Social Moral

Summary

1 Gospel: source of the Church’s social concern

2 The social teaching of the Church

3 Permanent principles

4 Areas of application

5 Solidarity as an ethical proposal

6 Human rights as an urgent challenge

7 A rereading of the option for the poor

8 Bibliographic References

1 Gospel: source of the Church’s social concern

The Holy Scripture is the soul of theology (Dei Verbum, n.24), it is the source of inspiration for social thought. From it flow the challenges for the great themes of current social issues; justice, human rights, fraternity, and solidarity. Jesus and his message, the Kingdom of God, are the starting and ending points (Mk 1:15; Mt 5:3-12). Love (agape) is the most important concept (cf. 1Cor 13) and the golden rule of the Church’s social morality: “So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you; for this sums up the Law and the Prophets” (Mt 7:12; Lk 6:31). The Gospel must be proclaimed in the world of work, economy, politics, culture, and family. All these realities are part of human life and, therefore, are reached by the salvation brought by Christ.

The experience of Christian love becomes a commitment to love; faith seeks ethical expression. This is clearly stated in the Letter of James:

What good is it, my brothers and sisters, if someone claims to have faith but has no deeds? Can such faith save them? Suppose a brother or a sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to them, ‘Go in peace; keep warm and well fed,’ but does nothing about their physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead (Jas 2:14-17; cf. 1 Jn 4:19-21).

The experience of love becomes a call and a quest to shape a just society, where everyone is included to participate in its organization and enjoy well-being. The social forms an essential part of the human being and, therefore, with good reason, the Latin American bishops declared: “our social behavior is an integral part of our following of Christ” (Puebla, n.476).

In this regard, the parable of the Good Samaritan (Lk 10:25-37; Mt 22:34-40; Mk 12:28-31) is very enlightening. The scribe or jurist asks Jesus “who is my neighbor?”, because one must not make mistakes at this point where eternal life is at stake.

Jesus’ answer is surprising because he does not give a theoretical definition of the neighbor, does not require – in the Greek style – a universal love for humanity, but shows through the parable, the concrete act of authentic love for the neighbor. In other words, Jesus does not care to ask who he is, or his nationality or confession, but to show that anyone who needs our help is our neighbor and we are his neighbor.

From the parable, the following ethical conclusions can be drawn about Christian love:

a) The break in the prevailing concept of neighbor. The initial question of the law expert assumed an exclusive delimitation in the category of neighbor (to whom does my obligation to love extend? or who is included in the concept of neighbor?). Jesus refuses to answer this question and emphasizes that the neighbor is the one who comes to meet us in the particular and concrete moment of daily life. The Christian concept of neighbor is the result of history and not its starting point. In other words, Jesus does not define the concept of neighbor but describes the action by which the other becomes a neighbor. In our everyday language, the word “neighbor” has the general meaning of “someone nearby” or “someone,” an abstract, passive, and neutral meaning. In the parable, the concept of neighbor is related to a dynamic, engaging, and historical action. The neighbor is not just another person but someone I make relevant and significant through a concrete action.

b) The criterion of compassion. The description of the act of neighborliness is not defined by presence (the priest and the Levite were present), but by the ability to sympathize with the other’s need. Only the one who had compassion (suffered with) is identified by Jesus as someone who behaved as a neighbor. The law expert asked: who is my neighbor? And Jesus responds with another question: whom did you treat as a neighbor? In other words, the fundamental criterion of neighborliness is defined by the other’s needs. Therefore, the neighbor is not defined by mere presence but by the act of helping the other in need.

c) The practice of love. The ability to sympathize with the needs of the other makes love manifest not only through feelings and words but also – and especially – in concrete deeds. The Samaritan cared for the wounded: he approached, treated his wounds, pouring oil and wine on them, put him on his own animal, brought him to an inn, and took care of him. And Jesus’ answer was: “go and do likewise” and “do this and you will live”. Jesus was not interested in the theoretical-legalistic development of the delimitation of the concept of neighbor, but in the urgent concrete practice of love in the face of the other’s need.

