of
the peoples being assisted”.[114]
133. The arrival of those who are different,
coming from other ways of life and cultures, can
be a gift, for “the stories of migrants are
always stories of an encounter between
individuals and between cultures. For the
communities and societies to which they come,
migrants bring an opportunity for enrichment and
the integral human development of all”.[115] For
this reason, “I especially urge young people not
to play into the hands of those who would set
them against other young people, newly arrived
in their countries, and who would encourage them
to view the latter as a threat, and not
possessed of the same inalienable dignity as
every other human being”.[116]
134. Indeed, when we open our hearts to those
who are different, this enables them, while
continuing to be themselves, to develop in new
ways. The different cultures that have
flourished over the centuries need to be
preserved, lest our world be impoverished. At
the same time, those cultures should be
encouraged to be open to new experiences through
their encounter with other realities, for the
risk of succumbing to cultural sclerosis is
always present. That is why “we need to
communicate with each other, to discover the
gifts of each person, to promote that which
unites us, and to regard our differences as an
opportunity to grow in mutual respect. Patience
and trust are called for in such dialogue,
permitting individuals, families and communities
to hand on the values of their own culture and
welcome the good that comes from others’
experiences”.[117]
135. Here I would mention some examples that I
have used in the past. Latino culture is “a
ferment of values and possibilities that can
greatly enrich the United States”, for “intense
immigration always ends up influencing and
transforming the culture of a place… In
Argentina, intense immigration from Italy has
left a mark on the culture of the society, and
the presence of some 200,000 Jews has a great
effect on the cultural ‘style’ of Buenos Aires.
Immigrants, if they are helped to integrate, are
a blessing, a source of enrichment and new gift
that encourages a society to grow”.[118]
136. On an even broader scale, Grand Imam Ahmad
Al-Tayyeb and I have observed that “good
relations between East and West are indisputably
necessary for both. They must not be neglected,
so that each can be enriched by the other’s
culture through fruitful exchange and dialogue.
The West can discover in the East remedies for
those spiritual and religious maladies that are
caused by a prevailing materialism. And the East
can find in the West many elements that can help
free it from weakness, division, conflict and
scientific, technical and cultural decline. It
is important to pay attention to religious,
cultural and historical differences that are a
vital component in shaping the character,
culture and civilization of the East. It is
likewise important to reinforce the bond of
fundamental human rights in order to help ensure
a dignified life for all the men and women of
East and West, avoiding the politics of double
standards”.[119]
137. Mutual assistance between countries proves
enriching for each. A country that moves forward
while remaining solidly grounded in its original
cultural substratum is a treasure for the whole
of humanity. We need to develop the awareness
that nowadays we are either all saved together
or no one is saved. Poverty, decadence and
suffering in one part of the earth are a silent
breeding ground for problems that will end up
affecting the entire planet. If we are troubled
by the extinction of certain species, we should
be all the more troubled that in some parts of
our world individuals or peoples are prevented
from developing their potential and beauty by
poverty or other structural limitations. In the
end, this will impoverish us all.
138. Although this has always been true, never
has it been more evident than in our own day,
when the world is interconnected by
globalization. We need to attain a global
juridical, political and economic order “which
can increase and give direction to international
cooperation for the development of all peoples
in solidarity”.[120] Ultimately,
this will benefit the entire world, since
“development aid for poor countries” implies
“creating wealth for all”.[121] From
the standpoint of integral development, this
presupposes “giving poorer nations an effective
voice in shared decision-making”[122] and
the capacity to “facilitate access to the
international market on the part of countries
suffering from poverty and underdevelopment”.[123]
A gratuitousness open to others
139. Even so, I do not wish to limit this
presentation to a kind of utilitarian approach.
There is always the factor of “gratuitousness”:
the ability to do some things simply because
they are good in themselves, without concern for
personal gain or recompense. Gratuitousness
makes it possible for us to welcome the
stranger, even though this brings us no
immediate tangible benefit. Some countries,
though, presume to accept only scientists or
investors.
140. Life without fraternal gratuitousness
becomes a form of frenetic commerce, in which we
are constantly weighing up what we give and what
we get back in return. God, on the other hand,
gives freely, to the point of helping even those
who are unfaithful; he “makes his sun rise on
the evil and on the good” (Mt 5:45).
There is a reason why Jesus told us: “When you
give alms, do not let your right hand know what
your left hand is doing, so that your alms may
be in secret” (Mt 6:3-4). We received
life freely; we paid nothing for it.
Consequently, all of us are able to give without
expecting anything in return, to do good to
others without demanding that they treat us well
in return. As Jesus told his disciples: “Without
cost you have received, without cost you are to
give” (Mt 10:8).
141. The true worth of the different countries
of our world is measured by their ability to
think not simply as a country but also as part
of the larger human family. This is seen
especially in times of crisis. Narrow forms of
nationalism are an extreme expression of an
inability to grasp the meaning of this
gratuitousness. They err in thinking that they
can develop on their own, heedless of the ruin
of others, that by closing their doors to others
they will be better protected. Immigrants are
seen as usurpers who have nothing to offer. This
leads to the simplistic belief that the poor are
dangerous and useless, while the powerful are
generous benefactors. Only a social and
political culture that readily and
“gratuitously” welcomes others will have a
future.
142. It should be kept in mind that “an innate
tension exists between globalization and
localization. We need to pay attention to the
global so as to avoid narrowness and banality.
Yet we also need to look to the local, which
keeps our feet on the ground. Together, the two
prevent us from falling into one of two
extremes. In the first, people get caught up in
an abstract, globalized universe… In the other,
they turn into a museum of local folklore, a
world apart, doomed to doing the same things
over and over, incapable of being challenged by
novelty or appreciating the beauty which God
bestows beyond their borders”.[124] We
need to have a global outlook to save ourselves
from petty provincialism. When our house stops
being a home and starts to become an enclosure,
a cell, then the global comes to our rescue,
like a “final cause” that draws us towards our
fulfilment. At the same time, though, the local
has to be eagerly embraced, for it possesses
something that the global does not: it is
capable of being a leaven, of bringing
enrichment, of sparking mechanisms of
subsidiarity. Universal fraternity and social
friendship are thus two inseparable and equally
vital poles in every society. To separate them
would be to disfigure each and to create a
dangerous polarization.
143. The solution is not an openness that spurns
its own richness. Just as there can be no
dialogue with “others” without a sense of our
own identity, so there can be no openness
between peoples except on the basis of love for
one’s own land, one’s own people, one’s own
cultural roots. I cannot truly encounter another
unless I stand on firm foundations, for it is on
the basis of these that I can accept the gift
the other brings and in turn offer an authentic
gift of my own. I can welcome others who are
different, and value the unique contribution
they have to make, only if I am firmly rooted in
my own people and culture. Everyone loves and
cares for his or her native land and village,
just as they love and care for their home and
are personally responsible for its upkeep. The
common good likewise requires that we protect
and love our native land. Otherwise, the
consequences of a disaster in one country will
end up affecting the entire planet. All this
brings out the positive meaning of the right to
property: I care for and cultivate something
that I possess, in such a way that it can
contribute to the good of all.
144. It also gives rise to healthy and enriching
exchanges. The experience of being raised in a
particular place and sharing in a particular
culture gives us insight into aspects of reality
that others cannot so easily perceive. Universal
does not necessarily mean bland, uniform and
standardized, based on a single prevailing
cultural model, for this will ultimately lead to
the loss of a rich palette of shades and
colours, and result in utter monotony. Such was
the temptation referred to in the ancient
account of the Tower of Babel. The attempt to
build a tower that would reach to heaven was not
an expression of unity between various peoples
speaking to one another from their diversity.
Instead, it was a misguided attempt, born of
pride and ambition, to create a unity other than
that willed by God in his providential plan for
the nations (cf. Gen 11:1-9).
145. There can be a false openness to the
universal, born of the shallowness of those
lacking insight into the genius of their native
land or harbouring unresolved resentment towards
their own people. Whatever the case, “we
constantly have to broaden our horizons and see
the greater good which will benefit us all. But
this has to be done without evasion or
uprooting. We need to sink our roots deeper into
the fertile soil and history of our native
place, which is a gift of God. We can work on a
small scale, in our own neighbourhood, but with
a larger perspective… The global need not
stifle, nor the particular prove barren”;[125] our
model must be that of a polyhedron, in which the
value of each individual is respected, where
“the whole is greater than the part, but it is
also greater than the sum of its parts”.[126]
146. There is a kind of “local” narcissism
unrelated to a healthy love of one’s own people
and culture. It is born of a certain insecurity
and fear of the other that leads to rejection
and the desire to erect walls for self-defence.
Yet it is impossible to be “local” in a healthy
way without being sincerely open to the
universal, without feeling challenged by what is
happening in other places, without openness to
enrichment by other cultures, and without
solidarity and concern for the tragedies
affecting other peoples. A “local narcissism”
instead frets over a limited number of ideas,
customs and forms of security; incapable of
admiring the vast potential and beauty offered
by the larger world, it lacks an authentic and
generous spirit of solidarity. Life on the local
level thus becomes less and less welcoming,
people less open to complementarity. Its
possibilities for development narrow; it grows
weary and infirm. A healthy culture, on the
other hand, is open and welcoming by its very
nature; indeed, “a culture without universal
values is not truly a culture”.[127]
147. Let us realize that as our minds and hearts
narrow, the less capable we become of
understanding the world around us. Without
encountering and relating to differences, it is
hard to achieve a clear and complete
understanding even of ourselves and of our
native land. Other cultures are not “enemies”
from which we need to protect ourselves, but
differing reflections of the inexhaustible
richness of human life. Seeing ourselves from
the perspective of another, of one who is
different, we can better recognize our own
unique features and those of our culture: its
richness, its possibilities and its limitations.
Our local experience needs to develop “in
contrast to” and “in harmony with” the
experiences of others living in diverse cultural
contexts.[128]
148. In fact, a healthy openness never threatens
one’s own identity. A living culture, enriched
by elements from other places, does not import a
mere carbon copy of those new elements, but
integrates them in its own unique way. The
result is a new synthesis that is ultimately
beneficial to all, since the original culture
itself ends up being nourished. That is why I
have urged indigenous peoples to cherish their
roots and their ancestral cultures. At the same
time, though, I have wanted to stress that I
have no intention of proposing “a completely
enclosed, a-historic, static ‘indigenism’ that
would reject any kind of blending (mestizaje)”.
For “our own cultural identity is strengthened
and enriched as a result of dialogue with those
unlike ourselves. Nor is our authentic identity
preserved by an impoverished isolation”.[129] The
world grows and is filled with new beauty,
thanks to the successive syntheses produced
between cultures that are open and free of any
form of cultural imposition.
149. For a healthy relationship between love of
one’s native land and a sound sense of belonging
to our larger human family, it is helpful to
keep in mind that global society is not the sum
total of different countries, but rather the
communion that exists among them. The mutual
sense of belonging is prior to the emergence of
individual groups. Each particular group becomes
part of the fabric of universal communion and
there discovers its own beauty. All individuals,
whatever their origin, know that they are part
of the greater human family, without which they
will not be able to understand themselves fully.
150. To see things in this way brings the joyful
realization that no one people, culture or
individual can achieve everything on its own: to
attain fulfilment in life we need others. An
awareness of our own limitations and
incompleteness, far from being a threat, becomes
the key to envisaging and pursuing a common
project. For “man is a limited being who is
himself limitless”.[130]
151. Thanks to regional exchanges, by which
poorer countries become open to the wider world,
universality does not necessarily water down
their distinct features. An appropriate and
authentic openness to the world presupposes the
capacity to be open to one’s neighbour within a
family of nations. Cultural, economic and
political integration with neighbouring peoples
should therefore be accompanied by a process of
education that promotes the value of love for
one’s neighbour, the first indispensable step
towards attaining a healthy universal
integration.
152. In some areas of our cities, there is still
a lively sense of neighbourhood. Each person
quite spontaneously perceives a duty to
accompany and help his or her neighbour. In
places where these community values are
maintained, people experience a closeness marked
by gratitude, solidarity and reciprocity. The
neighbourhood gives them a sense of shared
identity.[131] Would
that neighbouring countries were able to
encourage a similar neighbourly spirit between
their peoples! Yet the spirit of individualism
also affects relations between countries. The
danger of thinking that we have to protect
ourselves from one another, of viewing others as
competitors or dangerous enemies, also affects
relations between peoples in the same region.
Perhaps we were trained in this kind of fear and
mistrust.
153. There are powerful countries and large
businesses that profit from this isolation and
prefer to negotiate with each country
separately. On the other hand, small or poor
countries can sign agreements with their
regional neighbours that will allow them to
negotiate as a bloc and thus avoid being cut
off, isolated and dependent on the great powers.
Today, no state can ensure the common good of
its population if it remains isolated.
154. The development of a global community of
fraternity based on the practice of social
friendship on the part of peoples and nations
calls for a better kind of politics, one truly
at the service of the common good. Sadly,
politics today often takes forms that hinder
progress towards a different world.
FORMS OF POPULISM AND LIBERALISM
155. Lack of concern for the vulnerable can hide
behind a populism that exploits them
demagogically for its own purposes, or a
liberalism that serves the economic interests of
the powerful. In both cases, it becomes
difficult to envisage an open world that makes
room for everyone, including the most
vulnerable, and shows respect for different
cultures.
156. In recent years, the words “populism” and
“populist” have invaded the communications media
and everyday conversation. As a result, they
have lost whatever value they might have had,
and have become another source of polarization
in an already divided society. Efforts are made
to classify entire peoples, groups, societies
and governments as “populist” or not. Nowadays
it has become impossible for someone to express
a view on any subject without being categorized
one way or the other, either to be unfairly
discredited or to be praised to the skies.
157. The attempt to see populism as a key for
interpreting social reality is problematic in
another way: it disregards the legitimate
meaning of the word “people”. Any effort to
remove this concept from common parlance could
lead to the elimination of the very notion of
democracy as “government by the people”. If we
wish to maintain that society is more than a
mere aggregate of individuals, the term “people”
proves necessary. There are social phenomena
that create majorities, as well as megatrends
and communitarian aspirations. Men and women are
capable of coming up with shared goals that
transcend their differences and can thus engage
in a common endeavour. Then too, it is extremely
difficult to carry out a long-term project
unless it becomes a collective aspiration. All
these factors lie behind our use of the words
“people” and “popular”. Unless they are taken
into account – together with a sound critique of
demagoguery – a fundamental aspect of social
reality would be overlooked.
158. Here, there can be a misunderstanding.
“‘People’ is not a logical category, nor is it a
mystical category, if by that we mean that
everything the people does is good, or that the
people is an ‘angelic’ reality. Rather, it is a
mythic category… When you have to explain what
you mean by people, you use logical categories
for the sake of explanation, and necessarily so.
Yet in that way you cannot explain what it means
to belong to a people. The word ‘people’ has a
deeper meaning that cannot be set forth in
purely logical terms. To be part of a people is
to be part of a shared identity arising from
social and cultural bonds. And that is not
something automatic, but rather a slow,
difficult process… of advancing towards a common
project”.[132]
159. “Popular” leaders, those capable of
interpreting the feelings and cultural dynamics
of a people, and significant trends in society,
do exist. The service they provide by their
efforts to unite and lead can become the basis
of an enduring vision of transformation and
growth that would also include making room for
others in the pursuit of the common good. But
this can degenerate into an unhealthy “populism”
when individuals are able to exploit politically
a people’s culture, under whatever ideological
banner, for their own personal advantage or
continuing grip on power. Or when, at other
times, they seek popularity by appealing to the
basest and most selfish inclinations of certain
sectors of the population. This becomes all the
more serious when, whether in cruder or more
subtle forms, it leads to the usurpation of
institutions and laws.
160. Closed populist groups distort the word
“people”, since they are not talking about a
true people. The concept of “people” is in fact
open-ended. A living and dynamic people, a
people with a future, is one constantly open to
a new synthesis through its ability to welcome
differences. In this way, it does not deny its
proper identity, but is open to being mobilized,
challenged, broadened and enriched by others,
and thus to further growth and development.
161. Another sign of the decline of popular
leadership is concern for short-term advantage.
