The Common Good

Summary

1 Definition

2 History

2.1 Plato

2.2 Aristotle

2.3 Cicero

2.4 Augustine

2.5 Thomas Aquinas

3 Catholic Ecclesial Magisterium

4 Catholic Theological Reflection

4.1 Social Morality

4.2 Bioethics

4.3 Ecology

5 Conclusion

6 References

1 Definition

The common good concerns the ultimate realization of individual capacities, both in relation to each individual in particular and in the group. The common good is not the sum of the goods desired and sought individually, nor what concerns each one in the quest to obtain what they desire. The common good is not even what the collective imposes in a totalizing way and does not consider or absolutely eliminates attention to each citizen and individual autonomy.

Both in the industrialized North (WARD & HIMES, 2014) and in the developing South (OROBATOR, 2010), unjust inequalities characterize the social, economic, and political context. On the contrary, the common good is closely connected to social justice and equality. Through the preferential option for the poor, the common good is at the service of seeking greater equality, through a firm and effective commitment to reduce and, hopefully, eliminate the cause of unjust inequality and to promote the common good at a global level.

In the Catholic tradition and reflection, the common good depends both on Christian faith, which cares about the good of each one, and on rational reflection on human experience, shared by everyone, regardless of cultural, religious, linguistic, social, and political differences. Thus, the common good is, at the same time, specific to the Catholic Christian tradition and characterizes human experience beyond all historical, cultural, religious, political, and social differences.

In contemporary reflection, the common good is defined in various ways[1]. Firstly, the common good is identified with general well-being, that is, the greatest good that can be achieved for the greatest number of citizens. This definition recognizes the influence of utilitarian thought. Considering the common good this way privileges a quantitative (the greatest good) and distributive (for the greatest number of citizens) approach. It is also necessary to verify whether access to the common good is guaranteed equally to all citizens or if there are citizens whose access to the common good is limited, or if they are even excluded from participating in the promotion of the common good.

Secondly, the common good is considered a public good, that is, a good for everyone, available to every member of the civil community for all or for none. For example, when a state is at peace, peace is a public good, it belongs to everyone, and everyone benefits without exclusion. On the contrary, if peace is threatened by some war, no one can benefit. This can also be said for other public goods: health, work, a healthy ecological environment, natural beauty, and nature’s fertility. Moreover, the fundamental common good and the public good par excellence concern each individual’s belonging to the human community and the certainty that they cannot be excluded from it. Finally, it is necessary to specify the responsibility to protect and promote such public goods, guaranteeing access to each one.

Thirdly, the common good can be defined as an institutional good, to indicate the social and institutional conditions necessary to promote the common good of each citizen and the entire community. This way of understanding the common good is considered by important documents of the Catholic magisterium.

In the encyclical letter Mater et Magistra (1961), Pope John XXIII stated that the common good is “the set of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (John XXIII, 1961, n.51). A few years later, the Second Vatican Council, in the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, indicated that “the common good is the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily” (VATICAN COUNCIL II, 1965a, n.26). Other documents of the Catholic magisterium have confirmed this: the declaration on religious freedom Dignitatis Humanae of the Second Vatican Council (VATICAN COUNCIL II, 1965b, n.6), the Catechism of the Catholic Church (1992, n.1006), and the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE, 2004, n.164).

Thus, the institutional common good emphasizes the importance of common goods produced in the social context, thanks to productive, economic, and financial processes (e.g., food, health services, and jobs). Furthermore, the institutional common good requires verifying how such goods are distributed, who benefits, and who is excluded.

Fourthly, the common good is relational or solidarity-based, indicating that it is a good shared among all moral agents and realized together through interactions and collaborations. The good of each one is not pursued in isolation because the good of each one is not separable from the good of all, but is interdependent. At the same time, it defines what the common good implies and requires. The common good of the entire community is realized together with mutual respect and support. Furthermore, Pope John Paul II stated that the interdependence that the common good presupposes is not contingent, not just a factual datum – we live together on planet Earth. On the contrary, it is a moral interdependence, dependent on the dignity of each one and aimed at the realization and good of all (John Paul II, 1987, n.26). Consequently, as John Paul II emphasized, the common good depends on the acts of solidarity that exist in civil society, including those who are poorest and in need (John Paul II, 1987, n.38).

2 History

The common good is a concept with a long history. In the Judeo-Christian context, the biblical commandment to love your neighbor as yourself asks that as much as possible is done to promote the good of each person – near or far, known or unknown, inclusive. This commandment of love proposes the common good, aims for its realization, and makes it possible.

2.1 Plato

In the Greek philosophical context, in Plato (428-348 BC), the common good is apparently absent, although the search for the good in itself is explicit. Seeking the good in itself, Plato identifies it as the supreme idea on which the intelligible world depends. The idea of the good is the source of knowing, having, and being, and therefore of all other ideas, as indicated in the myth of the cave (PLATO, VII, 514 b–520 a). Just as the sun illuminates and makes all concrete things visible, so the idea of the good makes other ideas intelligible. Furthermore, ideas are moral values; the supreme idea, on which the other ideas depend, is the supreme moral value of good. The good in itself allows us to define eudaimonia, that is, the ability to lead a good, happy, virtuous life.