d) Love without limits. True compassion leads to radical love. This radicality is shown in the Samaritan’s disinterested help to the helpless, because, beyond national and cult divisions, the other is wounded. Jesus’ life is the example of this limitless love, and he proposes it as a model of service to others through his own life.

e) The needy as the primary referent. The law expert asks about the object of love (theoretical knowledge: whom should I love?) while Jesus responds in terms of the subject of love (the practical realization of how to love). Jesus’ answer places the subject in the same position as the one suffering the need and, from that situation of abandonment, raises the question: what can I do? It is precisely the ability to have compassion that makes one sensitive to the needs of the other and leads to the practice of love. The needy become the specific measure of limitless love, an expression and verification of the love of God.

Jesus makes love for the other an altruistic question (raising the question from the other’s need) and not an egocentric observation (how can I help the other from my comfortable situation of not needing). Therefore, justice has its origin in God. Love, truth, and justice are a unity in God. “Love – caritas – is an extraordinary force, which leads people to engage with courage and generosity in the field of justice and peace” (Caritas in veritate n.1). Love takes on an operative form in justice. If, on the one hand, justice cannot be separated from charity (Populorum progressio n.22), on the other hand, it is the first path of charity: recognizing and respecting the rights of individuals and peoples! (Caritas in veritate n.6). The justice that springs from the love of God is the foundation of social justice and the option for the marginalized, defenseless, and excluded from society.

2 The social teaching of the Church

The Social Teaching of the Church (Social Doctrine of the Church) is the systematic elaboration of the Magisterium’s concern with social issues, making explicit social obligations. That is, the Christian duty to cooperate in the construction of a humane and just world (Gaudium et Spes, n.34, 43, 72; Octogesima Adveniens, n.24).

The inaugural document is the encyclical Rerum Novarum of Pope Leo XIII, published on May 15, 1891. It is the first time that a document of the Magisterium is entirely dedicated to the so-called “social question”. The Church turns to the problems that afflict the poor. Its context is that of a society deeply transformed by the Industrial Revolution: socioeconomic revolution, with the emergence and consolidation of industry; political, through the strengthening of nation-states; scientific, through the deepening of knowledge allied to technology; philosophical, founded on the thought of reason illuminated and the emergence of subjectivity. At the end of the 19th century, the Church faced capitalism and Marxist socialism.

List of main documents of the Social Doctrine of the Church (DSI) in chronological order:

Rerum Novarum (RN): Leo XIII of 1891.

Quadragesimo anno (QA): Pius XI, 1931.

Radio message A solennità: Pius XII of 1941.

Mater et Magistra (MM): John XXIII, 1961.

Pacem in Terris (PT): John XXIII, 1963.

Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes: Second Vatican Council, 1965.

Declaration Dignitatis Humanae: Second Vatican Council, 1965.

Populorum Progressio (PP): Paul VI of 1967

Octogesima adveniens (OA): Paul VI 1971.

Justice in the world: Synod of Bishops, 1971.

Sollicitudo Rei Socialis (SRS): John Paul II, 1987.

Laborem Exercens (LE): John Paul II of 1981.

Centesimus Annus (CA): John Paul II, 1991.

Caritas in veritate (CV): Benedict XVI: 2009.

Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (CSDC): Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2004.

In Latin America and the Caribbean, the documents of the Assemblies of the Latin American Episcopal Conference (CELAM) in Medellin (1968), Puebla (1979), Santo Domingo (1992), and Aparecida (2007) offer elements for social thought. They are texts characterized by prophecy, the preferential option for the poor, and the defense and promotion of human dignity. The fundamental condition of true liberation is the overcoming of all forms of slavery. The Gospel must illuminate the commitment to the liberation of each man and all men.

