Sollicitudo Rei Socialis
(On Social Concern)

ENCYCLICAL LETTER OF THE SUPREME PONTIFF JOHN PAUL II

TO THE BISHOPS, PRIESTS, RELIGIOUS FAMILIES, SONS AND
DAUGHTERS OF THE
CHURCH AND ALL PEOPLE OF GOOD WILL FOR THE TWENTIETH
ANNIVERSARY OF
POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

Venerable Brothers and dear Sons and Daughters, Health and the Apostolic
Blessing!

1. The social concern of the Church, directed towards an authentic
development of man and society which would respect and promote all the
dimensions of the human person, has always expressed itself in the most
varied ways. In recent years, one of the special means of intervention
has been the Magisterium of the Roman Pontiffs which, beginning with the
Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII as a point of reference,[1] has
frequently dealt with the question and has sometimes made the dates of
publication of the various social documents coincide with the
anniversaries of that first document.[2]

The Popes have not failed to throw fresh light by means of those messages
upon new aspects of the social doctrine of the Church. As a result, this
doctrine, beginning with the outstanding contribution of Leo XIII and
enriched by the successive contributions of the Magisterium, has now
become an updated doctrinal "corpus". It builds up gradually, as the
Church, in the fullness of the word revealed by Christ Jesus[3] and with
the assistance of the Holy Spirit (cf. Jn 14:16, 26; 16:13-15), reads
events as they unfold in the course of history. She thus seeks to lead
people to respond, with the support also of rational reflection and of
the human sciences, to their vocation as responsible builders of earthly
society.

2. Part of this large body of social teaching is the distinguished
Encyclical "Populorum Progressio"[4] which my esteemed predecessor Paul
VI
published on 26 March 1967.

The enduring relevance of this Encyclical is easily recognized if we note
the series of commemorations which took place during 1987 in various
forms and in many parts of the ecclesiastical and civil world. For this
same purpose, the Pontifical Commission "Iustitia et Pax" sent a circular
letter to the Synods of the Oriental Catholic Churches and to the
Episcopal Conferences, asking for ideas and suggestions on the best way
to celebrate the Encyclical's anniversary, to enrich its teachings and,
if need be, to update them. At the time of the twentieth anniversary, the
same Commission organized a solemn commemoration in which I myself
took
part and gave the concluding address.[5] And now, also taking into
account the replies to the above mentioned circular letter, I consider it
appropriate, at the close of the year 1987, to devote an Encyclical to
the theme of "Populorum Progressio".

3. In this way I wish principally to achieve two objectives of no little
importance: on the one hand, to pay homage to this historic document of
Paul VI and to its teaching; on the other hand, following in the
footsteps of my esteemed predecessors in the See of Peter, to reaffirm
the continuity of the social doctrine as well as its constant renewal. In
effect, continuity and renewal are a proof of the perennial value of the
teaching of the Church.

This twofold dimension is typical of her teaching in the social sphere.
On the one hand it is constant, for it remains identical in its
fundamental inspiration, in its "principles of reflection", in its
"criteria of judgment", in its basic "directives for action",[6] and
above all in its vital link with the Gospel of the Lord. On the other
hand, it is ever new, because it is subject to the necessary and
opportune adaptations suggested by the changes in historical conditions
and by the unceasing flow of the events which are the setting of the life
of people and society.

4. I am convinced that the teachings of the Encyclical Populorum
Progressio, addressed to the people and the society of the sixties,
retain all their force as an appeal to conscience today in the last part
of the eighties, in an effort to trace the major lines of the present

world always within the context of the aim and inspiration of the
"development of peoples", which are still very far from being exhausted.
I therefore propose to extend the impact of that message by bringing it
to bear, with its possible applications, upon the present historical
moment, which is no less dramatic than that of twenty years ago.

As we well know, time maintains a constant and unchanging rhythm. Today
however we have the impression that it is passing ever more quickly,
especially by reason of the multiplication and complexity of the
phenomena in the midst of which we live. Consequently, the configuration
of the world in the course of the last twenty years, while preserving
certain fundamental constants, has undergone notable changes and
presents
some totally new aspects.

The present period of time, on the eve of the third Christian millennium,
is characterized by a widespread expectancy, rather like a new
"Advent",[7] which to some extent touches everyone. It offers an
opportunity to study the teachings of the Encyclical in greater detail
and to see their possible future developments.

The aim of the present reflection is to emphasize, through a theological
investigation of the present world, the need for a fuller and more nuance
concept of development, according to the suggestions contained in the
Encyclical. Its aim is also to indicate some ways of putting it into
effect.