Happiness can only be achieved in political life, so the perfect and happy community is the political community, and through laws, the realization of the polis precedes that of an individual or particular classes. Therefore, for Plato, the good is the common good. The reflection on the good life in the polis depends on the ideal polis, of which the concrete polis is only an approximation. The risk is that this may overlook the good of each one.

2.2 Aristotle

For Aristotle (384-322 BC), politics allows us to define what is good for humans. “The good is that to which all things aim” (ARISTOTLE, I, 1, 1094a, 3), and the treatise on the good is a treatise on politics (ARISTOTLE, I, 2, 1094b, 11). Consequently, the good of humans, as social, political animals (zôon politikón), is inseparable from that of the polis. It is only in the polis that the good and virtuous life of the social body is possible. Moreover, the good of the polis has supremacy over the good of the individual because the cumulative good of the community is more important than the good of each individual. However, the Greek polis is elitist. It is the union of many cities, families, and lineages, and the good of the polis concerns only those considered citizens, not women, slaves, and foreigners.

Both Plato and Aristotle situate the theme of the good in a political context. The good includes the community, all those considered citizens.

Consequently, in the ancient world, the understanding of the term “common good” did not indicate a lack, but an abundance. It was necessary to speak of the common good because it was implicit and presupposed that the good could only be common – at least for those considered citizens.

2.3 Cicero

With Marcus Tullius, Cicero (106-43 BC) brings a critical vision of the public good (res publica) because, in the ten years preceding Jesus’ birth, the Roman Empire does not have the capacity to tend to the public good, necessary to be a people. Despite this, personal and social goods are inseparable (Cicero I, 25,39). On the contrary, it would be necessary to put the general utility before one’s own. Furthermore, the existence of the res publica requires an agreement between the person and what is right, just, and about the good that is shared in common (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.122). For both Cicero and Aristotle, equality among citizens is not inanimate.

2.4 Augustine

In Augustine (354-430), the expression common good, which translators bring closer in their works, is used to translate multiple expressions in texts dealing with political questions. In particular, the common good is what the civil community loves. Consequently, the common good must be intentionally sought individually by civil authorities. For Jesuit David Hollenbach, this leads him to affirm that Augustine presupposes the possibility of a form of political life with community objectives (HOLLENBACH, 1988, p.85).

Augustine affirms, on the one hand, the need to reflect on the common good by dwelling on the earthly city and, on the other hand, invites focusing on the eternal city, recognizing God, the supreme good, as the only common good. Thus, the common good admits combining two tensions: on one hand, the possibility of living the radicality of the evangelical commandment to love one’s neighbor in social life thanks to God, supreme unconditional and gratuitous love; on the other hand, the common good allows interacting with equality, reciprocity, mutuality, and collaboration in civil society, seeking to define and promote the common good for all citizens, living in such a way the love that was received freely. Consequently, for Hollenbach, Augustine proposes a mode of presence in the civil sphere where the Christian community is differentiated from the public sphere, but without isolation or domination over it (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.121).

Augustine clearly states that no earthly city will achieve full communion with God, which will characterize the city of God, but it is already possible to have a common life of a res publica with a shared common good (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.126). In other words, Augustine’s theological vision is not an obstacle to common life. Thus, Augustine integrates Cicero’s critique by valuing the relationship founded on friendship and love, which characterize the experience of each person and which allow building the common good of society.

Furthermore, Augustine presupposes that the common good of a society must agree with what is truly just, aiming for reciprocal love and thus expressing the love of God given to each one freely and unconditionally.

The common good can be found in its absolute sense only in the heavenly city, but in a relative sense, it shapes the earthly city, similar to the structures necessary to guarantee the essential goods for living and dying well (health, food, shelter, security, education, work, culture, the possibility of living and practicing one’s religious creed, etc.). Augustine, therefore, does not share Aristotle’s assertion that the good of the polis is the greatest human good (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.124-5). Thus, the political common good is the imperfect image of eternal life. Preserving earthly peace is, therefore, part of the common good. Consequently, we can also affirm that respecting diversity and providing essential goods to all citizens are part of the common good.

In conclusion, for Augustine, the earthly common good is an image of the heavenly common good. While, on the one hand, he desacralizes politics and insists on the transcendence of the city of God, on the other hand, he protects the political sphere’s ability to become a partial and imperfect incarnation of the total human good and to pursue the goods, among which are the common goods that characterize the earthly city (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.125, 127-9).

2.5 Thomas Aquinas

In his overall work, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274) did not dedicate a complete treatise to the common good. He reflected primarily on the notion of “good” in relation to the notion of “being” and “divine goodness”; secondly, he specified the “good” morally, and thirdly, he connoted the good politically through the notion of the common good.