One meets popular demands for the sake of
gaining votes or support, but without advancing
in an arduous and constant effort to generate
the resources people need to develop and earn a
living by their own efforts and creativity. In
this regard, I have made it clear that “I have
no intention of proposing an irresponsible
populism”.[133] Eliminating
inequality requires an economic growth that can
help to tap each region’s potential and thus
guarantee a sustainable equality.[134] At
the same time, it follows that “welfare
projects, which meet certain urgent needs,
should be considered merely temporary
responses”.[135]
162. The biggest issue is employment. The truly
“popular” thing – since it promotes the good of
the people – is to provide everyone with the
opportunity to nurture the seeds that God has
planted in each of us: our talents, our
initiative and our innate resources. This is the
finest help we can give to the poor, the best
path to a life of dignity. Hence my insistence
that, “helping the poor financially must always
be a provisional solution in the face of
pressing needs. The broader objective should
always be to allow them a dignified life through
work”.[136] Since
production systems may change, political systems
must keep working to structure society in such a
way that everyone has a chance to contribute his
or her own talents and efforts. For “there is no
poverty worse than that which takes away work
and the dignity of work”.[137] In
a genuinely developed society, work is an
essential dimension of social life, for it is
not only a means of earning one’s daily bread,
but also of personal growth, the building of
healthy relationships, self-expression and the
exchange of gifts. Work gives us a sense of
shared responsibility for the development of the
world, and ultimately, for our life as a people.
The benefits and limits of liberal approaches
163. The concept of a “people”, which naturally
entails a positive view of community and
cultural bonds, is usually rejected by
individualistic liberal approaches, which view
society as merely the sum of coexisting
interests. One speaks of respect for freedom,
but without roots in a shared narrative; in
certain contexts, those who defend the rights of
the most vulnerable members of society tend to
be criticized as populists. The notion of a
people is considered an abstract construct,
something that does not really exist. But this
is to create a needless dichotomy. Neither the
notion of “people” nor that of “neighbour” can
be considered purely abstract or romantic, in
such a way that social organization, science and
civic institutions can be rejected or treated
with contempt.[138]
164. Charity, on the other hand, unites both
dimensions – the abstract and the institutional
– since it calls for an effective process of
historical change that embraces everything:
institutions, law, technology, experience,
professional expertise, scientific analysis,
administrative procedures, and so forth. For
that matter, “private life cannot exist unless
it is protected by public order. A domestic
hearth has no real warmth unless it is
safeguarded by law, by a state of tranquillity
founded on law, and enjoys a minimum of
wellbeing ensured by the division of labour,
commercial exchange, social justice and
political citizenship”.[139]
165. True charity is capable of incorporating
all these elements in its concern for others. In
the case of personal encounters, including those
involving a distant or forgotten brother or
sister, it can do so by employing all the
resources that the institutions of an organized,
free and creative society are capable of
generating. Even the Good Samaritan, for
example, needed to have a nearby inn that could
provide the help that he was personally unable
to offer. Love of neighbour is concrete and
squanders none of the resources needed to bring
about historical change that can benefit the
poor and disadvantaged. At times, however,
leftist ideologies or social doctrines linked to
individualistic ways of acting and ineffective
procedures affect only a few, while the majority
of those left behind remain dependent on the
goodwill of others. This demonstrates the need
for a greater spirit of fraternity, but also a
more efficient worldwide organization to help
resolve the problems plaguing the abandoned who
are suffering and dying in poor countries. It
also shows that there is no one solution, no
single acceptable methodology, no economic
recipe that can be applied indiscriminately to
all. Even the most rigorous scientific studies
can propose different courses of action.
166. Everything, then, depends on our ability to
see the need for a change of heart, attitudes
and lifestyles. Otherwise, political propaganda,
the media and the shapers of public opinion will
continue to promote an individualistic and
uncritical culture subservient to unregulated
economic interests and societal institutions at
the service of those who already enjoy too much
power. My criticism of the technocratic paradigm
involves more than simply thinking that if we
control its excesses everything will be fine.
The bigger risk does not come from specific
objects, material realities or institutions, but
from the way that they are used. It has to do
with human weakness, the proclivity to
selfishness that is part of what the Christian
tradition refers to as “concupiscence”: the
human inclination to be concerned only with
myself, my group, my own petty interests.
Concupiscence is not a flaw limited to our own
day. It has been present from the beginning of
humanity, and has simply changed and taken on
different forms down the ages, using whatever
means each moment of history can provide.
Concupiscence, however, can be overcome with the
help of God.
167. Education and upbringing, concern for
others, a well-integrated view of life and
spiritual growth: all these are essential for
quality human relationships and for enabling
society itself to react against injustices,
aberrations and abuses of economic,
technological, political and media power. Some
liberal approaches ignore this factor of human
weakness; they envisage a world that follows a
determined order and is capable by itself of
ensuring a bright future and providing solutions
for every problem.
168. The marketplace, by itself, cannot resolve
every problem, however much we are asked to
believe this dogma of neoliberal faith. Whatever
the challenge, this impoverished and repetitive
school of thought always offers the same
recipes. Neoliberalism simply reproduces itself
by resorting to the magic theories of
“spillover” or “trickle” – without using the
name – as the only solution to societal
problems. There is little appreciation of the
fact that the alleged “spillover” does not
resolve the inequality that gives rise to new
forms of violence threatening the fabric of
society. It is imperative to have a proactive
economic policy directed at “promoting an
economy that favours productive diversity and
business creativity”[140] and
makes it possible for jobs to be created and not
cut. Financial speculation fundamentally aimed
at quick profit continues to wreak havoc.
Indeed, “without internal forms of solidarity
and mutual trust, the market cannot completely
fulfil its proper economic function. And today
this trust has ceased to exist”.[141] The
story did not end the way it was meant to, and
the dogmatic formulae of prevailing economic
theory proved not to be infallible. The
fragility of world systems in the face of the
pandemic has demonstrated that not everything
can be resolved by market freedom. It has also
shown that, in addition to recovering a sound
political life that is not subject to the
dictates of finance, “we must put human dignity
back at the centre and on that pillar build the
alternative social structures we need”.[142]
169. In some closed and monochrome economic
approaches, for example, there seems to be no
place for popular movements that unite the
unemployed, temporary and informal workers and
many others who do not easily find a place in
existing structures. Yet those movements manage
various forms of popular economy and of
community production. What is needed is a model
of social, political and economic participation
“that can include popular movements and
invigorate local, national and international
governing structures with that torrent of moral
energy that springs from including the excluded
in the building of a common destiny”, while also
ensuring that “these experiences of solidarity
which grow up from below, from the subsoil of
the planet – can come together, be more
coordinated, keep on meeting one another”.[143] This,
however, must happen in a way that will not
betray their distinctive way of acting as
“sowers of change, promoters of a process
involving millions of actions, great and small,
creatively intertwined like words in a poem”.[144] In
that sense, such movements are “social poets”
that, in their own way, work, propose, promote
and liberate. They help make possible an
integral human development that goes beyond “the
idea of social policies being a policy for the
poor, but never with the poor and never of the
poor, much less part of a project that reunites
peoples”.[145] They
may be troublesome, and certain “theorists” may
find it hard to classify them, yet we must find
the courage to acknowledge that, without them,
“democracy atrophies, turns into a mere word, a
formality; it loses its representative character
and becomes disembodied, since it leaves out the
people in their daily struggle for dignity, in
the building of their future”.[146]
170. I would once more observe that “the
financial crisis of 2007-08 provided an
opportunity to develop a new economy, more
attentive to ethical principles, and new ways of
regulating speculative financial practices and
virtual wealth. But the response to the crisis
did not include rethinking the outdated criteria
which continue to rule the world”.[147] Indeed,
it appears that the actual strategies developed
worldwide in the wake of the crisis fostered
greater individualism, less integration and
increased freedom for the truly powerful, who
always find a way to escape unscathed.
171. I would also insist that “to give to each
his own – to cite the classic definition of
justice – means that no human individual or
group can consider itself absolute, entitled to
bypass the dignity and the rights of other
individuals or their social groupings. The
effective distribution of power (especially
political, economic, defence-related and
technological power) among a plurality of
subjects, and the creation of a juridical system
for regulating claims and interests, are one
concrete way of limiting power. Yet today’s
world presents us with many false rights and –
at the same time – broad sectors which are
vulnerable, victims of power badly exercised”.[148]
172. The twenty-first century “is witnessing a
weakening of the power of nation states, chiefly
because the economic and financial sectors,
being transnational, tend to prevail over the
political. Given this situation, it is essential
to devise stronger and more efficiently
organized international institutions, with
functionaries who are appointed fairly by
agreement among national governments, and
empowered to impose sanctions”.[149] When
we talk about the possibility of some form of
world authority regulated by law,[150] we
need not necessarily think of a personal
authority. Still, such an authority ought at
least to promote more effective world
organizations, equipped with the power to
provide for the global common good, the
elimination of hunger and poverty and the sure
defence of fundamental human rights.
173. In this regard, I would also note the need
for a reform of “the United Nations
Organization, and likewise of economic
institutions and international finance, so that
the concept of the family of nations can acquire
real teeth”.[151] Needless
to say, this calls for clear legal limits to
avoid power being co-opted only by a few
countries and to prevent cultural impositions or
a restriction of the basic freedoms of weaker
nations on the basis of ideological differences.
For “the international community is a juridical
community founded on the sovereignty of each
member state, without bonds of subordination
that deny or limit its independence”.[152] At
the same time, “the work of the United Nations,
according to the principles set forth in the
Preamble and the first Articles of its founding
Charter, can be seen as the development and
promotion of the rule of law, based on the
realization that justice is an essential
condition for achieving the ideal of universal
fraternity… There is a need to ensure the
uncontested rule of law and tireless recourse to
negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as
proposed by the Charter of the United Nations,
which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical
norm”.[153] There
is need to prevent this Organization from being
delegitimized, since its problems and
shortcomings are capable of being jointly
addressed and resolved.
174. Courage and generosity are needed in order
freely to establish shared goals and to ensure
the worldwide observance of certain essential
norms. For this to be truly useful, it is
essential to uphold “the need to be faithful to
agreements undertaken (pacta sunt servanda)”,[154] and
to avoid the “temptation to appeal to the law of
force rather than to the force of law”.[155] This
means reinforcing the “normative instruments for
the peaceful resolution of controversies... so
as to strengthen their scope and binding force”.[156] Among
these normative instruments, preference should
be given to multilateral agreements between
states, because, more than bilateral agreements,
they guarantee the promotion of a truly
universal common good and the protection of
weaker states.
175. Providentially, many groups and
organizations within civil society help to
compensate for the shortcomings of the
international community, its lack of
coordination in complex situations, its lack of
attention to fundamental human rights and to the
critical needs of certain groups. Here we can
see a concrete application of the principle of
subsidiarity, which justifies the participation
and activity of communities and organizations on
lower levels as a means of integrating and
complementing the activity of the state. These
groups and organizations often carry out
commendable efforts in the service of the common
good and their members at times show true
heroism, revealing something of the grandeur of
which our humanity is still capable.
176. For many people today, politics is a
distasteful word, often due to the mistakes,
corruption and inefficiency of some politicians.
There are also attempts to discredit politics,
to replace it with economics or to twist it to
one ideology or another. Yet can our world
function without politics? Can there be an
effective process of growth towards universal
fraternity and social peace without a sound
political life?[157]
177. Here I would once more observe that
“politics must not be subject to the economy,
nor should the economy be subject to the
dictates of an efficiency-driven paradigm of
technocracy”.[158] Although
misuse of power, corruption, disregard for law
and inefficiency must clearly be rejected,
“economics without politics cannot be justified,
since this would make it impossible to favour
other ways of handling the various aspects of
the present crisis”.[159] Instead,
“what is needed is a politics which is
far-sighted and capable of a new, integral and
interdisciplinary approach to handling the
different aspects of the crisis”.[160] In
other words, a “healthy politics… capable of
reforming and coordinating institutions,
promoting best practices and overcoming undue
pressure and bureaucratic inertia”.[161] We
cannot expect economics to do this, nor can we
allow economics to take over the real power of
the state.
178. In the face of many petty forms of politics
focused on immediate interests, I would repeat
that “true statecraft is manifest when, in
difficult times, we uphold high principles and
think of the long-term common good. Political
powers do not find it easy to assume this duty
in the work of nation-building”,[162] much
less in forging a common project for the human
family, now and in the future. Thinking of those
who will come after us does not serve electoral
purposes, yet it is what authentic justice
demands. As the Bishops of Portugal have taught,
the earth “is lent to each generation, to be
handed on to the generation that follows”.[163]
179. Global society is suffering from grave
structural deficiencies that cannot be resolved
by piecemeal solutions or quick fixes. Much
needs to change, through fundamental reform and
major renewal. Only a healthy politics,
involving the most diverse sectors and skills,
is capable of overseeing this process. An
economy that is an integral part of a political,
social, cultural and popular programme directed
to the common good could pave the way for
“different possibilities which do not involve
stifling human creativity and its ideals of
progress, but rather directing that energy along
new channels”.[164]
180. Recognizing that all people are our
brothers and sisters, and seeking forms of
social friendship that include everyone, is not
merely utopian. It demands a decisive commitment
to devising effective means to this end. Any
effort along these lines becomes a noble
exercise of charity. For whereas individuals can
help others in need, when they join together in
initiating social processes of fraternity and
justice for all, they enter the “field of
charity at its most vast, namely political
charity”.[165] This
entails working for a social and political order
whose soul is social charity.[166] Once
more, I appeal for a renewed appreciation of
politics as “a lofty vocation and one of the
highest forms of charity, inasmuch as it seeks
the common good”.[167]
181. Every commitment inspired by the Church’s
social doctrine is “derived from charity, which
according to the teaching of Jesus is the
synthesis of the entire Law (cf. Mt 22:36-40)”.[168] This
means acknowledging that “love, overflowing with
small gestures of mutual care, is also civic and
political, and it makes itself felt in every
action that seeks to build a better world”.[169] For
this reason, charity finds expression not only
in close and intimate relationships but also in
“macro-relationships: social, economic and
political”.[170]
182. This political charity is born of a social
awareness that transcends every individualistic
mindset: “‘Social charity makes us love the
common good’, it makes us effectively seek the
good of all people, considered not only as
individuals or private persons, but also in the
social dimension that unites them”.[171] Each
of us is fully a person when we are part of a
people; at the same time, there are no peoples
without respect for the individuality of each
person. “People” and “person” are correlative
terms. Nonetheless, there are attempts nowadays
to reduce persons to isolated individuals easily
manipulated by powers pursuing spurious
interests. Good politics will seek ways of
building communities at every level of social
life, in order to recalibrate and reorient
globalization and thus avoid its disruptive
effects.
183. “Social love”[172] makes
it possible to advance towards a civilization of
love, to which all of us can feel called.
Charity, with its impulse to universality, is
capable of building a new world.[173] No
mere sentiment, it is the best means of
discovering effective paths of development for
everyone. Social love is a “force capable of
inspiring new ways of approaching the problems
of today’s world, of profoundly renewing
structures, social organizations and legal
systems from within”.[174]
184. Charity is at the heart of every healthy
and open society, yet today “it is easily
dismissed as irrelevant for interpreting and
giving direction to moral responsibility”.[175] Charity,
when accompanied by a commitment to the truth,
is much more than personal feeling, and
consequently need not “fall prey to contingent
subjective emotions and opinions”.[176] Indeed
its close relation to truth fosters its
universality and preserves it from being
“confined to a narrow field devoid of
relationships”.[177] Otherwise,
it would be “excluded from the plans and
processes of promoting human development of
universal range, in dialogue between knowledge
and praxis”.[178] Without
truth, emotion lacks relational and social
content. Charity’s openness to truth thus
protects it from “a fideism that deprives it of
its human and universal breadth”.[179]
185. Charity needs the light of the truth that
we constantly seek. “That light is both the
light of reason and the light of faith”,[180] and
does not admit any form of relativism. Yet it
also respects the development of the sciences
and their essential contribution to finding the
surest and most practical means of achieving the
desired results. For when the good of others is
at stake, good intentions are not enough.