5. As soon as it appeared, the document of Pope Paul VI captured the
attention of public opinion by reason of its originality. In a concrete
manner and with great clarity, it was possible to identify the
above-mentioned characteristics of continuity and renewal within the
Church's social doctrine. The intention of rediscovering numerous aspects
of this teaching, through a careful re-reading of the Encyclical, will
therefore constitute the main thread of the present reflections.

But first I wish to say a few words about the date of publication: the
year 1967. The very fact that Pope Paul VI chose to publish a social
Encyclical in that year invites us to consider the document in
relationship to the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, which had ended on
8 December 1965.

6. We should see something more in this than simple chronological
proximity. The Encyclical Populorum Progressio presents itself, in a
certain way, as a document which applies the teachings of the Council. It
not only makes continual reference to the texts of the Council,[8] but it
also flows from the same concern of the Church which inspired the whole
effort of the Council--and in a particular way the Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et Spes to coordinate and develop a number of themes of her
social teaching.

We can therefore affirm that the Encyclical Populorum Progressio is a
kind of response to the Council's appeal with which the Constitution
Gaudium et Spes begins: "The joys and the hopes, the griefs and the
anxieties of the people of this age, especially those who are poor or in
any way afflicted, these too are the joys and hopes, the griefs and
anxieties of the followers of Christ. Indeed, nothing genuinely human
fails to raise an echo in their hearts".[9] These words express the
fundamental motive inspiring the great document of the Council, which
begins by noting the situation of poverty and of under-development in
which millions of human beings live.

This poverty and underdevelopment are, under another name, the "griefs
and the anxieties" of today, of "especially those who are poor". Before
this vast panorama of pain and suffering the Council wished to suggest
horizons of joy and hope. The Encyclical of Paul VI has the same purpose,
in full fidelity to the inspiration of the Council.

7. There is also the theme of the Encyclical which, in keeping with the
great tradition of the Church's social teaching, takes up again in a
direct manner the new exposition and rich synthesis which the Council
produced, notably in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes.

With regard to the content and themes once again set forth by the
Encyclical, the following should be emphasized: the awareness of the duty
of the Church, as "an expert in humanity", "to scrutinize the signs of
the times and to interpret them in the light of the Gospel";[10] the
awareness, equally profound, of her mission of "service", a mission
distinct from the function of the State, even when she is concerned with
people's concrete situation;[11] the reference to the notorious
inequalities in the situations of those same people;[12] the confirmation
of the Council's teaching, a faithful echo of the centuries-old tradition
of the Church, regarding the "universal purpose of goods";[13] the
appreciation of the culture and the technological civilization which
contribute to human liberation,[14] without failing to recognize their
limits;[15] finally, on the specific theme of development, which is
precisely the theme of the Encyclical, the insistence on the "most
serious duty" incumbent on the more developed nations "to help the
developing countries".[16] The same idea of development proposed by the
Encyclical flows directly from the approach which the Pastoral
Constitution takes to this problem.[17]

These and other explicit references to the Pastoral Constitution lead one
to conclude that the Encyclical presents itself as an application of the
Council's teaching in social matters to the specific problem of the
development and the underdevelopment of peoples.

8. This brief analysis helps us to appreciate better the originality of
the Encyclical, which can be stated in three points.

The first is constituted by the very fact of a document, issued by the
highest authority of the Catholic Church and addressed both to the Church
herself and "to all people of good will",[18] on a matter which at first
sight is solely economic and social: the development of peoples. The term
"development" is taken from the vocabulary of the social and economic
sciences. From this point of view, the Encyclical Populorum Progressio
follows directly in the line of the Encyclical Rerum Novarum, which deals
with the "condition of the workers".[19] Considered superficially, both
themes could seem extraneous to the legitimate concern of the Church seen
as a religious institution and "development" even more so than the
"condition of the workers".

In continuity with the Encyclical of Leo XIII, it must be recognized that
the document of Paul VI possesses the merit of having emphasized the
ethical and cultural character of the problems connected with
development, and likewise the legitimacy and necessity of the Church's
intervention in this field.

In addition, the social doctrine of the Church has once more demonstrated
its character as an application of the word of God to people's lives and
the life of society, as well as to the earthly realities connected with
them, offering "principles for reflection", "criteria of judgment" and
"directives for action".[20] Here, in the document of Paul VI, one finds
these three elements with a prevalently practical orientation, that is,
directed towards moral conduct.

In consequence, when the Church concerns herself with the "development
of
peoples", she cannot be accused of going outside her own specific field
of competence and, still less, outside the mandate received from the Lord.