In the context of medieval thought, while indicating that the common good realized in the civil community is more divine than the good of each person, Thomas does not specify how to seek the common good in various circumstances, even though he applies it in specific situations (for example, killing another in self-defense; killing others in cases of war; private property). Nevertheless, the common good is the ethical criterion that guides individual and social behavior because it is the purpose of the civitas, that is, the political society. We must also understand whether the adjective “common” for Thomas includes a civitas identical to Aristotle’s polis, or if it refers to groups in positions of power within it, or if it concerns only the authority whose functions are specified (therefore, it would be more public than common good), or if it includes the entire humanity.

Thomas clarifies, defining the common good in three ways: first, the common good is the good that concerns each person, which is predicable of each one (for example, human nature is common to all); second, the common good is shared by all and belongs to all (for example, a victory by an army); third, the common good defines common utility goods, which are linked to distributive justice, that is, which concern the distribution of goods in service of the common good (for example, money, water, and medical resources). Finally, in the political community, these three meanings of common good are inseparable because each person achieves happiness (a predicatively common good) only as part of the civil order (a causally common good), which is maintained by a just distribution of common utility goods (FROELICH, 1989, p.55).

Furthermore, for Thomas, the adjective “common” can indicate what is common to many because of their nature (secundum res), like a common place where we gather, or secundum rationem, that is, which belongs to many but whose unity depends on an abstraction, like the animal genus (THOMAS AQUINAS, I, q. 13, a. 9).

The common good is not only the individual good, nor the arithmetic sum of individual and private goods. This would create divisions in society. On the contrary, the common good aims for a social order of a higher degree than what can be achieved by summing the goods of each citizen. Therefore, in Thomas, the notion of the common good depends on the conviction that the human person is intrinsically social, naturally oriented towards the good, and part of a naturally ordered universe. Finally, the principle of the common good has a supernatural component (God is the supreme common good) and a natural one (the practical requirement of social living).

As in Augustine, for Thomas too, the ultimate good of every creature, the common good in its fullest and most complete sense, is God, as it is from God that the good of all things depends. Humans are fully realized only when united with God, and thus united with each other and with creation.

Due to the tension between temporal good and ultimate good, between the citizen, the civitas, and God, political society is essentially relational and characterized by dynamic relationships between individuals, society, and God. The more these relationships are understood and lived, the more each citizen understands and lives in the political society pursuing the common good of civil society. At the same time, each of these relationships, and all together, constitute approximations of the common good, to a lesser extent of the temporal common good and, to the highest degree, of the ultimate common good. Consequently, attempting to define the common good in a non-approximate way falls into a particular good. Thomas defines three approximations.

The first approximation of the common good indicates that the human being is naturally social, political, and therefore destined to live in community, tending towards personal

and community good.

The second approximation of the common good is the well-being of the social community, that is, the political body. For Thomas, the community is not an end in itself but exists to facilitate and promote the common good, so that all citizens benefit. This requires an articulated definition of the virtue of justice, capable of distinguishing particular justice, which Thomas develops from Aristotle and Roman law (according to which one gives to each one what is due), and general justice, which concerns the common good. Political authorities have the duty to provide the people with the common good without excluding the particular good of each one. Furthermore, in the political and deliberative sphere, the virtues of compassion and prudence guide and enrich citizens’ ability to promote the common good (BUSHLACK, 2015). In light of the contributions of Popes John Paul II, Benedict XVI, and Francis, we can add charity and solidarity to Thomas Aquinas’s list of virtues.

Finally, the third approximation of the common good concerns the universal goodness of God, which, transcending the universe, nourishes, sustains, and embraces the whole and each of its parts.

In conclusion, although Thomas does not describe how to practically seek the common good of the community, he presupposes a dynamic interaction between human good, individual good, and community good, between justice concerning the individual citizen and justice concerning the entire community.

3 Catholic Ecclesial Magisterium

Catholic social doctrine asks each believer, or rather, each citizen, to act justly. In this sense, social encyclicals, some explicitly, others implicitly, turn to all people of good will to reaffirm everyone’s rights and duties and to invite working together for a more just society (CURRAN, 2002, p.40).

In recent Catholic magisterium, the privileged attention to the less fortunate, the poor, is the priority guiding moral action oriented towards the common good in light of the evangelical commandment of love. The common good allows affirming that everyone, and particularly the poorest, should have what is essential to live. Furthermore, civil society should provide the concrete needs of the most needy, even at the expense of the abundance of the richest.

Finally, together, as a community, there must be an effort to understand and change the circumstances that do not favor citizens sharing the benefits of the common good. The principle of the common good favors this transformative process in the contemporary, globalized, interdependent, and pluralistic world.

As in Thomas Aquinas, in magisterial documents, public authority is considered an important moral agent, with the specific responsibility to promote and achieve the common good. Pope Leo XIII’s encyclical letter Rerum Novarum (1891) states that this is an authoritative and paternalistic vision of the state, which does not distinguish between society and state, in which the common good of society, including the religious and moral good of all citizens, is entrusted to the rulers. All power comes from God, and rulers participate by governing not for their own good but for the good of all (Leo XIII, 1891, n.26).

For Pope Pius XI, in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (1931), public authority declares what can be considered the common good (PIUS XI, 1931, n.49).