The Aparecida Document developed guidelines for a social agenda (n.347-546.): globalization of solidarity and justice, the commitment to the new faces of Christ (homeless, immigrants, sick, drug addicts, prisoners); commitment to the defense of the family and human life (children, youth, elderly, women); the need for a pastoral of social communication; a more effective and prophetic presence in politics; commitment of solidarity with indigenous and Afro-descendant peoples. Liberation theology also offers an invaluable contribution to the reflection and social praxis of Christians.

3 Permanent principles

Throughout the various “social encyclicals” that have emerged since Rerum Novarum until the present day – and despite the changes that have occurred during that same period – a set of ethical principles is repeated that form the essence of the social thought of the Church.

First, we find the solemn affirmation of the sacred dignity of the human being, of every man and woman. The core of biblical anthropology is the likeness of the human being to its creator (Gn 1:26-28; cf. Wis 2:23; Sir 17:3). And, as image and likeness of God, it is revealed perfectly and completely in the person of Jesus Christ, true God and true man (2 Corinthians 4:4; Col 1:15).

This dignity is the root of human rights and must be proclaimed and defended against all kinds of aggression. Therefore, only the recognition of human dignity is the condition for the possibility of a just society. In this sense, true progress is understood as an integral development from conditions “less human” to conditions “more human”; that is, authentic development is not measured only, nor primarily, by quantity but especially by quality; and this means the duty of solidarity, social justice, and universal and international charity (Mater et Magistra n.97-103; Pacem in Terris n.123; Populorum Progressio n.65; Laborem Exercens n.15; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n.44). “Christian faith is concerned with development relying only on Christ, to whom all authentic vocation to integral human development must refer” (Caritas in veritate n.18).

The requirement of the common good is one of the main keys to social ethics because its requirements are the criterion of social justice; the common good is understood as the set of social living conditions with which men and women, families, associations, and peoples can achieve their own fulfillment more fully and easily. The principle of equity – special care for the most vulnerable in society – is included in the principle of the common good, so that the good of all has a corresponding privilege (Rerum Novarum n.24, 25; Quadragesimo Anno n.110; Mater et Magistra n.65; Pacem in Terris n.53-66; Gaudium et spes n.74; Sollicitudo rei socialis n.42, 43).

The principle of subsidiarity emphasizes the dignity and responsibility of the individual and intermediate bodies, avoiding liberal individualism and totalitarian statism, because it favors state intervention for the common good, facilitating the initiative of the individual and the group as a contribution to the human community (Rerum Novarum n.26; Quadragesimo Anno n.76-80; Mater et Magistra n.51-58).

The principle of the universal destination of goods prevails over the right to property, because it is the translation of the common good in the socioeconomic field (Rerum Novarum n.16; Quadragesimo Anno n.45-50; Populorum Progressio n.23-24) “God destined the earth and all it contains for the use of all men and all peoples (Gn 1:28-29), so that the created goods must be distributed equitably to all, according to the rule of justice, inseparable from charity” (Gaudium et Spes n.69). The right to universal access to the use of goods must be equitably guaranteed for each individual (Centesimus Annus n.6). It is a serious and urgent social duty to lead them to their purpose (Populorum Progressio n.22).

The right to private property is recognized, including the means of production, but within the context of the primary principle of the universal destination of goods, since all other rights are subordinate to it (Gaudium et Spes n.71). All ownership of the means of production has a social function and must contribute to the common good.

Work occupies the essential key and the center of the social question (Laborem Exercens n.3). The human being is the subject of work so that the priority of work over capital is affirmed.

All human work proceeds immediately from the person, who as if marks with his zeal the things of nature, and subjects them to his dominion. It is with his work that man usually sustains his own life and that of his; through it, he unites and serves his brothers, can exercise genuine charity, and collaborate in the completion of divine creation (Gaudium et Spes n.67).

The issue of wages, flexibility, precariousness, and unemployment are among the main concerns of social morality. The reduction of work to a mere commodity or an anonymous force is rejected, and the responsibility of the employer is emphasized directly and indirectly over the work. It also appeals for solidarity of and with men and women at work (Quadragesimo Anno n.53; Laborem Exercens n.3, 6, 7, 8, 12, 16, 17). The fulfillment of the principle of fair remuneration is the concrete measure to fulfill social justice in the relationship between the worker and the employer.