9. The second point of originality of Populorum Progressio is shown by
the breadth of outlook open to what is commonly called the "social
question".

In fact, the Encyclical Mater et Magistra of Pope John XXIII had already
entered into this wider outlook[21] and the Council had echoed the same
in the Constitution Gaudium et Spes.[22] However, the social teaching of
the Church had not yet reached the point of affirming with such clarity
that the social question has acquired a worldwide dimension,[23] nor had
this affirmation and the accompanying analysis yet been made into a
"directive for action", as Paul VI did in his Encyclical.

Such an explicit taking up of a position offers a great wealth of
content, which it is appropriate to point out.

In the first place a possible misunderstanding has to be eliminated.
Recognition that the "social question" has assumed a worldwide dimension
does not at all mean that it has lost its incisiveness or its national
and local importance. On the contrary, it means that the problems in
industrial enterprises or in the workers' and union movements of a
particular country or region are not to be considered as isolated cases
with no connection. On the contrary they depend more and more on the
influence of factors beyond regional boundaries and national frontiers.

Unfortunately, from the economic point of view, the developing countries
are much more numerous than the developed ones; the multitudes of
human
beings who lack the goods and services offered by development are much
more numerous than those who possess them.

We are therefore faced with a serious problem of unequal distribution of
the means of subsistence originally meant for everybody, and thus also an
unequal distribution of the benefits deriving from them. And this happens
not through the fault of the needy people, and even less through a sort
of inevitability dependent on natural conditions or circumstances as a
whole.

The Encyclical of Paul VI. in declaring that the social question has
acquired worldwide dimensions, first of all points out a moral fact, one
which has its foundation in an objective analysis of reality. In the
words of the Encyclical itself, "each one must be conscious" of this
fact,[24] precisely because it directly concerns the conscience, which is
the source of moral decisions.

In this framework, the originality of the Encyclical consists not so much
in the affirmation, historical in character, of the universality of the
social question, but rather in the moral evaluation of this reality.
Therefore political leaders, and citizens of rich countries considered as
individuals, especially if they are Christians, have the moral
obligation, according to the degree of each one's responsibility, to take
into consideration, in personal decisions and decisions of government,
this relationship of universality, this interdependence which exists
between their conduct and the poverty and underdevelopment of so many
millions of people. Pope Paul's Encyclical translates more succinctly the
moral obligation as the "duty of solidarity";[25] and this affirmation,
even though many situations have changed in the world, has the same force
and validity today as when it was written.

On the other hand, without departing from the lines of this moral vision,
the originality of the Encyclical also consists in the basic insight that
the very concept of development, if considered in the perspective of
universal interdependence, changes notably. True development cannot
consist in the simple accumulation of wealth and in the greater
availability of goods and services, if this is gained at the expense of
the development of the masses, and without due consideration for the
social, cultural and spiritual dimensions of the human being.[26]

10. As a third point, the Encyclical provides a very original
contribution to the social doctrine of the Church in its totality and to
the very concept of development. This originality is recognizable in a
phrase of the document's concluding paragraph and which can be
considered
as its summary, as well as its historic label: "Development is the new
name for peace".[27]

In fact, if the social question has acquired a worldwide dimension, this
is because the demand for justice can only be satisfied on that level. To
ignore this demand could encourage the temptation among the victims of
injustice to respond with violence, as happens at the origin of many
wars. Peoples excluded from the fair distribution of the goods originally
destined for all could ask themselves: why not respond with violence to
those who first treat us with violence? And if the situation is examined
in the light of the division of the world into ideological blocs--a
division already existing in 1967 and in the light of the subsequent
economic and political repercussions and dependencies, the danger is seen
to be much greater.

The first consideration of the striking content of the Encyclical's
historic phrase may be supplemented by a second consideration to which
the document itself alludes:[28] how can one justify the fact that huge
sums of money, which could and should be used for increasing the
development of peoples, are instead utilized for the enrichment of
individuals or groups, or assigned to the increase of stockpiles of
weapons, both in developed countries and in the developing ones, thereby
upsetting the real priorities? This is even more serious given the
difficulties which often hinder the direct transfer of capital set aside
for helping needy countries. If "development is the new name for peace",
war and military preparations are the major enemy of the integral
development of peoples.

In the light of this expression of Pope Paul VI, we are thus invited to
re-examine the concept of development. This of course is not limited to
merely satisfying material necessities through an increase of goods,
while ignoring the sufferings of the many and making the selfishness of
individuals and nations the principal motivation. As the Letter of Saint
James pointedly reminds us: "What causes wars, and what causes fightings
among you? Is it not your passions that are at war in your members? You
desire and do not have" (Js 4:1-2).