Pope John XXIII, in the encyclical Mater et Magistra (1961), states that the state exists to organize the common good, with the responsibility of promoting social justice (JOHN XXIII, 1961, n.12 and 41).

Also in the encyclical Pacem in Terris (1963), John XXIII asks public authorities to strive to achieve the common good, promoting material and spiritual goods, creating a world community in which all citizens are equal. He also exhorts that human rights be protected and promoted (JOHN XXIII, 1963, n.35 and 40). As in Mater et Magistra, John XXIII’s Pacem in Terris broadens the perspective of all humanity belonging to the common good (JOHN XXIII, 1963, n.54).

The Gaudium et Spes (1965), the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, emerging from the Second Vatican Council, on the one hand, states that the common good is the responsibility of state authority and intermediary social bodies; on the other hand, it understands that the common good maintains a dynamic character (VATICAN COUNCIL II, 1965a, n.74). Among the intermediary bodies are considered professional organizations, unions, international bodies, families, non-profit groups, as well as economic, social, political, and cultural organizations.

Pope John Paul II, in the encyclical Centesimus Annus (1991), reiterates that the state must harmonize and direct economic development to protect the common good, as well as make supplementary interventions in the social and/or productive system, which occur in “exceptional and limited situations in time” (JOHN PAUL II, 1991, n.11 and 48). Furthermore, John Paul II states that “a social economy that directs market operations towards the common good must be built at national and international levels” (JOHN PAUL II, 1991, n.52).

Recognizing the importance of individual citizens’ participation in promoting the common good, the Catechism of the Catholic Church also accepts that it is primarily the political community’s task (1992, 1913 and 1910). The Catechism states that states must also aim for the universal common good, both in social life and in managing health and political emergencies, such as refugees and migrants (1992, 1911 and 2241). Moreover, the state is recognized as having the task of protecting the common good of civil society, citizens, and intermediary bodies (1992, n.1910).

Furthermore, citizens’ participation in political life and respect for authorities responsible for promoting the common good should not be separated from citizens’ control over these authorities to avoid possible abuses and ensure that what is demanded by political authorities is not contrary to the moral requirements of a just conscience. The common good is, therefore, presented as a criterion of discernment and validation by authority (1992, n.2242, 1903, and 1900).

Besides the intermediary bodies, the principle of subsidiarity is also a critical and transformative instance, accompanied by reflection on the common good, clarifying and qualifying it. This principle was proposed by Pius XI in the encyclical Quadragesimo Anno to protect the rights of smaller communities or groups from state interference (PIUS XI, 1931, n.81). In Mater et Magistra, reaffirming this, John XXIII reformulated this principle, indicating the state’s obligation or the world authority to intervene against injustices suffered by associations and groups within the country (JOHN XXIII, 1961, n.40).

Lisa Cahill observes that a renewed understanding of the common good can value broader and less ordered hierarchical networks, for example, composed of organizations, associations, and groups, but which can work effectively for promoting the common good (CAHILL 2004c, 2005a, p.130). For Cahill, therefore, in the face of current challenges of progressive decentralization and increased global mobility, the multiplication of networks and international institutions attest to the principle of the common good (CAHILL, 2005a, p.132).

A new understanding of the principle of subsidiarity, which emphasizes participation and equality and is also expressed in forms of social action from the grassroots, offers new possibilities. Indeed, it promotes citizens’ participation in promoting the common good, for example, delegating powers to citizens, groups, and international bodies, because it is the duty of all social agents to better define what constitutes the common good, what it requires, and how it can be achieved (CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1996, n.22 and 52; PORTUGUESE EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE, 2003, n.13).

Reflecting on subsidiarity requires acting solidly and opting preferentially for the least. In the Catholic Magisterium, the emphasis on the importance of solidarity and the preferential option for the poor gradually emerged. In the 1980s and 1990s, during John Paul II’s pontificate, from the contributions of liberation theology in Latin America, the preferential option for the poor and solidarity became guiding criteria for understanding the common good and its implementation. In particular, John Paul II stated that solidarity “is not a vague feeling of compassion or shallow distress at the misfortunes of so

many people, both near and far. On the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good: that is to say, to the good of all and of each individual, because we are all really responsible for all” (JOHN PAUL II, 1987, p.38).

For Pope Benedict XVI, in the encyclical Caritas in Veritate (2009), “to desire the common good and strive towards it is a requirement of justice and charity. To take care of the common good is to care for that complex of institutions that structure legal, civil, political, and cultural life, making it a polis” (BENEDICT XVI, 2009, n.7). Moreover, economic activity “must be directed towards the pursuit of the common good and must be cared for, above all, by the political community” (BENEDICT XVI, 2009, n.36).

Focusing on the situation of the African continent, Agbonkhianmeghe Orobator S.J., reminds us that whenever we reflect on the common good, we need to pay attention to particular contexts, such as issues related to economic development, political dynamics, and the marginal role attributed to women. In other words, promoting the universal common good must consider the specificities of particular contexts (OROBATOR, 2010). Other authors also invite reflection on other particular contexts (NEUTZLING, 2003).