Concrete efforts must be made to bring about
whatever they and their nations need for the
sake of their development.
THE EXERCISE OF POLITICAL LOVE
186. There is a kind of love that is “elicited”:
its acts proceed directly from the virtue of
charity and are directed to individuals and
peoples. There is also a “commanded” love,
expressed in those acts of charity that spur
people to create more sound institutions, more
just regulations, more supportive structures.[181] It
follows that “it is an equally indispensable act
of love to strive to organize and structure
society so that one’s neighbour will not find
himself in poverty”.[182] It
is an act of charity to assist someone
suffering, but it is also an act of charity,
even if we do not know that person, to work to
change the social conditions that caused his or
her suffering. If someone helps an elderly
person cross a river, that is a fine act of
charity. The politician, on the other hand,
builds a bridge, and that too is an act of
charity. While one person can help another by
providing something to eat, the politician
creates a job for that other person, and thus
practices a lofty form of charity that ennobles
his or her political activity.
187. This charity, which is the spiritual heart
of politics, is always a preferential love shown
to those in greatest need; it undergirds
everything we do on their behalf.[183] Only
a gaze transformed by charity can enable the
dignity of others to be recognized and, as a
consequence, the poor to be acknowledged and
valued in their dignity, respected in their
identity and culture, and thus truly integrated
into society. That gaze is at the heart of the
authentic spirit of politics. It sees paths open
up that are different from those of a soulless
pragmatism. It makes us realize that “the
scandal of poverty cannot be addressed by
promoting strategies of containment that only
tranquilize the poor and render them tame and
inoffensive. How sad it is when we find, behind
allegedly altruistic works, the other being
reduced to passivity”.[184] What
are needed are new pathways of self-expression
and participation in society. Education serves
these by making it possible for each human being
to shape his or her own future. Here too we see
the importance of the principle of subsidiarity,
which is inseparable from the principle of solidarity.
188. These considerations help us recognize the
urgent need to combat all that threatens or
violates fundamental human rights. Politicians
are called to “tend to the needs of individuals
and peoples. To tend those in need takes
strength and tenderness, effort and generosity
in the midst of a functionalistic and privatized
mindset that inexorably leads to a ‘throwaway
culture’… It involves taking responsibility for
the present with its situations of utter
marginalization and anguish, and being capable
of bestowing dignity upon it”.[185] It
will likewise inspire intense efforts to ensure
that “everything be done to protect the status
and dignity of the human person”.[186] Politicians
are doers, builders with ambitious goals,
possessed of a broad, realistic and pragmatic
gaze that looks beyond their own borders. Their
biggest concern should not be about a drop in
the polls, but about finding effective solutions
to “the phenomenon of social and economic
exclusion, with its baneful consequences: human
trafficking, the marketing of human organs and
tissues, the sexual exploitation of boys and
girls, slave labour, including prostitution, the
drug and weapons trade, terrorism and
international organized crime. Such is the
magnitude of these situations, and their toll in
innocent lives, that we must avoid every
temptation to fall into a declarationist
nominalism that would assuage our consciences.
We need to ensure that our institutions are
truly effective in the struggle against all
these scourges”.[187] This
includes taking intelligent advantage of the
immense resources offered by technological
development.
189. We are still far from a globalization of
the most basic of human rights. That is why
world politics needs to make the effective
elimination of hunger one of its foremost and
imperative goals. Indeed, “when financial
speculation manipulates the price of food,
treating it as just another commodity, millions
of people suffer and die from hunger. At the
same time, tons of food are thrown away. This
constitutes a genuine scandal. Hunger is
criminal; food is an inalienable right”.[188] Often,
as we carry on our semantic or ideological
disputes, we allow our brothers and sisters to
die of hunger and thirst, without shelter or
access to health care. Alongside these basic
needs that remain unmet, trafficking in persons
represents another source of shame for humanity,
one that international politics, moving beyond
fine speeches and good intentions, must no
longer tolerate. These things are essential;
they can no longer be deferred.
A love that integrates and unites
190. Political charity is also expressed in a
spirit of openness to everyone. Government
leaders should be the first to make the
sacrifices that foster encounter and to seek
convergence on at least some issues. They should
be ready to listen to other points of view and
to make room for everyone. Through sacrifice and
patience, they can help to create a beautiful
polyhedral reality in which everyone has a
place. Here, economic negotiations do not work.
Something else is required: an exchange of gifts
for the common good. It may seem naïve and
utopian, yet we cannot renounce this lofty aim.
191. At a time when various forms of
fundamentalist intolerance are damaging
relationships between individuals, groups and
peoples, let us be committed to living and
teaching the value of respect for others, a love
capable of welcoming differences, and the
priority of the dignity of every human being
over his or her ideas, opinions, practices and
even sins. Even as forms of fanaticism,
closedmindedness and social and cultural
fragmentation proliferate in present-day
society, a good politician will take the first
step and insist that different voices be heard.
Disagreements may well give rise to conflicts,
but uniformity proves stifling and leads to
cultural decay. May we not be content with being
enclosed in one fragment of reality.
192. In this regard, Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb
and I have called upon “the architects of
international policy and world economy to work
strenuously to spread the culture of tolerance
and of living together in peace; to intervene at
the earliest opportunity to stop the shedding of
innocent blood”.[189] When
a specific policy sows hatred and fear towards
other nations in the name of its own country’s
welfare, there is need to be concerned, to react
in time and immediately to correct the course.
193. Apart from their tireless activity,
politicians are also men and women. They are
called to practice love in their daily
interpersonal relationships. As persons, they
need to consider that “the modern world, with
its technical advances, tends increasingly to
functionalize the satisfaction of human desires,
now classified and subdivided among different
services. Less and less will people be called by
name, less and less will this unique being be
treated as a person with his or her own
feelings, sufferings, problems, joys and family.
Their illnesses will be known only in order to
cure them, their financial needs only to provide
for them, their lack of a home only to give them
lodging, their desires for recreation and
entertainment only to satisfy them”. Yet it must
never be forgotten that “loving the most
insignificant of human beings as a brother, as
if there were no one else in the world but him,
cannot be considered a waste of time”.[190]
194. Politics too must make room for a tender
love of others. “What is tenderness? It is love
that draws near and becomes real. A movement
that starts from our heart and reaches the eyes,
the ears and the hands… Tenderness is the path
of choice for the strongest, most courageous men
and women”.[191] Amid
the daily concerns of political life, “the
smallest, the weakest, the poorest should touch
our hearts: indeed, they have a ‘right’ to
appeal to our heart and soul. They are our
brothers and sisters, and as such we must love
and care for them”.[192]
195. All this can help us realize that what is
important is not constantly achieving great
results, since these are not always possible. In
political activity, we should remember that,
“appearances notwithstanding, every person is
immensely holy and deserves our love.
Consequently, if I can help at least one person
to have a better life, that already justifies
the offering of my life. It is a wonderful thing
to be God’s faithful people. We achieve
fulfilment when we break down walls and our
hearts are filled with faces and names!”[193] The
great goals of our dreams and plans may only be
achieved in part. Yet beyond this, those who
love, and who no longer view politics merely as
a quest for power, “may be sure that none of our
acts of love will be lost, nor any of our acts
of sincere concern for others. No single act of
love for God will be lost, no generous effort is
meaningless, no painful endurance is wasted. All
of these encircle our world like a vital force”.[194]
196. For this reason, it is truly noble to place
our hope in the hidden power of the seeds of
goodness we sow, and thus to initiate processes
whose fruits will be reaped by others. Good
politics combines love with hope and with
confidence in the reserves of goodness present
in human hearts. Indeed, “authentic political
life, built upon respect for law and frank
dialogue between individuals, is constantly
renewed whenever there is a realization that
every woman and man, and every new generation,
brings the promise of new relational,
intellectual, cultural and spiritual energies”.[195]
197. Viewed in this way, politics is something
more noble than posturing, marketing and media
spin. These sow nothing but division, conflict
and a bleak cynicism incapable of mobilizing
people to pursue a common goal. At times, in
thinking of the future, we do well to ask
ourselves, “Why I am doing this?”, “What is my
real aim?” For as time goes on, reflecting on
the past, the questions will not be: “How many
people endorsed me?”, “How many voted for me?”,
“How many had a positive image of me?” The real,
and potentially painful, questions will be, “How
much love did I put into my work?” “What did I
do for the progress of our people?” “What mark
did I leave on the life of society?” “What real
bonds did I create?” “What positive forces did I
unleash?” “How much social peace did I sow?”
“What good did I achieve in the position that
was entrusted to me?”
DIALOGUE AND FRIENDSHIP IN SOCIETY
198. Approaching, speaking, listening, looking
at, coming to know and understand one another,
and to find common ground: all these things are
summed up in the one word “dialogue”. If we want
to encounter and help one another, we have to
dialogue. There is no need for me to stress the
benefits of dialogue. I have only to think of
what our world would be like without the patient
dialogue of the many generous persons who keep
families and communities together. Unlike
disagreement and conflict, persistent and
courageous dialogue does not make headlines, but
quietly helps the world to live much better than
we imagine.
SOCIAL DIALOGUE FOR A NEW CULTURE
199. Some people attempt to flee from reality,
taking refuge in their own little world; others
react to it with destructive violence. Yet
“between selfish indifference and violent
protest there is always another possible option:
that of dialogue. Dialogue between generations;
dialogue among our people, for we are that
people; readiness to give and receive, while
remaining open to the truth. A country
flourishes when constructive dialogue occurs
between its many rich cultural components:
popular culture, university culture, youth
culture, artistic culture, technological
culture, economic culture, family culture and
media culture”.[196]
200. Dialogue is often confused with something
quite different: the feverish exchange of
opinions on social networks, frequently based on
media information that is not always reliable.
These exchanges are merely parallel monologues.
They may attract some attention by their sharp
and aggressive tone. But monologues engage no
one, and their content is frequently
self-serving and contradictory.
201. Indeed, the media’s noisy potpourri of
facts and opinions is often an obstacle to
dialogue, since it lets everyone cling
stubbornly to his or her own ideas, interests
and choices, with the excuse that everyone else
is wrong. It becomes easier to discredit and
insult opponents from the outset than to open a
respectful dialogue aimed at achieving agreement
on a deeper level. Worse, this kind of language,
usually drawn from media coverage of political
campaigns, has become so widespread as to be
part of daily conversation. Discussion is often
manipulated by powerful special interests that
seek to tilt public opinion unfairly in their
favour. This kind of manipulation can be
exercised not only by governments, but also in
economics, politics, communications, religion
and in other spheres. Attempts can be made to
justify or excuse it when it tends to serve
one’s own economic or ideological interests, but
sooner or later it turns against those very
interests.
202. Lack of dialogue means that in these
individual sectors people are concerned not for
the common good, but for the benefits of power
or, at best, for ways to impose their own ideas.
Round tables thus become mere negotiating
sessions, in which individuals attempt to seize
every possible advantage, rather than
cooperating in the pursuit of the common good.
The heroes of the future will be those who can
break with this unhealthy mindset and determine
respectfully to promote truthfulness, aside from
personal interest. God willing, such heroes are
quietly emerging, even now, in the midst of our
society.
203. Authentic social dialogue involves the
ability to respect the other’s point of view and
to admit that it may include legitimate
convictions and concerns. Based on their
identity and experience, others have a
contribution to make, and it is desirable that
they should articulate their positions for the
sake of a more fruitful public debate. When
individuals or groups are consistent in their
thinking, defend their values and convictions,
and develop their arguments, this surely
benefits society. Yet, this can only occur to
the extent that there is genuine dialogue and
openness to others. Indeed, “in a true spirit of
dialogue, we grow in our ability to grasp the
significance of what others say and do, even if
we cannot accept it as our own conviction. In
this way, it becomes possible to be frank and
open about our beliefs, while continuing to
discuss, to seek points of contact, and above
all, to work and struggle together”.[197] Public
discussion, if it truly makes room for everyone
and does not manipulate or conceal information,
is a constant stimulus to a better grasp of the
truth, or at least its more effective
expression. It keeps different sectors from
becoming complacent and self-centred in their
outlook and their limited concerns. Let us not
forget that “differences are creative; they
create tension and in the resolution of tension
lies humanity’s progress”.[198]
204. There is a growing conviction that,
together with specialized scientific advances,
we are in need of greater interdisciplinary
communication. Although reality is one, it can
be approached from various angles and with
different methodologies. There is a risk that a
single scientific advance will be seen as the
only possible lens for viewing a particular
aspect of life, society and the world.
Researchers who are expert in their own field,
yet also familiar with the findings of other
sciences and disciplines, are in a position to
discern other aspects of the object of their
study and thus to become open to a more
comprehensive and integral knowledge of reality.
205. In today’s globalized world, “the media can
help us to feel closer to one another, creating
a sense of the unity of the human family which
in turn can inspire solidarity and serious
efforts to ensure a more dignified life for all…
The media can help us greatly in this,
especially nowadays, when the networks of human
communication have made unprecedented advances.
The internet, in particular, offers immense
possibilities for encounter and solidarity. This
is something truly good, a gift from God”.[199] We
need constantly to ensure that present-day forms
of communication are in fact guiding us to
generous encounter with others, to honest
pursuit of the whole truth, to service, to
closeness to the underprivileged and to the
promotion of the common good. As the Bishops of
Australia have pointed out, we cannot accept “a
digital world designed to exploit our weaknesses
and bring out the worst in people”.[200]
206. The solution is not relativism. Under the
guise of tolerance, relativism ultimately leaves
the interpretation of moral values to those in
power, to be defined as they see fit. “In the
absence of objective truths or sound principles
other than the satisfaction of our own desires
and immediate needs… we should not think that
political efforts or the force of law will be
sufficient… When the culture itself is corrupt,
and objective truth and universally valid
principles are no longer upheld, then laws can
only be seen as arbitrary impositions or
obstacles to be avoided”.[201]
207. Is it possible to be concerned for truth,
to seek the truth that responds to life’s
deepest meaning? What is law without the
conviction, born of age-old reflection and great
wisdom, that each human being is sacred and
inviolable? If society is to have a future, it
must respect the truth of our human dignity and
submit to that truth. Murder is not wrong simply
because it is socially unacceptable and punished
by law, but because of a deeper conviction. This
is a non-negotiable truth attained by the use of
reason and accepted in conscience. A society is
noble and decent not least for its support of
the pursuit of truth and its adherence to the
most basic of truths.
208. We need to learn how to unmask the various
ways that the truth is manipulated, distorted
and concealed in public and private discourse.
What we call “truth” is not only the reporting
of facts and events, such as we find in the
daily papers. It is primarily the search for the
solid foundations sustaining our decisions and
our laws. This calls for acknowledging that the
human mind is capable of transcending immediate
concerns and grasping certain truths that are
unchanging, as true now as in the past. As it
peers into human nature, reason discovers
universal values derived from that same nature.
209. Otherwise, is it not conceivable that those
fundamental human rights which we now consider
unassailable will be denied by those in power,
once they have gained the “consensus” of an
apathetic or intimidated population? Nor would a
mere consensus between different nations, itself
equally open to manipulation, suffice to protect
them. We have ample evidence of the great good
of which we are capable, yet we also have to
acknowledge our inherent destructiveness. Is not
the indifference and the heartless individualism
into which we have fallen also a result of our
sloth in pursuing higher values, values that
transcend our immediate needs? Relativism always
brings the risk that some or other alleged truth
will be imposed by the powerful or the clever.
Yet, “when it is a matter of the moral norms
prohibiting intrinsic evil, there are no
privileges or exceptions for anyone. It makes no
difference whether one is the master of the
world or the ‘poorest of the poor’ on the face
of the earth. Before the demands of morality we
are all absolutely equal”.[202]
210. What is now happening, and drawing us into
a perverse and barren way of thinking, is the
reduction of ethics and politics to physics.
Good and evil no longer exist in themselves;
there is only a calculus of benefits and
burdens. As a result of the displacement of
moral reasoning, the law is no longer seen as
reflecting a fundamental notion of justice but
as mirroring notions currently in vogue.
Breakdown ensues: everything is “leveled down”
by a superficial bartered consensus. In the end,
the law of the strongest prevails.