On the contrary, in a different world, ruled by concern for the common
good of all humanity, or by concern for the "spiritual and human
development of all" instead of by the quest for individual profit, peace
would be possible as the result of a "more perfect justice among
people".[29]

Also this new element of the Encyclical has a permanent and contemporary
value, in view of the modern attitude which is so sensitive to the close
link between respect for justice and the establishment of real peace.

11. In its own time the fundamental teaching of the Encyclical Populorum
Progressio received great acclaim for its novel character. The social
context in which we live today cannot be said to be completely identical
to that of twenty years ago. For this reason, I now wish to conduct a
brief review of some of the characteristics of today's world, in order to
develop the teaching of Paul VI's Encyclical, once again from the point
of view of the "development of peoples".

12. The first fact to note is that the hopes for development, at that
time so lively, today appear very far from being realized.

In this regard, the Encyclical had no illusions. Its language, grave and
at times dramatic, limited itself to stressing the seriousness of the
situation and to bringing before the conscience of all the urgent
obligation of contributing to its solution. In those years there was a
certain widespread optimism about the possibility of overcoming, without
excessive efforts, the economic backwardness of the poorer peoples, of
providing them with infrastructures and assisting them in the process of
industrialization.

In that historical context, over and above the efforts of each country,
the United Nations Organization promoted consecutively two decades of
development.[30] In fact, some measures, bilateral and multilateral, were
taken with the aim of helping many nations, some of which had already
been independent for some time, and others--the majority being States
just born from the process of decolonization. For her part, the Church
felt the duty to deepen her understanding of the problems posed by the
new situation, in the hope of supporting these efforts with her religious
and human inspiration, in order to give them a "soul" and an effective
impulse.

13. It cannot be said that these various religious, human, economic and
technical initiatives have been in vain, for they have succeeded in
achieving certain results. But in general, taking into account the
various factors, one cannot deny that the present situation of the world,
from the point of view of development, offers a rather negative
impression.

For this reason, I wish to call attention to a number of general
indicators, without excluding other specific ones. Without going into an
analysis of figures and statistics, it is sufficient to face squarely the
reality of an innumerable multitude of people--children, adults and the
elderly in other words, real and unique human persons, who are suffering
under the intolerable burden of poverty. There are many millions who are
deprived of hope due to the fact that, in many parts of the world, their
situation has noticeably worsened. Before these tragedies of total
indigence and need, in which so many of our brothers and sisters are
living, it is the Lord Jesus himself who comes to question us (cf. Mt 25:
31-46).

14. The first negative observation to make is the persistence and often
the widening of the gap between the areas of the so-called developed
North and the developing South. This geographical terminology is only
indicative, since one cannot ignore the fact that the frontiers of wealth
and poverty intersect within the societies themselves, whether developed
or developing. In fact, just as social inequalities down to the level of
poverty exist in rich countries, so, in parallel fashion, in the less
developed countries one often sees manifestations of selfishness and a
flaunting of wealth which is as disconcerting as it is scandalous.

The abundance of goods and services available in some parts of the world,
particularly in the developed North, is matched in the South by an
unacceptable delay, and it is precisely in this geopolitical area that
the major part of the human race lives.

Looking at all the various sectors--the production and distribution of
foodstuffs, hygiene, health and housing, availability of drinking water,
working conditions (especially for women), life expectancy and other
economic and social indicators the general picture is a disappointing
one, both considered in itself and in relation to the corresponding data
of the more developed countries. The word "gap" returns spontaneously to
mind.

Perhaps this is not the appropriate word for indicating the true reality,
since it could give the impression of a stationary phenomenon. This is
not the case. The pace of progress in the developed and developing
countries in recent years has differed, and this serves to widen the
distances. Thus the developing countries, especially the poorest of them,
find themselves in a situation of very serious delay.

We must also add the differences of culture and value systems between the
various population groups, differences which do not always match the
degree of economic development, but which help to create distances. These
are elements and aspects which render the social question much more
complex, precisely because this question has assumed a universal
dimension.

As we observe the various parts of the world separated by this widening
gap, and note that each of these parts seems to follow its own path with
its own achievements, we can understand the current usage which speaks
of
different worlds within our one world: the First World, the Second World,
the Third World and at times the Fourth World.[31] Such expressions, which
obviously do not claim to classify exhaustively all countries, are
significant: they are a sign of a widespread sense that the unity of the
world, that is, the unity of the human race, is seriously compromised.
Such phraseology, beyond its more or less objective value, undoubtedly
conceals a moral content, before which the Church, which is a "sacrament
or sign and instrument... of the unity of the whole human race",[32]
cannot remain indifferent.