Benedict XVI calls for the universalization of decent work:

a freely chosen job, which effectively associates workers, men and women, with the development of their community; a job that thus allows workers to be respected without any discrimination; a job that consents to meet the needs of families and give schooling to children, without forcing them to work; a job that allows workers to organize freely and make their voices heard; a job that leaves enough room to find one’s roots on a personal, family, and spiritual level; a job that ensures retired workers a decent condition (Caritas in veritate n.63).

The Church supports unions and the various struggles of the working class for their rights (Compendium n.305). Successive documents have sought to follow the evolution of union challenges that have arisen with capitalism (Rerum Novarum n.34, 39-40; Gaudium et Spes n.68). Labor organizations are “protagonists of the struggle for social justice” (Laborem Exercens n.20).

4 Areas of application

4.1 Economy

Pope Francis has a critical-prophetic view of the contemporary economy. “We live in an economy of exclusion and inequality. This economy kills!” (Evangelii Gaudium, n.53). Resuming an important theme of liberation theology, the Church condemns the idolatry of money. “We have created new idols. The worship of the golden calf (cf. Ex 32:1-35) found a new and cruel version of the fetishism of money and the dictatorship of a faceless economy with no truly human objective” (Evangelii Gaudium n.53). “In economic and social life, the dignity of the human person, its vocation, and the good of the entire society must be respected and promoted. Because man is the author, the center, and the end of all economic-social life” (Gaudium et Spes n.63).

The economy in all its extensions is a sector of human activity. The relationship between the economy and ethics is necessary, even if they are regulated, each in its field, by its own principles. In fact, for Benedict XVI, “the economy needs ethics to function properly; not just any ethics, but an ethics that is friendly to the person” (Caritas in veritate n.45). The purpose of the economy is to produce wealth and its increase is aimed at the global and supportive development of man and society. But, “the main objective of production is not only the increase in the quantity of products, nor profit or power, but the service of man; of the integral man, that is, taking into account the order of his material needs and the demands of his intellectual, moral, spiritual, and religious life” (Gaudium et Spes n.64).

Economic development “must not be entrusted solely to the discretion of a few individuals or economically stronger groups or only to the political community or some more powerful nations” (Gaudium et Spes n.65). The needs of the poor do not allow for postponement. Therefore, they must have priority over the desires of the rich. There are economic needs that are fundamental human rights (Pacem in Terris n.11). “It is not a mere increase in productivity or profit, or power, but the service of the integral man” (Gaudium et Spes n.64).

According to Benedict XVI, there are initiatives in the field of economics that indicate that “it is possible to live genuinely human relationships of friendship and camaraderie, of solidarity and reciprocity, even in the realm of economic activity” (Caritas in veritate n.36). There are some examples: ethical investment funds, microcredits (Caritas in veritate n.45 and 65), consumer cooperatives (n.66), and civil and communion economy (n.46). In fact, every company should be characterized by the ability to serve the common good of society through the production and supply of useful and necessary goods and services to people. It must create wealth for the entire society, not just for the employer (Compendium, n.344).

4.2 Politics

The human person is the foundation and goal of political coexistence (Gaudium et Spes n.25). The political community comes from the nature of people and exists to obtain the common good, which would otherwise be unattainable (Gaudium et Spes n.74). However, to help transform an unjust society, Christians must participate in politics. “Although the just order of society and the State are the central duty of politics, the Church cannot and must not remain on the sidelines in the struggle for justice” (Evangelii Gaudium n.183; Deus caritas est n.28). The biblical message inspires Christian commitment: “politics is a form of worship to God” (Puebla n.521).

In political society, the ethical values of equality and participation in a democratic structure stand out because they correspond better to the dignity and sense of responsibility of the citizen (Mater et Magistra n.83; Octogesima adveniens n.24, 26, 30-35; Pacem in Terris n.159; Sollicitudo rei socialis n.20-21).