Finally, Pope Francis, in his apostolic exhortation Evangelii Gaudium (2013), invites pursuing the common good with determination as a means of promoting social peace and reaffirms that “the dignity of every human person and the common good are issues that should structure all economic policies” (FRANCIS, 2013, n.203).

4 Catholic Theological Reflection

Theological reflection emphasizes that the common good is not the sum of particular goods, nor the sum of goods possessed by many citizens aimed at their personal utility, nor something to be achieved (a common inheritance), contributing the least possible and not replacing individual goods. The common good is also not the good of the majority of community members (NEBEL, 2006). The common good includes all social goods, including spiritual, moral, and material goods, that humans seek on earth according to the needs of their personal and social nature.

The common good aims at realizing a social coexistence characterized by true solidarity, which implies the willingness to serve those who, in civil society, have more needs and are less benefited. Consequently, the common good requires justice, order, peace, and social well-being. Since political authority is primarily responsible for the common good, it is the responsibility of various state authorities to protect and promote the common good of all without preference for any citizen or social groups, except for the preferential option for the poor. The goal is to favor the social promotion of those currently excluded, marginalized, or socially disadvantaged.

At the same time, we should not expect only the state to promote and achieve the common good as the goal of society. Even individual citizens, groups, and civil organizations have social responsibilities and contribute to the common good. This allows social reality to be valued in its diverse aspects and richness in the current globalized and plural context (VALADIER, 1980, p.128-9). In the political context, the common good is, therefore, a dynamic process that requires the contribution of all social agents, from the state to social organizations and individual citizens.

For this reason, in magisterial and theological Catholic reflection, the common good requires strengthening and diversifying the principle of subsidiarity, to continue and amplify the dynamism of groups and intermediary bodies at the service of the community, for the good of the community and the subjects that belong to it.

Moreover, theological reflection draws attention to what is already being implemented in civil society – for example, through social sciences (FINN, 2017) – even when it is thematized as a promotion of the common good. We are invited to recognize and identify what truly promotes the local and universal common good (MICHELINI, 2007).

Many citizens and many associations, for example, are committed to the universal good, which is the quality of life on planet Earth, seeking to protect climatic quality and preserve the ecosystem. Others promote development conditions on the planet and local and global health. Others still are building concrete projects to save and use more efficient energy resources, short, medium, or long-term, non-reproducible. Among these, we add the selflessness of those who fight non-violently for the promotion of the common good, which is peace, allowing the development of people, peoples, and humanity. It is about paying attention, recognizing (with the keen and respectful gaze of contemplation and the wisdom of the mystic), and discerning the many ways in which the commitment to the common good is already present in the contemporary historical, political, and cultural context and how much can still be done to increase this commitment to promoting the common good.

In the contemporary reality, characterized by extreme inequalities and injustices between continents, countries, and even within states, recovering the common good as general justice, as in Thomistic vision, implies favoring the poorest, those who have been and continue to be defrauded of goods, respect, rights, and freedoms, and whose human, social, and cultural progress is hindered by manifest violations in economic, political, religious, and intellectual terms, omissions, and less serious satisfactions (CHARTERINA, 2013).

4.1 Social Morality

The common good is the classic category of Christian social thought and is the goal of civil society (DIETRICH, 2003). At the same time, the emphasis on the importance of personal dignity, present in recent magisterial and theological reflection, makes the common good of humanity the goal of all human effort, both of individuals and the community (PORCAR REBOLLAR & PERMANENT COMMISSION OF THE WORKER BROTHERHOOD OF CATHOLIC ACTION, 2015).

The preferential option for the poor further characterizes the commitment to the common good. This option is specific to the social doctrine of the Catholic Church. This option is based on the Bible, is found in spiritual experience and Christian life throughout the history of Christianity, and constitutes the daily commitment of many Christians and non-Christians. It is a priority and urgent option. Furthermore, this choice includes and reinforces subsidiarity and attention to what already exists and is implemented in terms of promoting the common good. The preferential option for the poor invites sustaining, deepening, and expanding the processes of social and world transformations with appropriate educational and formative commitment.

As several authors point out, it is possible to seek and achieve the common good in a civil community characterized by solid forms of solidarity among all participants in the community – whether among individuals, groups, or institutions. Solidarity presupposes not only the involvement of multiple moral agents but also their equality (HOLLENBACH, 2002, p.189; VIDAL, 1995; MEDINA VILLAGRÁN, 2014).

Lisa Cahill adds that, as part of a comprehensive approach aimed at achieving social justice, the common good presupposes the dignity and sociality of human beings, their rights and duties, as well as the interpretation of dignity, sociality, rights, and duties in the context of the many and interconnected religious, political, cultural, and economic spheres that aim for the full realization of individuals and diverse social contexts (CAHILL, 1987, p.393).