211. In a pluralistic society, dialogue is the
best way to realize what ought always to be
affirmed and respected apart from any ephemeral
consensus. Such dialogue needs to be enriched
and illumined by clear thinking, rational
arguments, a variety of perspectives and the
contribution of different fields of knowledge
and points of view. Nor can it exclude the
conviction that it is possible to arrive at
certain fundamental truths always to be upheld.
Acknowledging the existence of certain enduring
values, however demanding it may be to discern
them, makes for a robust and solid social
ethics. Once those fundamental values are
acknowledged and adopted through dialogue and
consensus, we realize that they rise above
consensus; they transcend our concrete
situations and remain non-negotiable. Our
understanding of their meaning and scope can
increase – and in that respect, consensus is a
dynamic reality – but in themselves, they are
held to be enduring by virtue of their inherent
meaning.
212. If something always serves the good
functioning of society, is it not because, lying
beyond it, there is an enduring truth accessible
to the intellect? Inherent in the nature of
human beings and society there exist certain
basic structures to support our development and
survival. Certain requirements thus ensue, and
these can be discovered through dialogue, even
though, strictly speaking, they are not created
by consensus. The fact that certain rules are
indispensable for the very life of society is a
sign that they are good in and of themselves.
There is no need, then, to oppose the interests
of society, consensus and the reality of
objective truth. These three realities can be
harmonized whenever, through dialogue, people
are unafraid to get to the heart of an issue.
213. The dignity of others is to be respected in
all circumstances, not because that dignity is
something we have invented or imagined, but
because human beings possess an intrinsic worth
superior to that of material objects and
contingent situations. This requires that they
be treated differently. That every human being
possesses an inalienable dignity is a truth that
corresponds to human nature apart from all
cultural change. For this reason, human beings
have the same inviolable dignity in every age of
history and no one can consider himself or
herself authorized by particular situations to
deny this conviction or to act against it. The
intellect can investigate the reality of things
through reflection, experience and dialogue, and
come to recognize in that reality, which
transcends it, the basis of certain universal
moral demands.
214. To agnostics, this foundation could prove
sufficient to confer a solid and stable
universal validity on basic and non-negotiable
ethical principles that could serve to prevent
further catastrophes. As believers, we are
convinced that human nature, as the source of
ethical principles, was created by God, and that
ultimately it is he who gives those principles
their solid foundation.[203] This
does not result in an ethical rigidity nor does
it lead to the imposition of any one moral
system, since fundamental and universally valid
moral principles can be embodied in different
practical rules. Thus, room for dialogue will
always exist.
215. “Life, for all its confrontations, is the
art of encounter”.[204] I
have frequently called for the growth of a
culture of encounter capable of transcending our
differences and divisions. This means working to
create a many-faceted polyhedron whose different
sides form a variegated unity, in which “the
whole is greater than the part”.[205] The
image of a polyhedron can represent a society
where differences coexist, complementing,
enriching and reciprocally illuminating one
another, even amid disagreements and
reservations. Each of us can learn something
from others. No one is useless and no one is
expendable. This also means finding ways to
include those on the peripheries of life. For
they have another way of looking at things; they
see aspects of reality that are invisible to the
centres of power where weighty decisions are
made.
Encounter that becomes culture
216. The word “culture” points to something
deeply embedded within a people, its most
cherished convictions and its way of life. A
people’s “culture” is more than an abstract
idea. It has to do with their desires, their
interests and ultimately the way they live their
lives. To speak of a “culture of encounter”
means that we, as a people, should be passionate
about meeting others, seeking points of contact,
building bridges, planning a project that
includes everyone. This becomes an aspiration
and a style of life. The subject of this culture
is the people, not simply one part of society
that would pacify the rest with the help of
professional and media resources.
217. Social peace demands hard work,
craftsmanship. It would be easier to keep
freedoms and differences in check with
cleverness and a few resources. But such a peace
would be superficial and fragile, not the fruit
of a culture of encounter that brings enduring
stability. Integrating differences is a much
more difficult and slow process, yet it is the
guarantee of a genuine and lasting peace. That
peace is not achieved by recourse only to those
who are pure and untainted, since “even people
who can be considered questionable on account of
their errors have something to offer which must
not be overlooked”.[206] Nor
does it come from ignoring social demands or
quelling disturbances, since it is not “a
consensus on paper or a transient peace for a
contented minority”.[207] What
is important is to create processes of
encounter, processes that build a people that
can accept differences. Let us arm our children
with the weapons of dialogue! Let us teach them
to fight the good fight of the culture of
encounter!
The joy of acknowledging others
218. All this calls for the ability to recognize
other people’s right to be themselves and to be
different. This recognition, as it becomes a
culture, makes possible the creation of a social
covenant. Without it, subtle ways can be found
to make others insignificant, irrelevant, of no
value to society. While rejecting certain
visible forms of violence, another more
insidious kind of violence can take root: the
violence of those who despise people who are
different, especially when their demands in any
way compromise their own particular interests.
219. When one part of society exploits all that
the world has to offer, acting as if the poor
did not exist, there will eventually be
consequences. Sooner or later, ignoring the
existence and rights of others will erupt in
some form of violence, often when least
expected. Liberty, equality and fraternity can
remain lofty ideals unless they apply to
everyone. Encounter cannot take place only
between the holders of economic, political or
academic power. Genuine social encounter calls
for a dialogue that engages the culture shared
by the majority of the population. It often
happens that good ideas are not accepted by the
poorer sectors of society because they are
presented in a cultural garb that is not their
own and with which they cannot identify. A
realistic and inclusive social covenant must
also be a “cultural covenant”, one that respects
and acknowledges the different worldviews,
cultures and lifestyles that coexist in society.
220. Indigenous peoples, for example, are not
opposed to progress, yet theirs is a different
notion of progress, often more humanistic than
the modern culture of developed peoples. Theirs
is not a culture meant to benefit the powerful,
those driven to create for themselves a kind of
earthly paradise. Intolerance and lack of
respect for indigenous popular cultures is a
form of violence grounded in a cold and
judgmental way of viewing them. No authentic,
profound and enduring change is possible unless
it starts from the different cultures,
particularly those of the poor. A cultural
covenant eschews a monolithic understanding of
the identity of a particular place; it entails
respect for diversity by offering opportunities
for advancement and social integration to all.
221. Such a covenant also demands the
realization that some things may have to be
renounced for the common good. No one can
possess the whole truth or satisfy his or her
every desire, since that pretension would lead
to nullifying others by denying their rights. A
false notion of tolerance has to give way to a
dialogic realism on the part of men and women
who remain faithful to their own principles
while recognizing that others also have the
right to do likewise. This is the genuine
acknowledgment of the other that is made
possible by love alone. We have to stand in the
place of others, if we are to discover what is
genuine, or at least understandable, in their
motivations and concerns.
222. Consumerist individualism has led to great
injustice. Other persons come to be viewed
simply as obstacles to our own serene existence;
we end up treating them as annoyances and we
become increasingly aggressive. This is even
more the case in times of crisis, catastrophe
and hardship, when we are tempted to think in
terms of the old saying, “every man for
himself”. Yet even then, we can choose to
cultivate kindness. Those who do so become stars
shining in the midst of darkness.
223. Saint Paul describes kindness as a fruit of
the Holy Spirit (Gal 5:22). He uses the
Greek word chrestótes, which describes an
attitude that is gentle, pleasant and
supportive, not rude or coarse. Individuals who
possess this quality help make other people’s
lives more bearable, especially by sharing the
weight of their problems, needs and fears. This
way of treating others can take different forms:
an act of kindness, a concern not to offend by
word or deed, a readiness to alleviate their
burdens. It involves “speaking words of comfort,
strength, consolation and encouragement” and not
“words that demean, sadden, anger or show
scorn”.[208]
224. Kindness frees us from the cruelty that at
times infects human relationships, from the
anxiety that prevents us from thinking of
others, from the frantic flurry of activity that
forgets that others also have a right to be
happy. Often nowadays we find neither the time
nor the energy to stop and be kind to others, to
say “excuse me”, “pardon me”, “thank you”. Yet
every now and then, miraculously, a kind person
appears and is willing to set everything else
aside in order to show interest, to give the
gift of a smile, to speak a word of
encouragement, to listen amid general
indifference. If we make a daily effort to do
exactly this, we can create a healthy social
atmosphere in which misunderstandings can be
overcome and conflict forestalled. Kindness
ought to be cultivated; it is no superficial
bourgeois virtue. Precisely because it entails
esteem and respect for others, once kindness
becomes a culture within society it transforms
lifestyles, relationships and the ways ideas are
discussed and compared. Kindness facilitates the
quest for consensus; it opens new paths where
hostility and conflict would burn all bridges.
225. In many parts of the world, there is a need
for paths of peace to heal open wounds. There is
also a need for peacemakers, men and women
prepared to work boldly and creatively to
initiate processes of healing and renewed
encounter.
226. Renewed encounter does not mean returning
to a time prior to conflicts. All of us change
over time. Pain and conflict transform us. We no
longer have use for empty diplomacy,
dissimulation, double-speak, hidden agendas and
good manners that mask reality. Those who were
fierce enemies have to speak from the stark and
clear truth. They have to learn how to cultivate
a penitential memory, one that can accept the
past in order not to cloud the future with their
own regrets, problems and plans. Only by basing
themselves on the historical truth of events
will they be able to make a broad and
persevering effort to understand one another and
to strive for a new synthesis for the good of
all. Every “peace process requires enduring
commitment. It is a patient effort to seek truth
and justice, to honour the memory of victims and
to open the way, step by step, to a shared hope
stronger than the desire for vengeance”.[209] As
the Bishops of the Congo have said with regard
to one recurring conflict: “Peace agreements on
paper will not be enough. We will have to go
further, by respecting the demands of truth
regarding the origins of this recurring crisis.
The people have the right to know what
happened”.[210]
227. “Truth, in fact, is an inseparable
companion of justice and mercy. All three
together are essential to building peace; each,
moreover, prevents the other from being altered…
Truth should not lead to revenge, but rather to
reconciliation and forgiveness. Truth means
telling families torn apart by pain what
happened to their missing relatives. Truth means
confessing what happened to minors recruited by
cruel and violent people. Truth means
recognizing the pain of women who are victims of
violence and abuse… Every act of violence
committed against a human being is a wound in
humanity’s flesh; every violent death diminishes
us as people… Violence leads to more violence,
hatred to more hatred, death to more death. We
must break this cycle which seems inescapable”.[211]
THE ART AND ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE
228. The path to peace does not mean making
society blandly uniform, but getting people to
work together, side-by-side, in pursuing goals
that benefit everyone. A wide variety of
practical proposals and diverse experiences can
help achieve shared objectives and serve the
common good. The problems that a society is
experiencing need to be clearly identified, so
that the existence of different ways of
understanding and resolving them can be
appreciated. The path to social unity always
entails acknowledging the possibility that
others have, at least in part, a legitimate
point of view, something worthwhile to
contribute, even if they were in error or acted
badly. “We should never confine others to what
they may have said or done, but value them for
the promise that they embody”,[212] a
promise that always brings with it a spark of
new hope.
229. The Bishops of South Africa have pointed
out that true reconciliation is achieved
proactively, “by forming a new society, a
society based on service to others, rather than
the desire to dominate; a society based on
sharing what one has with others, rather than
the selfish scramble by each for as much wealth
as possible; a society in which the value of
being together as human beings is ultimately
more important than any lesser group, whether it
be family, nation, race or culture”.[213] As
the Bishops of South Korea have pointed out,
true peace “can be achieved only when we strive
for justice through dialogue, pursuing
reconciliation and mutual development”.[214]
230. Working to overcome our divisions without
losing our identity as individuals presumes that
a basic sense of belonging is present in
everyone. Indeed, “society benefits when each
person and social group feels truly at home. In
a family, parents, grandparents and children all
feel at home; no one is excluded. If someone has
a problem, even a serious one, even if he
brought it upon himself, the rest of the family
comes to his assistance; they support him. His
problems are theirs… In families, everyone
contributes to the common purpose; everyone
works for the common good, not denying each
person’s individuality but encouraging and
supporting it. They may quarrel, but there is
something that does not change: the family bond.
Family disputes are always resolved afterwards.
The joys and sorrows of each of its members are
felt by all. That is what it means to be a
family! If only we could view our political
opponents or neighbours in the same way that we
view our children or our spouse, mother or
father! How good would this be! Do we love our
society or is it still something remote,
something anonymous that does not involve us,
something to which we are not committed?”[215]
231. Negotiation often becomes necessary for
shaping concrete paths to peace. Yet the
processes of change that lead to lasting peace
are crafted above all by peoples; each
individual can act as an effective leaven by the
way he or she lives each day. Great changes are
not produced behind desks or in offices. This
means that “everyone has a fundamental role to
play in a single great creative project: to
write a new page of history, a page full of
hope, peace and reconciliation”.[216] There
is an “architecture” of peace, to which
different institutions of society contribute,
each according to its own area of expertise, but
there is also an “art” of peace that involves us
all. From the various peace processes that have
taken place in different parts of the world, “we
have learned that these ways of making peace, of
placing reason above revenge, of the delicate
harmony between politics and law, cannot ignore
the involvement of ordinary people. Peace is not
achieved by normative frameworks and
institutional arrangements between well-meaning
political or economic groups… It is always
helpful to incorporate into our peace processes
the experience of those sectors that have often
been overlooked, so that communities themselves
can influence the development of a collective
memory”.[217]
232. There is no end to the building of a
country’s social peace; rather, it is “an
open-ended endeavour, a never-ending task that
demands the commitment of everyone and
challenges us to work tirelessly to build the
unity of the nation. Despite obstacles,
differences and varying perspectives on the way
to achieve peaceful coexistence, this task
summons us to persevere in the struggle to
promote a ‘culture of encounter’. This requires
us to place at the centre of all political,
social and economic activity the human person,
who enjoys the highest dignity, and respect for
the common good. May this determination help us
flee from the temptation for revenge and the
satisfaction of short-term partisan interests”.[218] Violent
public demonstrations, on one side or the other,
do not help in finding solutions. Mainly
because, as the Bishops of Colombia have rightly
noted, the “origins and objectives of civil
demonstrations are not always clear; certain
forms of political manipulation are present and
in some cases they have been exploited for
partisan interests”.[219]
233. Building social friendship does not only
call for rapprochement between groups who took
different sides at some troubled period of
history, but also for a renewed encounter with
the most impoverished and vulnerable sectors of
society. For peace “is not merely absence of war
but a tireless commitment – especially on the
part of those of us charged with greater
responsibility – to recognize, protect and
concretely restore the dignity, so often
overlooked or ignored, of our brothers and
sisters, so that they can see themselves as the
principal protagonists of the destiny of their
nation”.[220]
234. Often, the more vulnerable members of
society are the victims of unfair
generalizations. If at times the poor and the
dispossessed react with attitudes that appear
antisocial, we should realize that in many cases
those reactions are born of a history of scorn
and social exclusion. The Latin American Bishops
have observed that “only the closeness that
makes us friends can enable us to appreciate
deeply the values of the poor today, their
legitimate desires, and their own manner of
living the faith. The option for the poor should
lead us to friendship with the poor”.[221]
235. Those who work for tranquil social
coexistence should never forget that inequality
and lack of integral human development make
peace impossible. Indeed, “without equal
opportunities, different forms of aggression and
conflict will find a fertile terrain for growth
and eventually explode. When a society – whether
local, national or global – is willing to leave
a part of itself on the fringes, no political
programmes or resources spent on law enforcement
or surveillance systems can indefinitely
guarantee tranquility”.[222] If
we have to begin anew, it must always be from
the least of our brothers and sisters.
THE VALUE AND MEANING OF FORGIVENESS
236. There are those who prefer not to talk of
reconciliation, for they think that conflict,
violence and breakdown are part of the normal
functioning of a society. In any human group
there are always going to be more or less subtle
power struggles between different parties.
Others think that promoting forgiveness means
yielding ground and influence to others. For
this reason, they feel it is better to keep
things as they are, maintaining a balance of
power between differing groups. Still others
believe that reconciliation is a sign of
weakness; incapable of truly serious dialogue,
they choose to avoid problems by ignoring
injustices. Unable to deal with problems, they
opt for an apparent peace.