15. However, the picture just given would be incomplete if one failed to
add to the "economic and social indices" of underdevelopment other
indices which are equally negative and indeed even more disturbing,
beginning with the cultural level. These are illiteracy, the difficulty
or impossibility of obtaining higher education, the inability to share in
the building of one's own nation, the various forms of exploitation and
of economic, social, political and even religious oppression of the
individual and his other rights, discrimination of every type, especially
the exceptionally odious form based on difference of race. If some of
these scourges are noted with regret in areas of the more developed
North, they are undoubtedly more frequent, more lasting and more
difficult to root out in the developing and less advanced countries.

It should be noted that in today's world, among other rights, the right
of economic initiative is often suppressed. Yet it is a right which is
important not only for the individual but also for the common good.
Experience shows us that the denial of this right, or its limitation in
the name of an alleged "equality" of everyone in society, diminishes, or
in practice absolutely destroys the spirit of initiative, that is to say
the creative subjectivity of the citizen. As a consequence, there arises,
not so much a true equality as a "leveling down". In the place of
creative initiative there appears passivity, dependence and submission to
the bureaucratic apparatus which, as the only "ordering" and
"decision-making" body if not also the "owner" of the entire totality of
goods and the means of production, puts everyone in a position of almost
absolute dependence, which is similar to the traditional dependence of
the worker-proletarian in capitalism. This provokes a sense of
frustration or desperation and predisposes people to opt out of national
life, impelling many to emigrate and also favoring a form of
"psychological" emigration.

Such a situation has its consequences also from the point of view of the
"rights of individual nations". In fact, it often happens that a nation
is deprived of its subjectivity, that is to say the "sovereignty" which
is its right, in its economic, political-social and in a certain way
cultural significance, since in a national community all these dimensions
of life are bound together.

It must also be restated that no social group, for example a political
party, has the right to usurp the role of sole leader, since this brings
about the destruction of the true subjectivity of society and of the
individual citizens, as happens in every form of totalitarianism. In this
situation the individual and the people become "objects", in spite of all
declarations to the contrary and verbal assurances.

We should add here that in today's world there are many other forms of
poverty. For are there not certain privations or deprivations which
deserve this name? The denial or the limitation of human rights as for
example the right to religious freedom, the right to share in the
building of society, the freedom to organize and to form unions, or to
take initiatives in economic matters--do these not impoverish the human
person as much as, if not more than, the deprivation of material goods?
And is development which does not take into account the full affirmation
of these rights really development on the human level?

In brief, modern underdevelopment is not only economic but also cultural,
political and simply human, as was indicated twenty years ago by the
Encyclical Populorum Progressio. Hence at this point we have to ask
ourselves if the sad reality of today might not be, at least in part, the
result of a too narrow idea of development, that is, a mainly economic
one.

16. It should be noted that in spite of the praiseworthy efforts made in
the last two decades by the more developed or developing nations and the
International Organizations to find a way out of the situation, or at
least to remedy some of its symptoms, the conditions have become notably
worse.

Responsibility for this deterioration is due to various causes. Notable
among them are undoubtedly grave instances of omissions on the part of
the developing nations themselves, and especially on the part of those
holding economic and political power. Nor can we pretend not to see the
responsibility of the developed nations, which have not always, at least
in due measure, felt the duty to help countries separated from the
affluent world to which they themselves belong.

Moreover, one must denounce the existence of economic, financial and
social mechanisms which, although they are manipulated by people, often
function almost automatically, thus accentuating the situation of wealth
for some and poverty for the rest. These mechanisms, which are
manoeuvred
directly or indirectly by the more developed countries, by their very
functioning favor the interests of the people manipulating them. But in
the end they suffocate or condition the economies of the less developed
countries. Later on these mechanisms will have to be subjected to a
careful analysis under the ethical-moral aspect.

Populorum Progressio already foresaw the possibility that under such
systems the wealth of the rich would increase and the poverty of the poor
would remain.[33] A proof of this forecast has been the appearance of the
so-called Fourth World.

17. However much society worldwide shows signs of fragmentation,
expressed in the conventional names First, Second, Third and even Fourth
World, their interdependence remains close. When this interdependence is
separated from its ethical requirements, it has disastrous consequences
for the weakest. Indeed, as a result of a sort of internal dynamic and
under the impulse of mechanisms which can only be called perverse, this
interdependence triggers negative effects even in the rich countries. It
is precisely within these countries that one encounters, though on a
lesser scale, the more specific manifestations of underdevelopment.