Political authority is necessary for the tasks entrusted to it and must be a positive and irreplaceable component of civil coexistence (Pacem in Terris n.279). This authority must guarantee social harmony, without taking the place of the free activity of individuals and groups, but guiding it, respecting and protecting the independence of individual and social subjects for the realization of the common good.

The subject of political authority is the people considered, in their totality, as the holder of sovereignty. Therefore, the Church observes with sympathy the system of democracy, while ensuring the participation of citizens and guaranteeing the possibility of choosing their rulers or replacing them (Gaudium et Spes n.75). “It is a requirement of human dignity that everyone can, with full right, engage in public life” (Pacem in Terris n.73). Authentic democracy is only possible in a state of law and based on a correct conception of the human person (Centesimus Annus n.46). In this regard, political parties have the function of promoting the participation and access of all to public responsibilities and guiding society towards the common good (Gaudium et Spes n.75). Another instrument of political participation is the referendum, in which a direct form of political elections is carried out.

The Church and the political community, although both express themselves with visible organizational structures, are of a different nature, whether by their configuration or by the purpose pursued: “in their own field, the political community and the Church are independent and autonomous” (Gaudium et Spes n.76). For this reason, the Church maintains its autonomy from ideologies. Any system, according to which social relations are entirely determined by economic factors, is contrary to human nature (Catechism n.2423-2425). The liberal ideology (Liberalism, Capitalism) is rejected for its practical materialism (wrong hierarchy of values), as well as the Marxist ideology (Marxism) for its dialectical materialism (a mistaken view of reducing the human being to a result of economic relations).

4.3 Environmental issue

The moral issue contemplates nature as “an expression of a design of love and truth” (Caritas in veritate n.48). The environment was given by God to all, constituting its use a responsibility we have towards the poor, future generations, and all humanity (…). When this perspective is lacking, man ends up considering nature an untouchable taboo or, on the contrary, abuses it. Neither attitude corresponds to the Christian vision of nature, the fruit of God’s creation (Caritas in veritate n.48).

In the face of climate change, biodiversity loss, and pollution, issues related to environmental preservation must take into account energy issues. Development must be based “on the most urgent recognition of the limits of natural resources, some of which are non-renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute control, seriously compromises their availability not only for the present generation but especially for future generations” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n.34).

The international community has the duty to find institutional forms to regulate the exploitation of non-renewable resources, also with the participation of poor countries, so that they can jointly plan the future. This responsibility is global because it is not only related to energy but to all creation, as we must not leave future generations deprived of resources (Caritas in veritate n.50). In short, a real change of mentality is needed to lead us to adopt new lifestyles (Centesimus Annus n.36).

A kind of human ecology, understood in its proper sense, is required (Caritas in veritate n.51). The Aparecida document presents proposals in this regard: deepening pastoral presence among the most fragile and threatened populations by predatory development, and supporting them in their efforts to achieve an equitable distribution of land, water, and urban spaces; seeking an alternative integral and solidarity development model based on an ethics that includes responsibility for an authentic natural and human ecology, which is founded on the gospel of justice, solidarity, and the universal destination of goods (Aparecida n.474).

5 Solidarity as an ethical proposal

Social morality presents human solidarity as an inalienable requirement (Gaudium et Spes n.12-32; Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n.38-40). Solidarity is the human expression of the individual’s and society’s social responsibility towards the other and among all. Therefore, solidarity is considered a human requirement because each individual is a social being, part of a society, and the realization of the individual necessarily involves the realization of each one. To live is to coexist.

Solidarity becomes a condition of existence for all. One does not extend a hand (from above) to those below, but walks together with the other; it is not a vertical vision of society, but horizontal, in which one does not extend a paternalistic hand from one social group to another, but shakes the hand of the other in recognition of equal dignity. Therefore, solidarity does not mean giving what is left over, but is an expression of love for one’s fellow man. The other becomes a neighbor when someone approaches them.