237. Forgiveness and reconciliation are central
themes in Christianity and, in various ways, in
other religions. Yet there is a risk that an
inadequate understanding and presentation of
these profound convictions can lead to fatalism,
apathy and injustice, or even intolerance and
violence.
238. Jesus never promoted violence or
intolerance. He openly condemned the use of
force to gain power over others: “You know that
the rulers of the Gentiles lord it over them,
and their great ones are tyrants over them. It
will not be so among you” (Mt 20:25-26).
Instead, the Gospel tells us to forgive “seventy
times seven” (Mt 18:22) and offers the
example of the unmerciful servant who was
himself forgiven, yet unable to forgive others
in turn (cf. Mt 18:23-35).
239. Reading other texts of the New Testament,
we can see how the early Christian communities,
living in a pagan world marked by widespread
corruption and aberrations, sought to show
unfailing patience, tolerance and understanding.
Some texts are very clear in this regard: we are
told to admonish our opponents “with gentleness”
(2 Tim 2:25) and encouraged “to speak
evil of no one, to avoid quarreling, to be
gentle, and to show every courtesy to everyone.
For we ourselves were once foolish” (Tit 3:2-3).
The Acts of the Apostles notes that the
disciples, albeit persecuted by some of the
authorities, “had favour with all the people”
(2:47; cf. 4:21.33; 5:13).
240. Yet when we reflect upon forgiveness, peace
and social harmony, we also encounter the
jarring saying of Christ: “Do not think that I
have come to bring peace to the earth; I have
not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have
come to set a man against his father, and a
daughter against her mother, and a
daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; and a
man’s foes will be members of his own household”
(Mt 10:34-36). These words need to be
understood in the context of the chapter in
which they are found, where it is clear that
Jesus is speaking of fidelity to our decision to
follow him; we are not to be ashamed of that
decision, even if it entails hardships of
various sorts, and even our loved ones refuse to
accept it. Christ’s words do not encourage us to
seek conflict, but simply to endure it when it
inevitably comes, lest deference to others, for
the sake of supposed peace in our families or
society, should detract from our own fidelity.
Saint John Paul II observed that the Church
“does not intend to condemn every possible form
of social conflict. The Church is well aware
that in the course of history conflicts of
interest between different social groups
inevitably arise, and that in the face of such
conflicts Christians must often take a position,
honestly and decisively”.[223]
Legitimate conflict and forgiveness
241. Nor does this mean calling for forgiveness
when it involves renouncing our own rights,
confronting corrupt officials, criminals or
those who would debase our dignity. We are
called to love everyone, without exception; at
the same time, loving an oppressor does not mean
allowing him to keep oppressing us, or letting
him think that what he does is acceptable. On
the contrary, true love for an oppressor means
seeking ways to make him cease his oppression;
it means stripping him of a power that he does
not know how to use, and that diminishes his own
humanity and that of others. Forgiveness does
not entail allowing oppressors to keep trampling
on their own dignity and that of others, or
letting criminals continue their wrongdoing.
Those who suffer injustice have to defend
strenuously their own rights and those of their
family, precisely because they must preserve the
dignity they have received as a loving gift from
God. If a criminal has harmed me or a loved one,
no one can forbid me from demanding justice and
ensuring that this person – or anyone else –
will not harm me, or others, again. This is
entirely just; forgiveness does not forbid it
but actually demands it.
242. The important thing is not to fuel anger,
which is unhealthy for our own soul and the soul
of our people, or to become obsessed with taking
revenge and destroying the other. No one
achieves inner peace or returns to a normal life
in that way. The truth is that “no family, no
group of neighbours, no ethnic group, much less
a nation, has a future if the force that unites
them, brings them together and resolves their
differences is vengeance and hatred. We cannot
come to terms and unite for the sake of revenge,
or treating others with the same violence with
which they treated us, or plotting opportunities
for retaliation under apparently legal
auspices”.[224] Nothing
is gained this way and, in the end, everything
is lost.
243. To be sure, “it is no easy task to overcome
the bitter legacy of injustices, hostility and
mistrust left by conflict. It can only be done
by overcoming evil with good (cf. Rom 12:21)
and by cultivating those virtues which foster
reconciliation, solidarity and peace”.[225] In
this way, “persons who nourish goodness in their
heart find that such goodness leads to a
peaceful conscience and to profound joy, even in
the midst of difficulties and misunderstandings.
Even when affronted, goodness is never weak but
rather, shows its strength by refusing to take
revenge”.[226] Each
of us should realize that “even the harsh
judgment I hold in my heart against my brother
or my sister, the open wound that was never
cured, the offense that was never forgiven, the
rancour that is only going to hurt me, are all
instances of a struggle that I carry within me,
a little flame deep in my heart that needs to be
extinguished before it turns into a great
blaze”.[227]
244. When conflicts are not resolved but kept
hidden or buried in the past, silence can lead
to complicity in grave misdeeds and sins.
Authentic reconciliation does not flee from
conflict, but is achieved in conflict,
resolving it through dialogue and open, honest
and patient negotiation. Conflict between
different groups “if it abstains from enmities
and mutual hatred, gradually changes into an
honest discussion of differences founded on a
desire for justice”.[228]
245. On numerous occasions, I have spoken of “a
principle indispensable to the building of
friendship in society: namely, that unity is
greater than conflict… This is not to opt for a
kind of syncretism, or for the absorption of one
into the other, but rather for a resolution
which takes place on a higher plane and
preserves what is valid and useful on both
sides”.[229] All
of us know that “when we, as individuals and
communities, learn to look beyond ourselves and
our particular interests, then understanding and
mutual commitment bear fruit… in a setting where
conflicts, tensions and even groups once
considered inimical can attain a multifaceted
unity that gives rise to new life”.[230]
246. Of those who have endured much unjust and
cruel suffering, a sort of “social forgiveness”
must not be demanded. Reconciliation is a
personal act, and no one can impose it upon an
entire society, however great the need to foster
it. In a strictly personal way, someone, by a
free and generous decision, can choose not to
demand punishment (cf. Mt 5:44-46), even
if it is quite legitimately demanded by society
and its justice system. However, it is not
possible to proclaim a “blanket reconciliation”
in an effort to bind wounds by decree or to
cover injustices in a cloak of oblivion. Who can
claim the right to forgive in the name of
others? It is moving to see forgiveness shown by
those who are able to leave behind the harm they
suffered, but it is also humanly understandable
in the case of those who cannot. In any case,
forgetting is never the answer.
247. The Shoah must not be forgotten. It
is “the enduring symbol of the depths to which
human evil can sink when, spurred by false
ideologies, it fails to recognize the
fundamental dignity of each person, which merits
unconditional respect regardless of ethnic
origin or religious belief”.[231] As
I think of it, I cannot help but repeat this
prayer: “Lord, remember us in your mercy. Grant
us the grace to be ashamed of what we men have
done, to be ashamed of this massive idolatry, of
having despised and destroyed our own flesh
which you formed from the earth, to which you
gave life with your own breath of life. Never
again, Lord, never again!”.[232]
248. Nor must we forget the atomic bombs dropped
on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Once again, “I pay
homage to all the victims, and I bow before the
strength and dignity of those who, having
survived those first moments, for years
afterward bore in the flesh immense suffering,
and in their spirit seeds of death that drained
their vital energy… We cannot allow present and
future generations to lose the memory of what
happened. It is a memory that ensures and
encourages the building of a more fair and
fraternal future”.[233] Neither
must we forget the persecutions, the slave trade
and the ethnic killings that continue in various
countries, as well as the many other historical
events that make us ashamed of our humanity.
They need to be remembered, always and ever
anew. We must never grow accustomed or inured to
them.
249. Nowadays, it is easy to be tempted to turn
the page, to say that all these things happened
long ago and we should look to the future. For
God’s sake, no! We can never move forward
without remembering the past; we do not progress
without an honest and unclouded memory. We need
to “keep alive the flame of collective
conscience, bearing witness to succeeding
generations to the horror of what happened”,
because that witness “awakens and preserves the
memory of the victims, so that the conscience of
humanity may rise up in the face of every desire
for dominance and destruction”.[234] The
victims themselves – individuals, social groups
or nations – need to do so, lest they succumb to
the mindset that leads to justifying reprisals
and every kind of violence in the name of the
great evil endured. For this reason, I think not
only of the need to remember the atrocities, but
also all those who, amid such great inhumanity
and corruption, retained their dignity and, with
gestures small or large, chose the part of
solidarity, forgiveness and fraternity. To
remember goodness is also a healthy thing.
250. Forgiving does not mean forgetting. Or
better, in the face of a reality that can in no
way be denied, relativized or concealed,
forgiveness is still possible. In the face of an
action that can never be tolerated, justified or
excused, we can still forgive. In the face of
something that cannot be forgotten for any
reason, we can still forgive. Free and heartfelt
forgiveness is something noble, a reflection of
God’s own infinite ability to forgive. If
forgiveness is gratuitous, then it can be shown
even to someone who resists repentance and is
unable to beg pardon.
251. Those who truly forgive do not forget.
Instead, they choose not to yield to the same
destructive force that caused them so much
suffering. They break the vicious circle; they
halt the advance of the forces of destruction.
They choose not to spread in society the spirit
of revenge that will sooner or later return to
take its toll. Revenge never truly satisfies
victims. Some crimes are so horrendous and cruel
that the punishment of those who perpetrated
them does not serve to repair the harm done.
Even killing the criminal would not be enough,
nor could any form of torture prove commensurate
with the sufferings inflicted on the victim.
Revenge resolves nothing.
252. This does not mean impunity. Justice is
properly sought solely out of love of justice
itself, out of respect for the victims, as a
means of preventing new crimes and protecting
the common good, not as an alleged outlet for
personal anger. Forgiveness is precisely what
enables us to pursue justice without falling
into a spiral of revenge or the injustice of
forgetting.
253. When injustices have occurred on both
sides, it is important to take into clear
account whether they were equally grave or in
any way comparable. Violence perpetrated by the
state, using its structures and power, is not on
the same level as that perpetrated by particular
groups. In any event, one cannot claim that the
unjust sufferings of one side alone should be
commemorated. The Bishops of Croatia have stated
that, “we owe equal respect to every innocent
victim. There can be no racial, national,
confessional or partisan differences”.[235]
254. I ask God “to prepare our hearts to
encounter our brothers and sisters, so that we
may overcome our differences rooted in political
thinking, language, culture and religion. Let us
ask him to anoint our whole being with
the balm of his mercy, which heals the injuries
caused by mistakes, misunderstandings and
disputes. And let us ask him for the grace to
send us forth, in humility and meekness,
along the demanding but enriching path of
seeking peace”.[236]
255. There are two extreme situations that may
come to be seen as solutions in especially
dramatic circumstances, without realizing that
they are false answers that do not resolve the
problems they are meant to solve and ultimately
do no more than introduce new elements of
destruction in the fabric of national and global
society. These are war and the death penalty.
256. “Deceit is in the mind of those who plan
evil, but those who counsel peace have joy” (Prov 12:20).
Yet there are those who seek solutions in war,
frequently fueled by a breakdown in relations,
hegemonic ambitions, abuses of power, fear of
others and a tendency to see diversity as an
obstacle.[237] War
is not a ghost from the past but a constant
threat. Our world is encountering growing
difficulties on the slow path to peace upon
which it had embarked and which had already
begun to bear good fruit.
257. Since conditions that favour the outbreak
of wars are once again increasing, I can only
reiterate that “war is the negation of all
rights and a dramatic assault on the
environment. If we want true integral human
development for all, we must work tirelessly to
avoid war between nations and peoples. To this
end, there is a need to ensure the uncontested
rule of law and tireless recourse to
negotiation, mediation and arbitration, as
proposed by the Charter of the United Nations,
which constitutes truly a fundamental juridical
norm”.[238] The
seventy-five years since the establishment of
the United Nations and the experience of the
first twenty years of this millennium have shown
that the full application of international norms
proves truly effective, and that failure to
comply with them is detrimental. The Charter
of the United Nations, when observed and
applied with transparency and sincerity, is an
obligatory reference point of justice and a
channel of peace. Here there can be no room for
disguising false intentions or placing the
partisan interests of one country or group above
the global common good. If rules are considered
simply as means to be used whenever it proves
advantageous, and to be ignored when it is not,
uncontrollable forces are unleashed that cause
grave harm to societies, to the poor and
vulnerable, to fraternal relations, to the
environment and to cultural treasures, with
irretrievable losses for the global community.
258. War can easily be chosen by invoking all
sorts of allegedly humanitarian, defensive or
precautionary excuses, and even resorting to the
manipulation of information. In recent decades,
every single war has been ostensibly
“justified”. The Catechism of the Catholic
Church speaks of the possibility of
legitimate defence by means of military
force, which involves demonstrating that certain
“rigorous conditions of moral legitimacy”[239] have
been met. Yet it is easy to fall into an overly
broad interpretation of this potential right. In
this way, some would also wrongly justify even
“preventive” attacks or acts of war that can
hardly avoid entailing “evils and disorders
graver than the evil to be eliminated”.[240] At
issue is whether the development of nuclear,
chemical and biological weapons, and the
enormous and growing possibilities offered by
new technologies, have granted war an
uncontrollable destructive power over great
numbers of innocent civilians. The truth is that
“never has humanity had such power over itself,
yet nothing ensures that it will be used
wisely”.[241] We
can no longer think of war as a solution,
because its risks will probably always be
greater than its supposed benefits. In view of
this, it is very difficult nowadays to invoke
the rational criteria elaborated in earlier
centuries to speak of the possibility of a “just
war”. Never again war![242]
259. It should be added that, with increased
globalization, what might appear as an immediate
or practical solution for one part of the world
initiates a chain of violent and often latent
effects that end up harming the entire planet
and opening the way to new and worse wars in the
future. In today’s world, there are no longer
just isolated outbreaks of war in one country or
another; instead, we are experiencing a “world
war fought piecemeal”, since the destinies of
countries are so closely interconnected on the
global scene.
260. In the words of Saint John XXIII, “it no
longer makes sense to maintain that war is a fit
instrument with which to repair the violation of
justice”.[243] In
making this point amid great international
tension, he voiced the growing desire for peace
emerging in the Cold War period. He supported
the conviction that the arguments for peace are
stronger than any calculation of particular
interests and confidence in the use of weaponry.
The opportunities offered by the end of the Cold
War were not, however, adequately seized due to
a lack of a vision for the future and a shared
consciousness of our common destiny. Instead, it
proved easier to pursue partisan interests
without upholding the universal common good. The
dread spectre of war thus began to gain new
ground.
261. Every war leaves our world worse than it
was before. War is a failure of politics and of
humanity, a shameful capitulation, a stinging
defeat before the forces of evil. Let us not
remain mired in theoretical discussions, but
touch the wounded flesh of the victims. Let us
look once more at all those civilians whose
killing was considered “collateral damage”. Let
us ask the victims themselves. Let us think of
the refugees and displaced, those who suffered
the effects of atomic radiation or chemical
attacks, the mothers who lost their children,
and the boys and girls maimed or deprived of
their childhood. Let us hear the true stories of
these victims of violence, look at reality
through their eyes, and listen with an open
heart to the stories they tell. In this way, we
will be able to grasp the abyss of evil at the
heart of war. Nor will it trouble us to be
deemed naive for choosing peace.