4.2 Bioethics

In addressing the many issues that characterize bioethical reflection in the theological field, Lisa Cahill has always resorted to Catholic social morality since bioethical issues concern society as a whole. Consequently, the common good is eminently represented in all ethical resources that allow us to examine and face contemporary bioethical challenges. Cahill has shown that social justice and the pursuit of the common good that characterizes it are essential for reflecting on bioethical issues concerning the beginning of human life (from abortion to medically assisted procreation techniques), global and local health (from the AIDS pandemic to national health systems), advanced medical research (e.g., genetics), and bioethical issues related to the end of human life (CAHILL, 1987; 2000; 2001; 2004a; 2004b; 2004c; 2005a; 2005b).

Furthermore, for Cahill, the common good in the social sphere requires promoting social communication and cooperation (CAHILL, 2004a, p.8). In the current globalized context, individual and social problems caused by poverty, sexism, and racism have increased the number of people vulnerable to diseases. For this reason, in the Catholic field, bioethics should favor the commitment to promoting social justice and the

common good (CAHILL, 2004a, p.75-6).

This approach, which considers bioethical issues as social issues and emphasizes the importance of promoting the common good, is not isolated. In Great Britain, Catholic bishops have repeatedly indicated the common good as an ethical resource and goal to face both political and bioethical challenges (CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF ENGLAND AND WALES SCOTLAND AND IRELAND JOINT COMMITTEE ON BIO-ETHICAL ISSUES, 2001; CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES, 1996, n.66-68).

Many authors share this emphasis (RYAN, 2004; ARIAS, 2007; VICINI, 2011), while others state that the need to promote the common good requires solidarity (HOSSNE & LEOPOLDO E SILVA, 2013; GARRAFA & PEREIRA SOARES, 2013).

For the Brazilian Márcio Fabri dos Anjos, the common good requires a national and international legislative approach, since many biotechnology companies are multinational and because many populations, which are the object of genetic research – such as Amazonian tribes and ethnic groups in various parts of the world – are genetically studied without the necessary protection (FABRI DOS ANJOS, 2005, p.152-3).

In the health field, the common good presupposes the right to health for all citizens, regardless of income or work abilities. Furthermore, each one is called to contribute to achieving the common good in health, since health – personal, local, national, and global – depends on the diversified involvement of all, those directly involved in promoting health, doctors, nurses (CAMPOS PAVONE ZOBOLI, 2007), health technicians, administrators, politicians, legislators, and national leaders (responsible for developing the health system in each country), groups, organizations, foundations, and institutions that serve global health (e.g., Partners in Health, Doctors Without Borders, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and World Health Organization) and also each citizen.

To clarify its commitment to promoting the common good in the health sector, in December 2016, the magazine Health Progress of the Catholic Health Association – the Catholic health association that serves the 639 Catholic hospitals in the United States (CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION, 2016) – dedicated the entire issue to the common good [e.g., (NAIRN, 2016; CLARK, 2016; SPITALNIK, 2016)].

4.3 Ecology

In the encyclical Laudato Si (2015), on the care of our common home, the Earth, Pope Francis expands the understanding and use of the common good to promote justice and sustainability in the ecological context. The pope states that “the climate is a common good, belonging to all and meant for all. There is a very solid scientific consensus indicating that we are presently witnessing a disturbing warming of the climatic system” (FRANCIS, 2015, n.23). Furthermore, “integral ecology is inseparable from the notion of the common good, a principle that plays a central and unifying role in social ethics” (FRANCIS, 2015, n.156). Finally, he reaffirms all the magisterial teaching and theological reflection on the common good, stating:

The common good presupposes respect for the human person as such, with fundamental and inalienable rights ordered to their integral development. It also requires social welfare systems and the development of various intermediary groups, applying the principle of subsidiarity. Among them, the family is particularly the primary cell of society. Finally, the common good requires social peace, that is, the stability and security of a certain order, which cannot be realized without special attention to distributive justice, whose violation always raises violence. Every society – and especially the state – has the obligation to defend and promote the common good (….) Under the current conditions of the world society, where there are so many inequalities and more and more people are being deprived of fundamental human rights, the principle of the common good immediately becomes, as a logical and inevitable consequence, a call for solidarity and a preferential option for the poorest. (FRANCIS, 2015, n.157-158)

Thus, Pope Francis adds the voices of many who invite us to become aware of the urgency of protecting our planet, the common good of humanity (CASTILLA, 2015; SCHEID, 2016).

For Christians, the earth and natural resources were created by God as common goods and entrusted to humanity’s responsible use, so that everyone can benefit at a sufficient level, corresponding to each one’s needs, while respecting the dignity of each one. The commitment to the common good requires a personal and collective conversion, implies recognizing the earth as a gift from God, and requires promoting common life on earth, inhabiting it, and making it more and more the place of blessing promised for humanity and future generations (FRANCIS, 2015, n.159).

5 Conclusion

How can we define and promote the common good in contemporary multicultural and pluralistic civil societies? In contemporary societies, seeking and promoting the common good requires the participation and collaboration of all citizens and groups in the pluralistic social context. Moreover, political commitments are needed to address the many inequalities that afflict different societies worldwide. Different religions have the potential and responsibility to contribute to promoting the common good (VOLF, 2015; 2011).