The concept of solidarity occupies a privileged place in the Christian vision. Holy Scripture is the account of God’s solidary history with humanity and the human condition as a creature, meaning an overcoming of mere dependence through responsibility in a dialogical context between God and humanity. That is, the divine community (the mystery of the Trinity) is revealed as communion with humanity in the person of Jesus, the Christ, and invites the human being to share a common life union with the divine and with each other. The experience of divine solidarity becomes an ethical responsibility of solidarity in interpersonal relations and their structuring in institutions (Jn 13, 34-35).

Solidarity, explains John Paul II, is not a superficial feeling for the suffering of many people, near or far. On the contrary, it is the firm and persevering determination to commit oneself to the common good; that is, for the good of all and of each one, so that we are all truly responsible for all (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n.38).

This understanding of solidarity has deep biblical roots. “Then the Lord said to Cain: Where is Abel, your brother? He replied: I don’t know. Am I my brother’s keeper?” (Genesis 4:9). Cain’s answer contrasts sharply with Jesus’ statement: “Truly I tell you that whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me” (Mt 25:40). Thus, while Cain disregards his own brother, Jesus identifies himself with the weakest members of society, making himself their brother.

In a globalized society, writes Benedict XVI, the Christian sense of solidarity must be global.

Universal solidarity is for us not only a fact and a benefit but also a duty. Today, many people tend to nurture the pretense that they owe nothing to anyone but themselves. Considering themselves entitled only to rights, they often face strong obstacles to maturing a responsibility in the realm of their own and others’ integral development (Caritas in veritate n.43).

6 Human rights as an urgent challenge

The growing awareness of the fundamental rights of the human person as a juridical and political expression of the dignity of the human being has a privileged formulation in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris in 1948. This Declaration is a true cultural milestone in the history of humanity, affirming that “all human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (article 1) and that these rights belong to “everyone, without distinction of race, color, sex, language, religion, political or other opinion, national or social origin, property, birth or other status” (article 2).

This proclamation highlights the rights that correspond to the human person as such and, therefore, are logically and historically prior to the State. Thus, the State does not grant these rights but simply and necessarily has to recognize them. These rights are inalienable because they correspond to the basic conditions that allow the realization of the individual in society or a society formed by individuals and, therefore, belong to the very human nature.

In pontifical thought, the authentic development of society is based on respect and promotion of human rights. “A type of development that did not respect and promote human rights, personal and social, economic and political rights, including the rights of peoples (…) would not be truly worthy of man. Both peoples and individuals must enjoy fundamental equality” (Sollicitudo Rei Socialis n.33).

Currently, the Church understands that the defense of human rights as an expression of the inalienable dignity of each human being is an essential part of its evangelizing mission. In fact, the Latin American bishops solemnly proclaimed:

we feel urged to fulfill, by all means, what may be the original imperative of this hour of God, in our Continent: a bold profession of Christianity and an efficient promotion of human dignity and its divine foundations, precisely among those who most need it, either because they despise it or especially because, suffering this contempt, they seek – perhaps blindly – the freedom of the children of God and the advent of the new man in Jesus Christ (Puebla n.320).

The responsibility of reflecting on the human rights of the forgotten of history is crucial for this discourse to have the legitimacy of a universal ethics, otherwise, the horizon of human rights is only applicable to some in society.

7 A rereading of the option for the poor

Concern for the poor and socially exploited is one of the deepest roots of social morality. The cause of the marginalized confirms the Church’s mission and service as proof of its fidelity to Christ, to truly be the Church of the poor (Laborem Exercens n.8). Pope Francis proclaims a “poor Church for the poor” (Evangelii Gaudium n.198), because “for the Church, the option for the poor is more than a category of theology, it is cultural, sociological, political, or philosophical […] understood as a special form of primacy in the practice of Christian charity, witnessed by the whole Tradition of the Church” (Evangelii Gaudium n.199).