262. Rules by themselves will not suffice if we
continue to think that the solution to current
problems is deterrence through fear or the
threat of nuclear, chemical or biological
weapons. Indeed, “if we take into consideration
the principal threats to peace and security with
their many dimensions in this multipolar world
of the twenty-first century as, for example,
terrorism, asymmetrical conflicts,
cybersecurity, environmental problems, poverty,
not a few doubts arise regarding the inadequacy
of nuclear deterrence as an effective response
to such challenges. These concerns are even
greater when we consider the catastrophic
humanitarian and environmental consequences that
would follow from any use of nuclear weapons,
with devastating, indiscriminate and
uncontainable effects, over time and space… We
need also to ask ourselves how sustainable is a
stability based on fear, when it actually
increases fear and undermines relationships of
trust between peoples. International peace and
stability cannot be based on a false sense of
security, on the threat of mutual destruction or
total annihilation, or on simply maintaining a
balance of power… In this context, the ultimate
goal of the total elimination of nuclear weapons
becomes both a challenge and a moral and
humanitarian imperative… Growing interdependence
and globalization mean that any response to the
threat of nuclear weapons should be collective
and concerted, based on mutual trust. This trust
can be built only through dialogue that is truly
directed to the common good and not to the
protection of veiled or particular interests”.[244] With
the money spent on weapons and other military
expenditures, let us establish a global fund[245] that
can finally put an end to hunger and favour
development in the most impoverished countries,
so that their citizens will not resort to
violent or illusory solutions, or have to leave
their countries in order to seek a more
dignified life.
263. There is yet another way to eliminate
others, one aimed not at countries but at
individuals. It is the death penalty. Saint John
Paul II stated clearly and firmly that the death
penalty is inadequate from a moral standpoint
and no longer necessary from that of penal
justice.[246] There
can be no stepping back from this position.
Today we state clearly that “the death penalty
is inadmissible”[247] and
the Church is firmly committed to calling for
its abolition worldwide.[248]
264. In the New Testament, while individuals are
asked not to take justice into their own hands
(cf. Rom 12:17.19), there is also a
recognition of the need for authorities to
impose penalties on evildoers (cf. Rom 13:4; 1
Pet 2:14). Indeed, “civic life, structured
around an organized community, needs rules of
coexistence, the wilful violation of which
demands appropriate redress”.[249] This
means that legitimate public authority can and
must “inflict punishments according to the
seriousness of the crimes”[250] and
that judicial power be guaranteed a “necessary
independence in the realm of law”.[251]
265. From the earliest centuries of the Church,
some were clearly opposed to capital punishment.
Lactantius, for example, held that “there ought
to be no exception at all; that it is always
unlawful to put a man to death”.[252] Pope
Nicholas I urged that efforts be made “to free
from the punishment of death not only each of
the innocent, but all the guilty as well”.[253] During
the trial of the murderers of two priests, Saint
Augustine asked the judge not to take the life
of the assassins with this argument: “We do not
object to your depriving these wicked men of the
freedom to commit further crimes. Our desire is
rather that justice be satisfied without the
taking of their lives or the maiming of their
bodies in any part. And, at the same time, that
by the coercive measures provided by the law,
they be turned from their irrational fury to the
calmness of men of sound mind, and from their
evil deeds to some useful employment. This too
is considered a condemnation, but who does not
see that, when savage violence is restrained and
remedies meant to produce repentance are
provided, it should be considered a benefit
rather than a mere punitive measure… Do not let
the atrocity of their sins feed a desire for
vengeance, but desire instead to heal the wounds
which those deeds have inflicted on their
souls”.[254]
266. Fear and resentment can easily lead to
viewing punishment in a vindictive and even
cruel way, rather than as part of a process of
healing and reintegration into society.
Nowadays, “in some political sectors and certain
media, public and private violence and revenge
are incited, not only against those responsible
for committing crimes, but also against those
suspected, whether proven or not, of breaking
the law… There is at times a tendency to
deliberately fabricate enemies: stereotyped
figures who represent all the characteristics
that society perceives or interprets as
threatening. The mechanisms that form these
images are the same that allowed the spread of
racist ideas in their time”.[255] This
has made all the more dangerous the growing
practice in some countries of resorting to
preventive custody, imprisonment without trial
and especially the death penalty.
267. Here I would stress that “it is impossible
to imagine that states today have no other means
than capital punishment to protect the lives of
other people from the unjust aggressor”.
Particularly serious in this regard are
so-called extrajudicial or extralegal
executions, which are “homicides deliberately
committed by certain states and by their agents,
often passed off as clashes with criminals or
presented as the unintended consequences of the
reasonable, necessary and proportionate use of
force in applying the law”.[256]
268. “The arguments against the death penalty
are numerous and well-known. The Church has
rightly called attention to several of these,
such as the possibility of judicial error and
the use made of such punishment by totalitarian
and dictatorial regimes as a means of
suppressing political dissidence or persecuting
religious and cultural minorities, all victims
whom the legislation of those regimes consider
‘delinquents’. All Christians and people of good
will are today called to work not only for the
abolition of the death penalty, legal or
illegal, in all its forms, but also to work for
the improvement of prison conditions, out of
respect for the human dignity of persons
deprived of their freedom. I would link this to
life imprisonment… A life sentence is a secret
death penalty”.[257]
269. Let us keep in mind that “not even a
murderer loses his personal dignity, and God
himself pledges to guarantee this”.[258] The
firm rejection of the death penalty shows to
what extent it is possible to recognize the
inalienable dignity of every human being and to
accept that he or she has a place in this
universe. If I do not deny that dignity to the
worst of criminals, I will not deny it to
anyone. I will give everyone the possibility of
sharing this planet with me, despite all our
differences.
270. I ask Christians who remain hesitant on
this point, and those tempted to yield to
violence in any form, to keep in mind the words
of the book of Isaiah: “They shall beat their
swords into plowshares” (2:4). For us, this
prophecy took flesh in Christ Jesus who, seeing
a disciple tempted to violence, said firmly:
“Put your sword back into its place; for all who
take the sword will perish by the sword” (Mt 26:52).
These words echoed the ancient warning: “I will
require a reckoning for human life. Whoever
sheds the blood of a man, by man shall his blood
be shed” (Gen 9:5-6). Jesus’ reaction,
which sprang from his heart, bridges the gap of
the centuries and reaches the present as an
enduring appeal.
RELIGIONS AT THE SERVICE OF FRATERNITY IN OUR
WORLD
271. The different religions, based on their
respect for each human person as a creature
called to be a child of God, contribute
significantly to building fraternity and
defending justice in society. Dialogue between
the followers of different religions does not
take place simply for the sake of diplomacy,
consideration or tolerance. In the words of the
Bishops of India, “the goal of dialogue is to
establish friendship, peace and harmony, and to
share spiritual and moral values and experiences
in a spirit of truth and love”.[259]
272. As believers, we are convinced that,
without an openness to the Father of all, there
will be no solid and stable reasons for an
appeal to fraternity. We are certain that “only
with this awareness that we are not orphans, but
children, can we live in peace with one
another”.[260] For
“reason, by itself, is capable of grasping the
equality between men and of giving stability to
their civic coexistence, but it cannot establish
fraternity”.[261]
273. In this regard, I wish to cite the
following memorable statement: “If there is no
transcendent truth, in obedience to which man
achieves his full identity, then there is no
sure principle for guaranteeing just relations
between people. Their self-interest as a class,
group or nation would inevitably set them in
opposition to one another. If one does not
acknowledge transcendent truth, then the force
of power takes over, and each person tends to
make full use of the means at his disposal in
order to impose his own interests or his own
opinion, with no regard for the rights of
others… The root of modern totalitarianism is to
be found in the denial of the transcendent
dignity of the human person who, as the visible
image of the invisible God, is therefore by his
very nature the subject of rights that no one
may violate – no individual, group, class,
nation or state. Not even the majority of the
social body may violate these rights, by going
against the minority”.[262]
274. From our faith experience and from the
wisdom accumulated over centuries, but also from
lessons learned from our many weaknesses and
failures, we, the believers of the different
religions, know that our witness to God benefits
our societies. The effort to seek God with a
sincere heart, provided it is never sullied by
ideological or self-serving aims, helps us
recognize one another as travelling companions,
truly brothers and sisters. We are convinced
that “when, in the name of an ideology, there is
an attempt to remove God from a society, that
society ends up adoring idols, and very soon men
and women lose their way, their dignity is
trampled and their rights violated. You know
well how much suffering is caused by the denial
of freedom of conscience and of religious
freedom, and how that wound leaves a humanity
which is impoverished, because it lacks hope and
ideals to guide it”.[263]
275. It should be acknowledged that “among the
most important causes of the crises of the
modern world are a desensitized human
conscience, a distancing from religious values
and the prevailing individualism accompanied by
materialistic philosophies that deify the human
person and introduce worldly and material values
in place of supreme and transcendental
principles”.[264] It
is wrong when the only voices to be heard in
public debate are those of the powerful and
“experts”. Room needs to be made for reflections
born of religious traditions that are the
repository of centuries of experience and
wisdom. For “religious classics can prove
meaningful in every age; they have an enduring
power [to open new horizons, to stimulate
thought, to expand the mind and the heart]”. Yet
often they are viewed with disdain as a result
of “the myopia of a certain rationalism”.[265]
276. For these reasons, the Church, while
respecting the autonomy of political life, does
not restrict her mission to the private sphere.
On the contrary, “she cannot and must not remain
on the sidelines” in the building of a better
world, or fail to “reawaken the spiritual
energy” that can contribute to the betterment of
society.[266] It
is true that religious ministers must not engage
in the party politics that are the proper domain
of the laity, but neither can they renounce the
political dimension of life itself,[267] which
involves a constant attention to the common good
and a concern for integral human development.
The Church “has a public role over and above her
charitable and educational activities”. She
works for “the advancement of humanity and of
universal fraternity”.[268] She
does not claim to compete with earthly powers,
but to offer herself as “a family among
families, this is the Church, open to bearing
witness in today’s world, open to faith hope and
love for the Lord and for those whom he loves
with a preferential love. A home with open
doors. The Church is a home with open doors,
because she is a mother”.[269] And
in imitation of Mary, the Mother of Jesus, “we
want to be a Church that serves, that leaves
home and goes forth from its places of worship,
goes forth from its sacristies, in order to
accompany life, to sustain hope, to be the sign
of unity… to build bridges, to break down walls,
to sow seeds of reconciliation”.[270]
277. The Church esteems the ways in which God
works in other religions, and “rejects nothing
of what is true and holy in these religions. She
has a high regard for their manner of life and
conduct, their precepts and doctrines which…
often reflect a ray of that truth which
enlightens all men and women”.[271] Yet
we Christians are very much aware that “if the
music of the Gospel ceases to resonate in our
very being, we will lose the joy born of
compassion, the tender love born of trust, the
capacity for reconciliation that has its source
in our knowledge that we have been forgiven and
sent forth. If the music of the Gospel ceases to
sound in our homes, our public squares, our
workplaces, our political and financial life,
then we will no longer hear the strains that
challenge us to defend the dignity of every man
and woman”.[272] Others
drink from other sources. For us the wellspring
of human dignity and fraternity is in the Gospel
of Jesus Christ. From it, there arises, “for
Christian thought and for the action of the
Church, the primacy given to relationship, to
the encounter with the sacred mystery of the
other, to universal communion with the entire
human family, as a vocation of all”.[273]
278. Called to take root in every place, the
Church has been present for centuries throughout
the world, for that is what it means to be
“catholic”. She can thus understand, from her
own experience of grace and sin, the beauty of
the invitation to universal love. Indeed, “all
things human are our concern… wherever the
councils of nations come together to establish
the rights and duties of man, we are honoured to
be permitted to take our place among them”.[274] For
many Christians, this journey of fraternity also
has a Mother, whose name is Mary. Having
received this universal motherhood at the foot
of the cross (cf. Jn 19:26), she cares
not only for Jesus but also for “the rest of her
children” (cf. Rev 12:17). In the power
of the risen Lord, she wants to give birth to a
new world, where all of us are brothers and
sisters, where there is room for all those whom
our societies discard, where justice and peace
are resplendent.
279. We Christians ask that, in those countries
where we are a minority, we be guaranteed
freedom, even as we ourselves promote that
freedom for non-Christians in places where they
are a minority. One fundamental human right must
not be forgotten in the journey towards
fraternity and peace. It is religious freedom
for believers of all religions. That freedom
proclaims that we can “build harmony and
understanding between different cultures and
religions. It also testifies to the fact that,
since the important things we share are so many,
it is possible to find a means of serene,
ordered and peaceful coexistence, accepting our
differences and rejoicing that, as children of
the one God, we are all brothers and sisters”.[275]
280. At the same time, we ask God to strengthen
unity within the Church, a unity enriched by
differences reconciled by the working of the
Spirit. For “in the one Spirit we were all
baptized into one body” (1 Cor 12:13), in
which each member has his or her distinctive
contribution to make. As Saint Augustine said,
“the ear sees through the eye, and the eye hears
through the ear”.[276] It
is also urgent to continue to bear witness to
the journey of encounter between the different
Christian confessions. We cannot forget Christ’s
desire “that they may all be one” (cf. Jn 17:21).
Hearing his call, we recognize with sorrow that
the process of globalization still lacks the
prophetic and spiritual contribution of unity
among Christians. This notwithstanding, “even as
we make this journey towards full communion, we
already have the duty to offer common witness to
the love of God for all people by working
together in the service of humanity”.[277]
281. A journey of peace is possible between
religions. Its point of departure must be God’s
way of seeing things. “God does not see with his
eyes, God sees with his heart. And God’s love is
the same for everyone, regardless of religion.
Even if they are atheists, his love is the same.
When the last day comes, and there is sufficient
light to see things as they really are, we are
going to find ourselves quite surprised”.[278]
282. It follows that “we believers need to find
occasions to speak with one another and to act
together for the common good and the promotion
of the poor. This has nothing to do with
watering down or concealing our deepest
convictions when we encounter others who think
differently than ourselves… For the deeper,
stronger and richer our own identity is, the
more we will be capable of enriching others with
our own proper contribution”.[279] We
believers are challenged to return to our
sources, in order to concentrate on what is
essential: worship of God and love for our
neighbour, lest some of our teachings, taken out
of context, end up feeding forms of contempt,
hatred, xenophobia or negation of others. The
truth is that violence has no basis in our
fundamental religious convictions, but only in
their distortion.
283. Sincere and humble worship of God “bears
fruit not in discrimination, hatred and
violence, but in respect for the sacredness of
life, respect for the dignity and freedom of
others, and loving commitment to the welfare of
all”.[280] Truly,
“whoever does not love does not know God, for
God is love” (1 Jn 4:8). For this reason,
“terrorism is deplorable and threatens the
security of people – be they in the East or the
West, the North or the South – and disseminates
panic, terror and pessimism, but this is not due
to religion, even when terrorists
instrumentalize it. It is due, rather, to an
accumulation of incorrect interpretations of
religious texts and to policies linked to
hunger, poverty, injustice, oppression and
pride. That is why it is so necessary to stop
supporting terrorist movements fuelled by
financing, the provision of weapons and
strategy, and by attempts to justify these
movements, even using the media. All these must
be regarded as international crimes that
threaten security and world peace. Such
terrorism must be condemned in all its forms and
expressions”.[281] Religious
convictions about the sacred meaning of human
life permit us “to recognize the fundamental
values of our common humanity, values in the
name of which we can and must cooperate, build
and dialogue, pardon and grow; this will allow
different voices to unite in creating a melody
of sublime nobility and beauty, instead of
fanatical cries of hatred”.[282]
284. At times fundamentalist violence is
unleashed in some groups, of whatever religion,
by the rashness of their leaders. Yet, “the
commandment of peace is inscribed in the depths
of the religious traditions that we represent…
As religious leaders, we are called to be true
‘people of dialogue’, to cooperate in building
peace not as intermediaries but as authentic
mediators. Intermediaries seek to give everyone
a discount, ultimately in order to gain
something for themselves. The mediator, on the
other hand, is one who retains nothing for
himself, but rather spends himself generously
until he is consumed, knowing that the only gain
is peace. Each one of us is called to be an
artisan of peace, by uniting and not dividing,
by extinguishing hatred and not holding on to
it, by opening paths of dialogue and not by
constructing new walls”.[283]
285. In my fraternal meeting, which I gladly
recall, with the Grand Imam Ahmad Al-Tayyeb, “we
resolutely [declared] that religions must never
incite war, hateful attitudes, hostility and
extremism, nor must they incite violence or the
shedding of blood. These tragic realities are
the consequence of a deviation from religious
teachings. They result from a political
manipulation of religions and from
interpretations made by religious groups who, in
the course of history, have taken advantage of
the power of religious sentiment in the hearts
of men and women… God, the Almighty, has no need
to be defended by anyone and does not want his
name to be used to terrorize people”.[284] For
this reason I would like to reiterate here the
appeal for peace, justice and fraternity that we
made together:
“In the name of God, who has created all human
beings equal in rights, duties and dignity, and
who has called them to live together as brothers
and sisters, to fill the earth and make known
the values of goodness, love and peace;
“In the name of innocent human life that God has
forbidden to kill, affirming that whoever kills
a person is like one who kills the whole of
humanity, and that whoever saves a person is
like one who saves the whole of humanity;
“In the name of the poor, the destitute, the
marginalized and those most in need, whom God
has commanded us to help as a duty required of
all persons, especially the wealthy and those of
means;
“In the name of orphans, widows, refugees and
those exiled from their homes and their
countries; in the name of all victims of wars,
persecution and injustice; in the name of the
weak, those who live in fear, prisoners of war
and those tortured in any part of the world,
without distinction;
“In the name of peoples who have lost their
security, peace and the possibility of living
together, becoming victims of destruction,
calamity and war;
“In the name of human fraternity, that
embraces all human beings, unites them and
renders them equal;
“In the name of this fraternity torn
apart by policies of extremism and division, by
systems of unrestrained profit or by hateful
ideological tendencies that manipulate the
actions and the future of men and women;
“In the name of freedom, that God has given to
all human beings, creating them free and setting
them apart by this gift;
“In the name of justice and mercy, the
foundations of prosperity and the cornerstone of
faith;
“In the name of all persons of goodwill present
in every part of the world;
“In the name of God and of everything stated
thus far, [we] declare the adoption of a culture
of dialogue as the path; mutual cooperation as
the code of conduct; reciprocal understanding as
the method and standard”.[285]
* * *
286. In these pages of reflection on universal
fraternity, I felt inspired particularly by
Saint Francis of Assisi, but also by others of
our brothers and sisters who are not Catholics:
Martin Luther King, Desmond Tutu, Mahatma Gandhi
and many more. Yet I would like to conclude by
mentioning another person of deep faith who,
drawing upon his intense experience of God, made
a journey of transformation towards feeling a
brother to all. I am speaking of Blessed Charles
de Foucauld.