Finally, the multiple meanings of the common good and the various dimensions that need to be considered to promote it presuppose that citizens strive to live virtuously. Furthermore, various political initiatives are necessary – at the level of groups, associations, institutions, nations, and international bodies – and they should be evaluated in light of the data and analyses that social and political sciences offer about the contemporary social, political, and productive situation, both at the country and global level.

The common good presupposes a great sense of responsibility. Christian hope expects humanity to promote the common good realistically and effectively.

Andrea Vicini, S.J. Boston College (USA). Original Italian. Translation Valdete Guimarães

6. References

Catechism of the Catholic Church. 1992. Available at: <https://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

ARIAS, M. D. E. Bien Comun y Dignidad Humana. Alcalá: Formación Alcalá, 2007.

ARISTOTLE. Nicomachean Ethics.

BENEDICT XVI. Caritas in Veritate. 2009. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/benedict-xvi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_ben-xvi_enc_20090629_caritas-in-veritate.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

BUSHLACK, T. J. Politics for a Pilgrim Church: A Thomistic Theory of Civic Virtue. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 2015.

CAHILL, L. S. AIDS, Justice, and the Common Good. In: KEENAN, J. F., S.J.; FULLER, J., S.J.; CAHILL, L. S.; KELLY, K., (Eds.). Catholic Ethicists on HIV/AIDS Prevention. New York: Continuum, 2000, p.282-93.

______. Bioethics and the Common Good. The Père Marquette Lecture in Theology 2004. Milwaukee: Marquette University Press, 2004a.

______. Catholic Consensus on Critical Care, Patient Welfare and the Common Good. Christian Bioethics, v. 7, n. 2, p.185-92, 2001

.

______. The Catholic Tradition: Religion, Morality, and the Common Good. Journal of Law and Religion, v. 5, n. 1, p.75-94, 1987.

______. Genetics, Theology, Common Good. In: CAHILL, L. S. (Ed.) Genetics, Theology, Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Conversation. New York: Crossroad, 2005a, p.117-36.

______. The Global Common Good in the Twenty-First Century. In: KEATING, J. (Ed.) Moral Theology: New Directions and Fundamental Issues: Festschrift for James P. Hanigan. New York: Paulist Press, 2004b, p.233-51.

______. Realigning Catholic Priorities: Bioethics and the Common Good. America, v. 191/6, n. 4661, p.11-3, 2004c.

______. Theological Bioethics: Participation, Justice, Change. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2005b.

CAMPOS PAVONE ZOBOLI, E. L. Cooperar Para el Bien Común: ¿Responsabilidad Social de la Enfermería? Bioethikos, v. 1, n. 1, p.118-23, 2007.

CASTILLA, J. C. Tragedia de los Recursos de Uso Común y Ética Ambiental Individual Responsable Frente al Calentamiento Global. Acta Bioethica, v. 21, n. 1, p. 65-71, 2015.

CATHOLIC BISHOPS CONFERENCE OF ENGLAND AND WALES. The Common Good and the Catholic Church’s Social Teaching. 1996. Available at: <https://www.catholic-ew.org.uk/Catholic-News-Media-Library/Archive-Media-Assets/Files/CBCEW-Publications/The-Common-Good-and-the-Catholic-Church-s-Social-Teaching>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

CATHOLIC BISHOPS OF ENGLAND AND WALES, SCOTLAND AND IRELAND JOINT COMMITTEE ON BIO-ETHICAL ISSUES. Catholic Social Teaching and the Allocation of Healthcare. In: FISHER, A.; GORMALLY, L. (Eds.). Healthcare Allocation: An Ethical Framework for Public Policy. London: Linacre Centre, 2001, p.145-61.

CATHOLIC HEALTH ASSOCIATION. Facts – Statistics. 2016. Available at: <https://www.chausa.org/About/about/facts-statistics>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

CHARTERINA, A. M. Cooperativismo y Economía del Bien Común. Boletín de la Asociación Internacional de Derecho Cooperativo, v. 47, p. 185-98, 2013.

CICERO, M. T. De Republica.

CLARK, M. Health Equity, Solidarity and the Common Good: Who Lives, Who Dies, Who Tells Your Story. Health Progress, v. 97, n. 6, p. 9-12, 2016.

VATICAN COUNCIL II. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World Gaudium et Spes. 1965a. Available at: <https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19651207_gaudium-et-spes_en.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

______. Declaration on Religious Freedom Dignitatis Humanae 1965b. Available at: <https://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651207_dignitatis-humanae_en.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

PORTUGUESE EPISCOPAL CONFERENCE. Solidary Responsibility for the Common Good. 2003. Available at: <https://www.conferenciaepiscopal.pt/v1/responsabilidade-solidaria-pelo-bem-comum/>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

CURRAN, C. E. Catholic Social Teaching 1891-Present: A Historical, Theological, and Ethical Analysis. Washington: Georgetown University Press, 2002.