The particular Christian vision, which supports and illuminates human rights and duties, finds in the option for the poor its verification of radical authenticity (Liberation Theology). The purpose of the option for the poor is their personalization in society because it consists primarily of a relationship, an alliance, a throwing of one’s lot with them. This alliance with the losers of history (and also their victims) is, in a way, to lose one’s life. The poor are saved from their lack and the one who opts is freed from their alienation. What saves is the transcendence involved in the relationship: going out of oneself and respectfully reaching the other, and, in this double transcendence, the greater transcendence of letting the Spirit act, recognizing Jesus in the poor, and fulfilling the Father’s plan.

This option is no different from that for humanity, but consists precisely in the concrete way to make it effective. God, in Jesus, establishes a covenant with all humanity and, first and foremost, with the poor, because in them this humanity is not recognized, due to the lack of what the current culture considers valuable and worthy of being human. Thus, opting for those who according to this dominant human paradigm have no value, God makes it clear that his choice is for humanity and that this condition is inherent in every human being. “The poor are the privileged recipients of the Gospel” (Evangelii Gaudium n.48).

God, by recognizing them (Mt 25:31-46), shows that he is not the God of the wise or the rich or powerful, but the God of human beings. But he also proclaims that the individual does not reach the category of a human person by possessing these attributes. In other words, as the poor tend to feel non-human by internalizing the negative evaluation of the dominant culture, God, when opting for them, certifies the human condition and enables them to assume it.

The poor who accept this relationship with God do not feel excluded but recognized. This acceptance is the source of life because it allows them to face reality and relate to others in it. Resignation no longer fits, because the discovery of self-respect opens towards the other and the commitment to reality.

The one from another social group who opts for the poor enters into a relationship that means giving oneself. Giving oneself presupposes creating conditions of equality. It is the logic of the incarnation: Jesus does not cling to his divine condition but strips himself of all privileges, becoming like human beings (Phil 2:6-7). Therefore, giving oneself also includes giving what one has. That is why Jesus speaks to the one who wants to follow him to sell everything and give it to the poor (Mt 19:21). This option “is implicit in the Christological faith in that God who became poor for us, to enrich us with his poverty” (Aparecida Document: inaugural address, n.3).

Overcoming poverty, as an expression of effective respect for every human being, requires a universal subject. The core of this universal subject is the poor themselves, but others are also necessary to support and facilitate this process. Integrating the poor into society as a social subject is a necessary but not sufficient condition for overcoming poverty, as an alliance with the non-poor is also needed to opt for them. So that “there may be no poor among you” (Dt 15:4)!

This option implies a resizing of existence, personal and social, of those from other social groups who assume it. Therefore, the dynamics of the option for the poor tend to create an alternative culture. Thus, the option for the poor, which begins as a way of going out of oneself to affirm the other who is denied, which begins by living as a loss and sacrifice made in correspondence with the faith in God that grounds one’s own life, progressively becomes an opportunity not only for radical humanization but also for progress as a cultural being and even for professional appreciation.

To overcome poverty, and affirm the dignity of the poor, it is necessary to resize what exists to give a place to the poor in society. Giving place to the poor means a structural adjustment so profound that it equates to configuring a new historical figure; it means renouncing many elements of the current welfare system; renouncing, first and foremost, this frenetic consumerism and curbing the unlimited thirst for wealth and power. In fact,

as long as exclusion and inequality within society and between different peoples are not eliminated, it will be impossible to eradicate violence (…). When society – local, national, or global – leaves part of itself on the periphery, no political programs, law enforcement forces, or intelligence services can guarantee peace indefinitely. This is not only because social inequality provokes a violent reaction from those excluded from the system, but because the social and economic system is unjust at its root. (…) If every action has consequences, an evil immersed in the structures of a society always contains a potential for dissolution and death. It is the evil crystallized in unjust social structures, from which we cannot expect a better future (Evangelii Gaudium n.59).