287. Blessed Charles directed his ideal of total
surrender to God towards an identification with
the poor, abandoned in the depths of the African
desert. In that setting, he expressed his desire
to feel himself a brother to every human being,[286] and
asked a friend to “pray to God that I truly be
the brother of all”.[287] He
wanted to be, in the end, “the universal
brother”.[288] Yet
only by identifying with the least did he come
at last to be the brother of all. May God
inspire that dream in each one of us. Amen.
Lord, Father of our human family,
May our hearts be open
An Ecumenical Christian Prayer
O God, Trinity of love,
Grant that we Christians may live the Gospel,
Come, Holy Spirit, show us your beauty,
Given in Assisi, at the tomb of Saint Francis,
on 3 October, Vigil of the Feast of the Saint,
in the year 2020, the eighth of my Pontificate.
Franciscus
[1] Admonitions,
6, 1. English translation in Francis of
Assisi: Early Documents, vol 1., New York,
London, Manila (1999), 131.
[2] Ibid.,
25: op. cit., 136.
[3] SAINT
FRANCIS OF ASSISI, Earlier Rule of the Friars
Minor (Regula non bullata), 16: 3.6: op.
cit. 74.
[4] ELOI
LECLERC, O.F.M., Exil et tendresse, Éd.
Franciscaines, Paris, 1962, 205.
[5] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 6.
[6] Address
at the Ecumenical and Interreligious Meeting
with Young People,
Skopje, North Macedonia (7 May 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 9 May 2019, p. 9.
[7] Address
to the European Parliament,
Strasbourg (25 November 2014): AAS 106 (2014),
996.
[8] Meeting
with Authorities, Civil Society and the
Diplomatic Corps,
Santiago, Chile (16 January 2018): AAS 110
(2018), 256.
[9] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 19: AAS 101 (2009), 655.
[10] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Christus
vivit (25
March 2019), 181.
[11] CARDINAL
RAÚL SILVA HENRÍQUEZ, Homily at the Te Deum,
Santiago de Chile (18 September 1974).
[12] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 57: AAS 107 (2015), 869.
[13] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy
See (11
January 2016): AAS 108 (2016), 120.
[14] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy
See (13
January 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 83-84.
[15] Cf. Address
to the “Centesimus Annus pro Pontifice”
Foundation (25
May 2013): Insegnamenti I, 1 (2013), 238.
[16] Cf.
SAINT PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 264.
[17] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 22: AAS 101 (2009), 657.
[18] Address
to the Civil Authorities,
Tirana, Albania (21 September 2014): AAS 106
(2014), 773.
[19] Message
to Participants in the International Conference
“Human Rights in the Contemporary World:
Achievements, Omissions, Negations” (10
December 2018): L’Osservatore Romano,
10-11 December 2018, p. 8.
[20] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 212: AAS 105 (2013), 1108.
[21] Message
for the 2015 World Day of Peace (8
December 2014), 3-4: AAS 107 (2015), 69-71.
[22] Ibid.,
5: AAS 107 (2015), 72.
[23] Message
for the 2016 World Day of Peace (8
December 2015), 2: AAS 108 (2016), 49.
[24] Message
fro the 2020 World Day of Peace (8
December 2019), 1: L’Osservatore Romano,
13 December 2019, p. 8.
[25] Address
on Nuclear Weapons,
Nagasaki, Japan (24 November 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 25-26 November 2019, p. 6.
[26] Dialogue
with Students and Teachers of the San Carlo
College in Milan (6
April 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 8-9
April 2019, p. 6.
[27] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 6.
[28] Address
to the World of Culture,
Cagliari, Italy (22
September 2013): L’Osservatore Romano,
23-24 September 2013, p. 7.
[29] Humana
Communitas.
Letter to the President of the Pontifical
Academy for Life on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary
of its Founding (6
January 2019), 2.6: L’Osservatore Romano,
16 January 2019, pp. 6-7.
[30] Video
Message to the TED Conference in Vancouver (26
April 2017): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
April 2017, p. 7.
[31] Extraordinary
Moment of Prayer in Time of Epidemic (27
March 2020): L’Osservatore Romano, 29
March 2020, p. 10.
[32] Homily in
Skopje, North Macedonia (7
May 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 8 May
2019, p. 12.
[33] Cf. Aeneid 1,
462: “Sunt lacrimae rerum et mentem mortalia
tangunt”.
[34] “Historia…
magistra vitae” (CICERO, De Oratore,
2, 6).
[35] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 204: AAS 107 (2015), 928.
[36] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Christus
Vivit (25
March 2019), 91.
[39] BENEDICT
XVI, Message
for the 2013 World Day of Migrants and Refugees (12
October 2012): AAS 104 (2012), 908.
[40] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Christus
Vivit (25
March 2019), 92.
[41] Message
for the 2020 World Day of Migrants and Refugees (13
May 2020): L’Osservatore Romano, 16 May
2020, p. 8.
[42] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy
See (11
January 2016): AAS 108 (2016), 124.
[43] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy
See (13
January 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 84.
[44] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps accredited to the Holy
See (11
January 2016): AAS 108 (2016), 123.
[45] Message
for the 2019 World Day of Migrants and Refugees (27
May 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 27-28
May 2019, p. 8.
[46] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Christus
Vivit (25
March 2019), 88.
[48] Apostolic
Exhortation Gaudete
et Exsultate (19
March 2018), 115.
[49] From
the film Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,
by Wim Wenders (2018).
[50] Address
to Authorities, Civil Society and the Diplomatic
Corps,
Tallinn, Estonia (25
September 2018): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
September 2018, p. 7.
[51] Cf. Extraordinary
Moment of Prayer in Time of Epidemic (27
March 2020): L’Osservatore Romano, 29
March 2020, p. 10; Message
for the 2020 World Day of the Poor (13
June 2020), 6: L’Osservatore Romano, 14
June 2020, p. 8.
[52] Greeting
to Young People at the Padre Félix Varela
Cultural Centre,
Havana, Cuba (20
September 2015): L’Osservatore Romano,
21-22 September 2015, p. 6.
[53] SECOND
VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium
et Spes,
1.
[54] SAINT
IRENAEUS OF LYONS, Adversus Haereses, II,
25, 2: PG 7/1, 798ff.
[55] Talmud
Bavli (Babylonian Talmud), Shabbat,
31a.
[56] Address
to Those Assisted by the Charitable Works of the
Church,
Tallinn, Estonia (25
September 2018): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
September 2018, p. 8.
[57] Video
Message to the TED Conference in Vancouver (26
April 2017):L’Osservatore Romano, 27
April 2017, p. 7.
[58] Homiliae
in Matthaeum, 50: 3-4: PG 58, 508.
[59] Message
to the Meeting of Popular Movements,
Modesto, California, United States of America (10
February 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 291.
[60] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 235: AAS 105 (2013), 1115.
[61] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Message to the Handicapped,
Angelus in Osnabrück, Germany (16 November
1980): Insegnamenti III, 2 (1980), 1232.
[62] SECOND
VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Pastoral
Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium
et Spes,
24.
[63] Gabriel
Marcel, Du refus à l’invocation, ed. NRF,
Paris, 1940, 50.
[64] Angelus (10
November 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 11-12
November 2019, 8.
[65] Cf.
Saint Thomas Aquinas: Scriptum super
Sententiis, lib. 3, dist. 27, q. 1, a. 1, ad
4: “Dicitur amor extasim facere et fervere, quia
quod fervet extra se bullit et exhalat”.
[66] Karol
Wojtyła, Love and Responsibility, London,
1982, 126.
[67] Karl
Rahner, Kleines Kirchenjahr. Ein Gang durch
den Festkreis, Herderbücherei 901, Freiburg,
1981, 30.
[68] Regula,
53, 15: “Pauperum et peregrinorum maxime
susceptioni cura sollicite exhibeatur”.
[69] Cf. Summa
Theologiae, II-II, q. 23, a. 7; Saint
Augustine, Contra Julianum, 4, 18: PL 44,
748: “How many pleasures do misers
forego, either to increase their treasures or
for fear of seeing them diminish!”.
[70] “Secundum
acceptionem divinam” (Scriptum super
Sententiis, lib. 3, dist. 27, a. 1, q. 1,
concl. 4).
[71] Benedict
XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus
Caritas Est (25
December 2005), 15: AAS 98 (2006), 230.
[72] Summa
Theologiae II-II, q. 27, a. 2, resp.
[73] Cf.
ibid., I-II, q. 26, a. 3, resp.
[74] Ibid.,
q. 110, a. 1, resp.
[75] Message
for the 2014 World Day of Peace (8
December 2013), 1: AAS 106 (2014), 22.
[76] Cf. Angelus (29
December 2013): L’Osservatore Romano, 30-31
December 2013, p. 7; Address
to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy
See (12
January 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 165.
[77] Message
for the World Day of Persons with Disabilities (3
December 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 4
December 2019, 7.
[78] Address
to the Meeting for Religious Liberty with the
Hispanic Community and Immigrant Groups,
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, United States of
America (26
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1050-1051.
[79] Address
to Young People,
Tokyo, Japan (25
November 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 25-26
November 2019, 10.
[80] In
these considerations, I have been inspired by
the thought of Paul Ricoeur, “Le socius et le
prochain”, in Histoire et Verité, ed. Le
Seuil, Paris, 1967, 113-127.
[81] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 190: AAS 105 (2013), 1100.
[82] Ibid.,
209: AAS 105 (2013), 1107.
[83] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 129: AAS 107 (2015), 899.
[84] Message
for the “Economy of Francesco” Event (1
May 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 12 May
2019, 8.
[85] Address
to the European Parliament,
Strasbourg (25 November 2014): AAS 106 (2014),
997.
86] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 229: AAS 107 (2015), 937.
[87] Message
for the 2016 World Day of Peace (8
December 2015), 6: AAS 108 (2016), 57-58.
[88] Solidity
is etymologically related to “solidarity”.
Solidarity, in the ethical-political meaning
that it has taken on in the last two centuries,
results in a secure and firm social compact.
[89] Homily,
Havana, Cuba (20
September 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 21-22
September 2015, 8.
[90] Address
to Participants in the Meeting of Popular
Movements (28
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 851-852.
[91] Cf.
Saint Basil, Homilia XXI, Quod rebus mundanis
adhaerendum non sit, 3.5: PG 31, 545-549; Regulae
brevius tractatae, 92: PG 31, 1145-1148;
Saint peter chrysologus, Sermo 123: PL
52, 536-540; Saint Ambrose, De Nabuthe, 27.52:
PL 14, 738ff.; Saint Augustine, In Iohannis
Evangelium, 6, 25: PL 35, 1436ff.
[92] De
Lazaro Concio, II, 6: PG 48, 992D.
[93] Regula
Pastoralis, III, 21: PL 77, 87.
[94] Saint
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1
May 1991), 31: AAS 83 (1991), 831.
[95] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 93: AAS 107 (2015), 884.
[96] Saint
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Laborem
Exercens (14
September 1981), 19: AAS 73 (1981), 626.
[97] Cf.Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
172.
[98]Encyclical
Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 268.
[99] Saint
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis (30
December 1987), 33: AAS 80 (1988), 557.
[100] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 95: AAS 107 (2015), 885.
[101] Ibid.,
129: AAS 107 (2015), 899.
[102] Cf.
Saint Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 265; Benedict XVI,
Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 16: AAS 101 (2009), 652.
[103] Cf.
Encyclical Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 93: AAS 107 (2015), 884-885;
Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 189-190: AAS 105 (2013),
1099-1100.
[104] United
States Conference of Catholic Bishops, Pastoral
Letter Against Racism Open Wide Our Hearts:
The Enduring Call to Love (November 2018).
[105] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 51: AAS 107 (2015), 867.
[106] Cf.
Benedict XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 6: AAS 101 (2009), 644.
[107] Saint
John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1
May 1991), 35: AAS 83 (1991), 838.
[108] Address
on Nuclear Weapons, Nagasaki,
Japan (24 November 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 25-26 November 2019, 6.
[109] Cf.
CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF MEXICO AND THE UNITED
STATES, A Pastoral Letter Concerning
Migration: “Strangers No Longer Together on the
Journey of Hope” (January 2003).
[110] General
Audience (3
April 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 4
April 2019, p. 8.
[111] Cf. Message
for the 2018 World Day of Migrants and Refugees (14
January 2018): AAS 109 (2017), 918-923.
112] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 7.
[113] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy
See,
11 January 2016: AAS 108 (2016), 124.
[115] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Christus
Vivit (25
March 2019), 93.
[117] Address
to Authorities,
Sarajevo, Bosnia and Herzegovina (6
June 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 7 June
2015, p. 7.
[118] Latinoamérica.
Conversaciones con Hernán Reyes Alcaide, ed.
Planeta, Buenos Aires, 2017, 105.[119] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 7.
[120] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 67: AAS 101 (2009), 700.
[121] Ibid.,
60: AAS 101 (2009), 695.
[122] Ibid.,
67: AAS 101 (2009), 700.
[123] PONTIFICAL
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
447.
[124] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 234: AAS 105 (2013), 1115.
[125] Ibid.,
235: AAS 105 (2013), 1115.
[127] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Address to Representatives of
Argentinian Culture, Buenos Aires, Argentina
(12 April 1987), 4: L’Osservatore Romano,
14 April 1987, p. 7.
[128] Cf.
ID., Address to the Roman Curia (21
December 1984), 4: AAS 76 (1984), 506.
[129] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Querida
Amazonia (2
February 2020), 37.
[130] GEORG
SIMMEL, Brücke und Tür. Essays des
Philosophen zur Geschichte, Religion, Kunst und
Gesellschaft, ed. Michael Landmann,
Köhler-Verlag, Stuttgart, 1957, 6.
[131] Cf.
JAIME HOYOS-VÁSQUEZ, S.J., “Lógica de las
relaciones sociales. Reflexión onto-lógica”, Revista
Universitas Philosophica, 15-16 (December
1990-June 1991), Bogotá, 95-106.