DIETRICH, D. Catholic Social Thought and the Global Common Good: An Emerging Tradition. In: HAERS, J.; DE MEY, P. (Eds.). Theology and Conversation: Towards a Relational Theology. Leuven and Dudley: Peeters, 2003, p. 631-40.

FABRI DOS ANJOS, M. Power and Vulnerability: A Contribution of Developing Countries to the Ethical Debate on Genetics. In: CAHILL, L. S. (Ed.) Genetics, Theology, Ethics: An Interdisciplinary Conversation. New York: Crossroad, 2005, p.137-57.

FINN, D. K. (Ed.) Empirical Foundations of the Common Good: What Theology Can Learn from Social Science. New York: Oxford University Press, 2017.

FRANCIS. Evangelii Gaudium. 2013. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

______. Laudato Si’. 2015. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/francesco/en/encyclicals/documents/papa-francesco_20150524_enciclica-laudato-si.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

FROELICH, G. The Equivocal Status of Bonum Commune. The New Scholasticism, v. 63, n. 1, p.38-57, 1989.

GARRAFA, V.; PEREIRA SOARES, S. The Principle of Solidarity and Cooperation in Bioethical Perspective. Bioethikos, v. 7, n. 3, p.247-58, 2013.

JOHN PAUL II. Centesimus Annus. 1991. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_01051991_centesimus-annus.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

______. Encyclical Letter Sollicitudo Rei Socialis on the Twentieth Anniversary of the Encyclical Populorum Progressio. 1987. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_jp-ii_enc_30121987_sollicitudo-rei-socialis.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

JOHN XXIII. Mater et Magistra. 1961. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_15051961_mater.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

———. Pacem in Terris. 1963. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/john-xxiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_j-xxiii_enc_11041963_pacem.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

HOLLENBACH, D. The Common Good and Christian Ethics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002.

______. Religion, Morality, and Politics. Theological Studies, v. 49, n. 1, p.68-89, 1988.

HOSSNE, W. S.; LEOPOLDO E SILVA, F. The References of Bioethics: Solidarity. Bioethikos, v. 7, n. 2, p.150-6, 2013.

LEO XIII. Rerum Novarum. 1891. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/leo-xiii/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_l-xiii_enc_15051891_rerum-novarum.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

MEDINA VILLAGRÁN, G. Church and Public Life in David Hollenbach: An Approach to His Method in Moral Theology. Theologica Xaveriana, v. 64, n. 177, p.241-66, 2014.

MICHELINI, D. J. Common Good and Public Ethics: Scope and Limits of the Traditional Concept of Common Good. Tópicos, v. 15, p.31-54, 2007.

NAIRN, T. Health Care Decisions for the Common Good. Health Progress, v. 97, n. 6, p.4-7, 2016.

NEBEL, M. Theological Common Good: Systematic Essay. Revista Iberoamericana de Teología, v. n. 2, p.7-32, 2006.

NEUTZLING, I. (Ed.) Common Good and Solidarity: For an Ethics in Brazil’s Economy and Politics, Humanitas Collection. São Leopoldo: Unisinos, 2003.

OROBATOR, A. E. Caritas in Veritate and Africa’s Burden of (under)Development. Theological Studies, v. 71, n. 2, p.320-34, 2010.

PIUS XI. Quadragesimo Anno. 1931. Available at: <https://w2.vatican.va/content/pius-xi/en/encyclicals/documents/hf_p-xi_enc_19310515_quadragesimo-anno.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

PLATO. Republic.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. 2004. Available at: <https://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendium-dott-soc_en.html>. Accessed on: 28 Dec 2016.

PORCAR REBOLLAR, F.; PERMANENT COMMISSION OF THE WORKER BROTHERHOOD OF CATHOLIC ACTION (Eds.). The Dignity of the Person and the Common Good. Madrid: HOAC, 2015.

RYAN, M. A. Beyond a Western Bioethics? Theological Studies, v. 65, n. 1, p.158-77, 2004.

SCHEID, D. P. The Cosmic Common Good: Religious Grounds for Ecological Ethics. New York: Oxford University Press, 2016.

SPITALNIK, D. M. Disability Rights and the Common Good. Health Progress, v. 97, n. 6, p.48-53, 2016.

THOMAS AQUINAS. Summa Theologiae.

VALADIER, P. Acting in Politics: Moral Decision and Political Pluralism. Paris: Cerf, 1980.

VICINI, A. Human Genetics and Common Good. São Paulo: Loyola, São Camilo, 2011.

VIDAL, M. Solidarity: The New Frontier of Moral Theology. Studia Moralia, v. 23, n. 1, p.99-126, 1995.

VOLF, M. Flourishing: Why We Need Religion in a Globalized World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2015.

______. A Public Faith: How Followers of Christ Should Serve the Common Good. Grand Rapids: Brazos Press, 2011.

WARD, K.; HIMES, K. R. ‘Growing Apart’: The Rise of Inequality. Theological Studies, v.

75, n. 1, p.118-32, 2014.

[1] In this section, I refer to an unpublished article by Professor David Hollenbach, S.J., presented and discussed in the context of the Ethics seminar at Boston College in September 2014.