Thus it should be obvious that development either becomes shared in
common by every part of the world or it undergoes a process of regression
even in zones marked by constant progress. This tells us a great deal
about the nature of authentic development: either all the nations of the
world participate, or it will not be true development.

Among the specific signs of underdevelopment which increasingly affect
the developed countries also, there are two in particular that reveal a
tragic situation. The first is the housing crisis. During this
International Year of the Homeless proclaimed by the United Nations,
attention is focused on the millions of human beings lacking adequate
housing or with no housing at all, in order to awaken everyone's
conscience and to find a solution to this serious problem with its
negative consequences for the individual, the family and society.[34]

The lack of housing is being experienced universally and is due in large
measure to the growing phenomenon of urbanization.[35] Even the most
highly developed peoples present the sad spectacle of individuals and
families literally struggling to survive, without a roof over their heads
or with a roof so inadequate as to constitute no roof at all.

The lack of housing, an extremely serious problem in itself, should be
seen as a sign and summing-up of a whole series of shortcomings,
economic, social, cultural or simply human in nature. Given the extent of
the problem, we should need little convincing of how far we are from an
authentic development of peoples.

18. Another indicator common to the vast majority of nations is the
phenomenon of unemployment and underemployment.

Everyone recognizes the reality and growing seriousness of this problem
in the industrialized countries.[36] While it is alarming in the
developing countries, with their high rate of population growth and their
large numbers of young people, in the countries of high economic
development the sources of work seem to be shrinking, and thus the
opportunities for employment are decreasing rather than increasing.

This phenomenon too, with its series of negative consequences for
individuals and for society, ranging from humiliation to the loss of that
self-respect which every man and woman should have, prompts us to
question seriously the type of development which has been followed over
the past twenty years. Here the words of the Encyclical Laborem Exercens
are extremely appropriate: "It must be stressed that the constitutive
element in this progress and also the most adequate way to verify it in a
spirit of justice and peace, which the Church proclaims and for which she
does not cease to pray... is the continual reappraisal of man's work,
both in the aspect of its objective finality and in the aspect of the
dignity of the subject of all work, that is to say, man". On the other
hand, "we cannot fail to be struck by a disconcerting fact of immense
proportions: the fact that... there are huge numbers of people who are
unemployed... a fact that without any doubt demonstrates that both within
the individual political communities and in their relationships on the
continental and world level there is something wrong with the
organization of work and employment, precisely at the most critical and
socially most important points".[37]

This second phenomenon, like the previous one, because it is universal in
character and tends to proliferate, is a very telling negative sign of
the state and the quality of the development of peoples which we see
today.

19. A third phenomenon, likewise characteristic of the most recent
period, even though it is not met with everywhere, is without doubt
equally indicative of the interdependence between developed and less
developed countries. It is the question of the international debt,
concerning which the Pontifical Commission "Iustitia et Pax" has issued a
document.[38]

At this point one cannot ignore the close connection between a problem of
this kind the growing seriousness of which was already foreseen in
"Populorum Progressio"[39]--and the question of the development of
peoples.

The reason which prompted the developing peoples to accept the offer of
abundantly available capital was the hope of being able to invest it in
development projects. Thus the availability of capital and the fact of
accepting it as a loan can be considered a contribution to development,
something desirable and legitimate in itself, even though perhaps
imprudent and occasionally hasty.

Circumstances having changed, both within the debtor nations and in the
international financial market, the instrument chosen to make a
contribution to development has turned into a counter-productive
mechanism. This is because the debtor nations, in order to service their
debt, find themselves obliged to export the capital needed for improving
or at least maintaining their standard of living. It is also because, for
the same reason, they are unable to obtain new and equally essential
financing.

Through this mechanism, the means intended for the development of
peoples
has turned into a brake upon development instead, and indeed in some
cases has even aggravated underdevelopment.

As the recent document of the Pontifical Commission "Iustitia et Pax"
states,[40] these observations should make us reflect on the ethical
character of the interdependence of peoples. And along similar lines,
they should make us reflect on the requirements and conditions, equally
inspired by ethical principles, for cooperation in development.

20. If at this point we examine the reasons for this serious delay in the
process of development, a delay which has occurred contrary to the
indications of the Encyclical Populorum Progression, which had raised
such great hopes, our attention is especially drawn to the political
causes of today's situation.

Faced with a combination of factors which are undoubtedly complex, we
cannot hope to achieve a comprehensive analysis here. However, we
cannot
ignore a striking fact about the political picture since the Second World
War, a fact which has considerable impact on the forward movement of the
development of peoples.