The foundation of this vital sense is the real recognition of the other in the act of recognizing oneself (child of God and brother of all). But the positive recognition of the poor – what is done both in structural and personal relationships – provokes such a profound transformation in one’s own life, and is such a radical novelty in the current historical figure, that it cannot be realized without opening very motivating horizons: without a heart of flesh (cf. Hosea 6:6), there will never be justice, nor, consequently, will human life on earth be possible. This is what is at stake in the option for the poor. Therefore, according to Pope Francis, “no one should say that they are far from the poor because their life choices involve paying more attention to other tasks. This is a frequent excuse in academic, business, or professional circles, and even in ecclesial ones (…) no one can feel exempt from concern for the poor and social justice” (Evangelii Gaudium n.201). There will be peace in the world only when justice is done for the poor (Populorum progressio n.76). Justice and peace will embrace! (Ps 85).

Tony Mifsud Buttigieg SJ. Universidad Alberto Hurtado, Chile. Original text in Spanish.

8 Bibliographic References

It was not possible to choose just one bibliographic reference for these pontifical texts of the DSI. Thus, the list is already at the beginning of the text. They are documents of universal domain. All are available on the Internet, as well as in the various versions of publishers spread throughout the Latin American continent.

For further reading

ALBUQUERQUE, Enrique. Christian Social Morality: think and believe. Path of liberation and justice. Madrid: San Pablo, 2006.

AGUIRRE, Rafael. Kingdom of God and ethical commitment: fundamental concepts of theological ethics. Petropolis: Voices, 1999. p.61-78.

CALLEJA, José Ignacio. Samaritan Social Morality I – Fundamentals and notions of Christian economic ethics. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2006.

_______. Samaritan Social Morality II – Fundamentals and notions of Christian political ethics. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2009.

BRACKLEY, Dean. Social ethics and ethics of life according to the thought of Pope Benedict XVI. Agustiniana Magazine, v.54, n.164/165. p.369-395.

CAMACHO LARANA, Ildefonso. Social doctrine of the Church: historical approach. São Paulo: Loyola, 1995.

CASTILLO GUERRA, Jorge. Theology of migration: human mobility and theological transformations. Theologica Xaveriana, v.63, n.176, Jul/Dec 2013. p.367-401.

PONTIFICAL COUNCIL FOR JUSTICE AND PEACE. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2005.

FLECHA-ANDRÉS, José-Román. Social Morality. Salamanca: Sígueme, 2007.

GASDA, Élio. Caritas in veritate: Kingdom ethics in the face of the hegemony of capital. REB (Brazilian Ecclesiastical Magazine), v.70, n.280, Oct/2010. p.797-818.

GASDA, Élio. Work and global capitalism: relevance of the Social Doctrine of the Church. São Paulo: Paulinas, 2011.

GALINDO GARCÍA, Ángel. Socioeconomic morality. Madrid: BAC, 1996.

GONZÁLEZ, Antonio. Kingdom of God and empire: essay on social theology. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2003.

GONZÁLEZ-CARVAJAL, Luis. In defense of the humiliated and offended: human rights in the face of Christian faith. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2005.

GONZÁLEZ FABRE, Raul. The reform of the international financial and monetary system: commentary on the Justice and Peace Document. ICADE, n.90, Sep/Dec 2013. p.129-149.

IBANEZ, Franklin. Rethinking justice from ecology. Miscelánea Comillas, v.70 n.137, 2012. p.357-372.

KAMMER, Fred. Faith-Justice in action: an introduction to Catholic social thought. São Paulo: Loyola, 2009.

MANZONE, Gianni. The dignity of the human person in the social doctrine of the Church. Teocomunicação, v.40, n.3, Sep/Dec 2010. p.289-306.

MIFSUD, Antony. Discernment Morality. Volume IV. Santiago: San Pablo, 2003.

NEUTZLING, Inácio. (ed.) Common good and solidarity. For an ethics in society and politics in Brazil. São Leopoldo: Unisinos, 2003.

SOLS LUCIA, José. (ed.) Christian social thought open to the 21st century. From the encyclical Caritas in veritate. Santander: Sal Terrae, 2014.

ZAMAGNI, Stefano. For an economy of the common good. Madrid: Ciudad Nueva, 2012.