[132] ANTONIO
SPADARO, S.J., Le orme di un pastore. Una
conversazione con Papa Francesco, in JORGE
MARIO BERGOLIO – PAPA FRANCESCO, Nei tuoi
occhi è la mia parola. Omelie e discorsi di
Buenos Aires 1999-2013, Rizzoli, Milan 2016,
XVI; cf. Apostolic Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 220-221: AAS 105 (2013),
1110-1111.
[133] Apostolic
Exaltation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 204: AAS 105 (2013), 1106.
[134] Cf. ibid.:
AAS 105 (2013), 1105-1106.
[135] Ibid.,
202: AAS 105 (2013), 1105.
[136] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 128: AAS 107 (2015), 898.
[137] Address
to the Diplomatic Corps Accredited to the Holy
See (12
January 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 165; cf. Address
to Participants in the World Meeting of Popular
Movements (28
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 851-859.
[138] A
similar point could be made with regard to the
biblical category of the Kingdom of God.
[139] PAUL
RICOEUR, Histoire et Verité, ed.
Le Seuil Paris, 1967, 122.
[140] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 129: AAS 107 (2015), 899.
[141] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 35: AAS 101 (2009), 670.
[142] Address
to Participants in the World Meeting of Popular
Movements (28
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 858.
[144] Address
to Participants in the World Meeting of Popular
Movements (5
November 2016): L’Osservatore Romano, 7-8
November 2016, pp. 4-5.
[147] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 189: AAS 107 (2015), 922.
[148] Address
to the Members of the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization,
New York (25
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1037.
[149] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 175: AAS 107 (2015), 916-917.
[150] Cf.
BENEDICT XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 67: AAS 101 (2009), 700-701.
[151] Ibid.:
AAS 101 (2009), 700.
[152] PONTIFICAL
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
434.
[153] Address
to the Members of the General Assembly of the
United Nations Organization,
New York (25
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1037, 1041.
[154] Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
437.
[155] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Message
for the 2004 World Day of Peace,
5: AAS 96 (2004), 117.
[156] Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
439.
[157] Cf.
SOCIAL COMMISSION OF THE BISHOPS OF FRANCE,
Declaration Réhabiliter la Politique (17
February 1999).
[158] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 189: AAS 107 (2015), 922.
[159] Ibid.,
196: AAS 107 (2015), 925.
[160] Ibid.,
197: AAS 107 (2015), 925.
[161] Ibid.,
181: AAS 107 (2015), 919.
[162] Ibid.,
178: AAS 107 (2015), 918.
[163] PORTUGUESE
BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE, Pastoral Letter Responsabilidade
Solidária pelo Bem Comum (15 September
2003), 20; cf. Encyclical Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 159: AAS 107 (2015), 911.
[164] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 191: AAS 107 (2015), 923.
[165] PIUS
XI, Address to the Italian Catholic
Federation of University Students (18
December 1927): L’Osservatore Romano, 23
December 1927, p. 3.
[166] Cf.
ID., Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo
Anno (15
May 1931): AAS 23 (1931), 206-207.
[167] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 205: AAS 105 (2013), 1106
[168] Benedict
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 2: AAS 101 (2009), 642.
[169] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 231: AAS 107 (2015), 937.
[170] Benedict
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 2: AAS 101 (2009), 642.
[171] Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
207.
[172] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor
Hominis (4
March 1979), 15: AAS 71 (1979), 288.
[173] Cf.
SAINT PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967), 44: AAS 59 (1967), 279.
[174] Pontifical
Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
207.
[175] Benedict
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 2: AAS 101 (2009), 642.
[176] Ibid.,
3: AAS 101 (2009), 643.
[177] Ibid.,
4: AAS 101 (2009), 643.
[179] Ibid.,
3: AAS 101 (2009), 643.
[180] Ibid.:
AAS 101 (2009), 642.
[181] Catholic
moral doctrine, following the teaching of Saint
Thomas Aquinas, distinguishes between “elicited”
and “commanded” acts; cf. Summa Theologiae,
I-II, qq. 8-17; M. ZALBA, S.J., Theologiae
Moralis Summa. Theologia Moralis Fundamentalis.
Tractatus de Virtutibus Theologicis, ed.
BAC, Madrid, 1952, vol. I, 69; A. ROYO MARÍN, Teología
de la Perfección Cristiana, ed. BAC, Madrid,
1962, 192-196.
[182] PONTIFICAL
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
208.
[183] Cf.
SAINT JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo
Rei Socialis (30
December 1987), 42: AAS 80 (1988), 572-574;
Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1
May 1991), 11: AAS 83 (1991), 806-807.
[184] Address
to Participants in the World Meeting of Popular
Movements (28
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 852.
185] Address
to the European Parliament,
Strasbourg (25 November 2014): AAS 106 (2014),
999.
[186] Address
at the Meeting with Authorities and the
Diplomatic Corps in the Central African Republic,
Bangui (29
November 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1320.
[187] Address
to the United Nations Organization,
New York (25
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1039.
[188] Address
to Participants in the World Meeting of Popular
Movements (28
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 853.
[189] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 6.
[190] RENÉ
VOILLAUME, Frères de tous, ed.
Cerf, Paris, 1968, 12-13.
[191] Video
Message to the TED Conference in Vancouver (26
April 2017): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
April 2017, p. 7.
[192] General
Audience (18
February 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 19
February 2015, p. 8.
[193] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 274: AAS 105 (2013), 1130.
[194] Ibid.,
279: AAS 105 (2013), 1132.
[195] Message
for the 2019 World Day of Peace (8
December 2018), 5: L’Osservatore Romano,
19 December 2018, p. 8.
[196] Meeting
with Brazilian Political, Economic and Cultural
Leaders,
Rio de Janeiro, Brazil (27
July 2013): AAS 105 (2013), 683-684.
[197] Apostolic
Exhortation Querida
Amazonia (2
February 2020), 108.
[198] From
the film Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,
by Wim Wenders (2018).
[199] Message
for the 2014 World Communications Day (24
January 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 113.
[200] AUSTRALIAN
CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE, Commission for
Social Justice, Mission and Service, Making
It Real: Genuine Human Encounter in Our Digital
World (November 2019).
[201] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 123: AAS 107 (2015), 896.
[202] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Veritatis
Splendor (6
August 1993), 96: AAS 85 (1993), 1209.
[203] As
Christians, we also believe that God grants us
his grace to enable us to act as brothers and
sisters.
[204] VINICIUS
DE MORAES, Samba da Benção, from the
recording Um encontro no Au bon Gourmet,
Rio de Janeiro (2 August 1962).
[205] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 237: AAS 105 (2013), 1116.
[206] Ibid.,
236: AAS 105 (2013), 1115.
[207] Ibid.,
218: AAS 105 (2013), 1110.
[208] Apostolic
Exhortation Amoris
Laetitia (19
March 2016), 100: AAS 108 (2016), 351.
[209] Message
for the 2020 World Day of Peace (8
December 2019), 2: L’Osservatore Romano,
13 December 2019, p. 8.
[210] EPISCOPAL
CONFERENCE OF THE CONGO, Message au Peuple de
Dieu et aux femmes et aux hommes de bonne
volonté (9 May 2018).
[211] Address
at the National Reconciliation Encunter,
Villavicencio, Colombia (8
September 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 1063-1064,
1066.
[212] Message
for the 2020 World Day of Peace (8
December 2019), 3: L’Osservatore Romano,
13 December 2019, p. 8.
[213] SOUTHERN
AFRICAN CATHOLIC BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE, Pastoral
Letter on Christian Hope in the Current Crisis (May
1986).
[214] CATHOLIC
BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF KOREA, Appeal of the
Catholic Church in Korea for Peace on the Korean
Peninsula (15 August 2017).
[215] Meeting
with Political, Economic and Civic Leaders,
Quito, Ecuador (7
July 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 9 July
2015, p. 9.
[216] Interreligious
Meeting with Youth,
Maputo, Mozambique (5
September 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 6
September 2019, p. 7.
[217] Homily,
Cartagena de Indias, Colombia (10
September 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 1086.
[218] Meeting
with Authorities, the Diplomatic Corps and
Representatives of Civil Society,
Bogotá, Colombia (7
September 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 1029.
[219] BISHOPS’
CONFERENCE OF COLOMBIA, Por el bien de
Colombia: diálogo, reconciliación y desarrollo
integral (26 November 2019), 4.
[220] Meeting
with the Authorities, Civil Society and the
Diplomatic Corps,
Maputo, Mozambique (5
September 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 6
September 2019, p. 6.
[221] FIFTH
GENERAL CONFERENCE OF THE LATIN AMERICAN AND
CARIBBEAN BISHOPS, Aparecida Document (29
June 2007), 398.
[222] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 59: AAS 105 (2013), 1044.
[223] Encyclical
Letter Centesimus
Annus (1
May 1991), 14: AAS 83 (1991), 810.
[224] Homily
at Mass for the Progress of Peoples,
Maputo, Mozambique (6
September 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 7
September 2019, p. 8.
[225] Arrival
Ceremony,
Colombo, Sri Lanka (13
January 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 14
January 2015, p. 7.
[226] Meeting
with the Children of the “Bethany Centre” and
Representatives of other Charitable Centres of
Albania,
Tirana, Albania (21
September 2014): Insegnamenti II, 2
(2014), 288.
[227] Video
Message to the TED Conference in Vancouver (26
April 2017): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
April 2017, p. 7.
[228] PIUS
XI, Encyclical Letter Quadragesimo Anno (15
May 1931): AAS 23 (1931), 213.
[229] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 228: AAS 105 (2013), 1113.
[230] Meeting
with the Civil Authorities, Civil Society and
the Diplomatic Corps,
Riga, Latvia (24
September 2018): L’Osservatore Romano,
24-25 September 2018, p. 7.
[231] Arrival
Ceremony,
Tel Aviv, Israel (25
May 2014): Insegnamenti II, 1 (2014),
604.
[232] Visit
to the Yad Vashem Memorial,
Jerusalem (26
May 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 228.
[233] Address
at the Peace Memorial,
Hiroshima, Japan (24
November 2019): L’Osservatore Romano,
25-26 November 2019, p. 8.
[234] Message
for the 2020 World Day of Peace (8
December 2019), 2: L’Osservatore Romano,
13 December 2019, p. 8.
[235] CROATIAN
BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE, Letter on the Fiftieth
Anniversary of the End of the Second World War (1
May 1995).
[236] Homily,
Amman, Jordan (24
May 2014): Insegnamenti II, 1 (2014),
593.
[237] Cf. Message
for the 2020 World Day of Peace (8
December 2019), 1: L’Osservatore Romano,
13 December 2019, p. 8.
[238] Address
to the Members of the General Assembly of the
United Nations,
New York (25
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1041-1042.
[239] No.
2309.
[240] Ibid.
[241] Encyclical
Letter Laudato
Si’ (24
May 2015), 104: AAS 107 (2015), 888.
[242] Saint
Augustine, who forged a concept of “just war”
that we no longer uphold in our own day, also
said that “it is a higher glory still to stay
war itself with a word, than to slay men with
the sword, and to procure or maintain peace by
peace, not by war” (Epistola 229, 2: PL
33, 1020).
[243] Encyclical
Letter Pacem
in Terris (11
April 1963): AAS 55 (1963), 291.
[244] Message
to the United Nations Conference to Negotiate a
Legally Binding Instrument to Prohibit Nuclear
Weapons (23
March 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 394-396.
[245] Cf.
SAINT PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 282.
[246] Cf.
Encyclical Letter Evangelium
Vitae (25
March 1995), 56: AAS 87 (1995), 463-464.
[247] Address
on the Twenty-fifth Anniversary of the
Promulgation of the Catechism of the Catholic
Church (11
October 2017): AAS 109 (2017), 1196.
[248] Cf.
CONGREGATION FOR THE DOCTRINE OF THE FAITH, Letter
to the Bishops Regarding the Revision of No.
2267 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church on
the Death Penalty (1
August 2018): L’Osservatore Romano, 3
August 2018, p. 8.
[249] Address
to Delegates of the International Association of
Penal Law (23
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 840.
[250] PONTIFICAL
COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, Compendium
of the Social Doctrine of the Church,
402.
[251] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Address
to the National Association of Magistrates (31
March 2000), 4: AAS 92 (2000), 633.
[252] Divinae
Institutiones VI, 20, 17: PL 6, 708.
[253] Epistola
97 (Responsa ad consulta Bulgarorum), 25: PL
119, 991. “ipsi (Christo) non solum innoxios
quosque, verum etiam et noxios a mortis exitio
satagite cunctos eruere…”.
[254] Epistola
ad Marcellinum 133, 1.2: PL 33, 509.
[255] Address
to Delegates of the International Association of
Penal Law (23
October 2014): AAS 106 (2014), 840-841.
[258] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Evangelium
Vitae (25
March 1995), 9: AAS 87 (1995), 411.
[259] CATHOLIC
BISHOPS’ CONFERENCE OF INDIA, Response of the
Church in India to the Present-day Challenges (9
March 2016).
[260] Homily
at Mass in Domus Sanctae Marthae (17
May 2020).
[261] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 19: AAS 101 (2009), 655.
[262] SAINT
JOHN PAUL II, Encyclical Letter Centesimus
Annus (1
May 1991), 44: AAS 83 (1991), 849.
[263] Address
to the Leaders of Other Religions and Other
Christian Denominations,
Tirana, Albania (21
September 2014): Insegnamenti II, 2
(2014), 277.
[264] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 6.
[265] Apostolic
Exhortation Evangelii
Gaudium (24
November 2013), 256: AAS 105 (2013), 1123.
[266] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Deus
Caritas Est (25
December 2005), 28: AAS 98 (2006), 240.
[267] “Man
is a political animal”, ARISTOTLE, Politics,
1253a 1-3.
[268] BENEDICT
XVI, Encyclical Letter Caritas
in Veritate (29
June 2009), 11: AAS 101 (2009), 648.
[269] Address
to the Catholic Community,
Rakovski, Bulgaria (6
May 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 8 May
2019, p. 9.
[270] Homily,
Santiago de Cuba (22
September 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 1005.
[271] SECOND
VATICAN ECUMENICAL COUNCIL, Declaration on the
Relation of the Church to Non-Christian
Religions Nostra
Aetate,
2.
[272] Ecumenical
Prayer Service,
Riga, Latvia (24
September 2018): L’Osservatore Romano,
24-25 September 2018, p. 8.
[273] Lectio
Divina, Pontifical Lateran University, Rome
(26 March 2019): L’Osservatore Romano, 27
March 2019, p. 10.
[274] SAINT
PAUL VI, Encyclical Letter Ecclesiam
Suam (6
August 1964): AAS 56 (1964), 650.
[275] Address
to the Civil Authorities,
Bethlehem, Palestine (25
May 2014): Insegnamenti II, 1 (2014),
597.
[276] Enarrationes
in Psalmos, 130, 6: PL 37, 1707.
[277] Common
Declaration of Pope Francis and Ecumenical
Patriarch Bartholomew,
Jerusalem (25
May 2014), 5: L’Osservatore Romano, 26-27
May 2014, p. 6.
[278] From
the film Pope Francis: A Man of His Word,
by Wim Wenders (2018).
[279] Post-Synodal
Apostolic Exhortation Querida
Amazonia (2
February 2020), 106.
[280] Homily,
Colombo, Sri Lanka (14
January 2015): AAS 107 (2015), 139.
[281] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 7.
[282] Address
to Civil Authorities,
Sarajevo, Bosnia-Herzegovina (6
June 2015): L’Osservatore Romano, 7 June
2015, p. 7.
[283] Address
to the International Meeting for Peace organized
by the Community of Sant’Egidio (30
September 2013): Insegnamenti I, 1
(2013), 301-302.
[284] Document
on Human Fraternity for World Peace and Living
Together,
Abu Dhabi (4 February 2019): L’Osservatore
Romano, 4-5 February 2019, p. 6.
[286] Cf.
CHARLES DE FOUCAULD, Méditation sur le Notre
Père (23 January 1897).
[287] Letter
to Henry de Castries (29 November 1901).
[288] Letter
to Madame de Bondy (7 January 1902). Saint
Paul VI used these words in praising his
commitment: Encyclical Letter Populorum
Progressio (26
March 1967): AAS 59 (1967), 263.
© Copyright - Libreria Editrice Vaticana
|