I am referring to the existence of two opposing blocs, commonly known as
the East and the West. The reason for this description is not purely
political but is also, as the expression goes, geopolitical. Each of the
two blocs tends to assimilate or gather around it other countries or
groups of countries, to different degrees of adherence or participation.

The opposition is first of all political, inasmuch as each bloc
identifies itself with a system of organizing society and exercising
power which presents itself as an alternative to the other. The political
opposition, in turn, takes its origin from a deeper opposition which is
ideological in nature.

In the West there exists a system which is historically inspired by the
principles of the liberal capitalism which developed with
industrialization during the last century. In the East there exists a
system inspired by the Marxist collectivism which sprang from an
interpretation of the condition of the proletarian classes made in the
light of a particular reading of history. Each of the two ideologies, on
the basis of two very different visions of man and of his freedom and
social role, has proposed and still promotes, on the economic level,
antithetical forms of the organization of labor and of the structures of
ownership, especially with regard to the so-called means of production.
It was inevitable that by developing antagonistic systems and centers of
power, each with its own forms of propaganda and indoctrination, the
ideological opposition should evolve into a growing military opposition
and give rise to two blocs of armed forces, each suspicious and fearful
of the other's domination.

International relations, in turn, could not fail to feel the effects of
this "logic of blocs" and of the respective " spheres of influence". The
tension between the two blocs which began at the end of the Second World
War has dominated the whole of the subsequent forty years. Sometimes it
has taken the form of "cold war" sometimes of "wars by proxy", through
the manipulation of local conflicts, and sometimes it has kept people's
minds in suspense and anguish by the threat of an open and total war.

Although at the present time this danger seems to have receded, yet
without completely disappearing, and even though an initial agreement has
been reached on the destruction of one type of nuclear weapon, the
existence and opposition of the blocs continue to be a real and worrying
fact which still colors the world picture.

21. This happens with particularly negative effects in the international
relations which concern the developing countries. For as we know the
tension between East and West is not in itself an opposition between two
different levels of development but rather between two concepts of the
development of individuals and peoples, both concepts being imperfect and
in need of radical correction. This opposition is transferred to the
developing countries themselves, and thus helps to widen the gap already
existing on the economic level between North and South and which results
from the distance between the two worlds: the more developed one and the
less developed one.

This is one of the reasons why the Church's social doctrine adopts a
critical attitude towards both liberal capitalism and Marxist
collectivism. For from the point of view of development the question
naturally arises: in what way and to what extent are these two systems
capable of changes and updatings such as to favor or promote a true and
integral development of individuals and peoples in modern society? In
fact, these changes and updatings are urgent and essential for the cause
of a development common to all.

Countries which have recently achieved independence, and which are trying
to establish a cultural and political identity of their own, and need
effective and impartial aid from all the richer and more developed
countries, find themselves involved in, and sometimes overwhelmed by,
ideological conflicts, which inevitably create internal divisions, to the
extent in some cases of provoking full civil war. This is also because
investments and aid for development are often diverted from their proper
purpose and used to sustain conflicts, apart from and in opposition to
the interests of the countries which ought to benefit from them. Many of
these countries are becoming more and more aware of the danger of falling
victim to a form of neo-colonialism and are trying to escape from it. It
is this awareness which in spite of difficulties, uncertainties and at
times contradictions gave rise to the International Movement of
Non-Aligned Nations, which, in its positive aspect, would like to affirm
in an effective way the right of every people to its own identity,
independence and security, as well as the right to share, on a basis of
equality and solidarity, in the goods intended for all.

22. In the light of these considerations, we easily arrive at a clearer
picture of the last twenty years and a better understanding of the
conflicts in the northern hemisphere, namely between East and West, as an
important cause of the retardation or stagnation of the South.

The developing countries, instead of becoming autonomous nations
concerned with their own progress towards a just sharing in the goods and
services meant for all, become parts of a machine, cogs on a gigantic
wheel. This is often true also in the field of social communications,
which, being run by centers mostly in the northern hemisphere, do not
always give due consideration to the priorities and problems of such
countries or respect their cultural make-up. They frequently impose a
distorted vision of life and of man, and thus fail to respond to the
demands of true development.

Each of the two blocs harbors in its own way a tendency towards
imperialism, as it is usually called, or towards forms of
neo-colonialism: an easy temptation to which they frequently succumb, as
history, including recent history, teaches.

It is this abnormal situation, the result of a war and of an unacceptably
exaggerated concern for security, which deadens the impulse towards
united cooperation by all for the common good of the human race, to the
detriment especially of peaceful peoples who are impeded from their
rightful access to the goods meant for all.

Seen in this way, the present division of the world is a direct obstacle
to the real transformation of the conditions of underdevelopment in the
developing and less advanced countries. However, peoples do not always
resign themselves to their fate. Furthermore, the very needs of an
economy stifled by military expenditure and by bureaucracy and intrinsic
inefficiency now seem to favor processes which might mitigate the
existing opposition and make it easier to begin a fruitful dialogue and
genuine collaboration for peace.

23. The statement in the Encyclical Populorum Progressio that the
resources and investments devoted to arms production ought to be used to
alleviate the misery of impoverished peoples[41] makes more urgent the
appeal to overcome the opposition between the two blocs.

Today, the reality is that these resources are used to enable each of the
two blocs to overtake the other and thus guarantee its own security.
Nations which historically, economically and politically have the
possibility of playing a leadership role are prevented by this
fundamentally flawed distortion from adequately fulfilling their duty of
solidarity for the benefit of peoples which aspire to full development.

It is timely to mention and it is no exaggeration that a leadership role
among nations can only be justified by the possibility and willingness to
contribute widely and generously to the common good.

If a nation were to succumb more or less deliberately to the temptation
to close in upon itself and failed to meet the responsibilities following
from its superior position in the community of nations, it would fall
seriously short of its clear ethical duty. This is readily apparent in
the circumstances of history, where believers discern the dispositions of
Divine Providence, ready to make use of the nations for the realization
of its plans, so as to render "vain the designs of the peoples" (cf. Ps
33 /32: 10 ).

When the West gives the impression of abandoning itself to forms of
growing and selfish isolation, and the East in its turn seems to ignore
for questionable reasons its duty to cooperate in the task of alleviating
human misery, then we are up against not only a betrayal of humanity's
legitimate expectations a betrayal that is a harbinger of unforeseeable
consequences but also a real desertion of a moral obligation.

24. If arms production is a serious disorder in the present world with
regard to true human needs and the employment of the means capable of
satisfying those needs, the arms trade is equally to blame. Indeed, with
reference to the latter it must be added that the moral judgment is even
more severe. As we all know, this is a trade without frontiers, capable
of crossing even the barriers of the blocs. It knows how to overcome the
division between East and West, and above all the one between North and
South, to the point--and this is more serious of pushing its way into the
different sections which make up the southern hemisphere. We are thus
confronted with a strange phenomenon: while economic aid and
development
plans meet with the obstacle of insuperable ideological barriers, and
with tariff and trade barriers, arms of whatever origin circulate with
almost total freedom all over the world. And as the recent document of
the Pontifical Commission "Iustitia et Pax" on the international debt
points out,[42] everyone knows that in certain cases the capital lent by
the developed world has been used in the underdeveloped world to buy
weapons.

If to all this we add the tremendous and universally acknowledged danger
represented by atomic weapons stockpiled on an incredible scale, the
logical conclusion seems to be this: in today's world, including the
world of economics, the prevailing picture is one destined to lead us
more quickly towards death rather than one of concern for true
development which would lead all towards a "more human" life, as
envisaged by the Encyclical "Populorum Progressio."[43]

The consequences of this state of affairs are to be seen in the festering
of a wound which typifies and reveals the imbalances and conflicts of the
modern world: the millions of refugees whom war, natural calamities,
persecution and discrimination of every kind have deprived of home,
employment, family and homeland. The tragedy of these multitudes is
reflected in the hopeless faces of men, women and children who can no
longer find a home in a divided and inhospitable world.

Nor may we close our eyes to another painful wound in today's world: the
phenomenon of terrorism, understood as the intention to kill people and
destroy property indiscriminately, and to create a climate of terror and
insecurity, often including the taking of hostages. Even when some
ideology or the desire to create a better society is adduced as the
motivation for this inhuman behavior, acts of terrorism are never
justifiable. Even less so when, as happens today, such decisions and such
actions, which at times lead to real massacres and to the abduction of
innocent people who have nothing to do with the conflicts, claim to have
a propaganda purpose for furthering a cause. It is still worse when they
are an end in themselves, so that murder is committed merely for the sake
of killing. In the face of such horror and suffering, the words I spoke
some years ago are still true, and I wish to repeat them again: "What
Christianity forbids is to seek solutions... by the ways of hatred, by
the murdering of defenseless people, by the methods of terrorism".[44]

25. At this point something must be said about the demographic problem
and the way it is spoken of today, following what Paul VI said in his
Encyclical[45] and what I myself stated at length in the Apostolic
Exhortation "Familiaris Consortia."[46]

One cannot deny the existence, especially in the southern hemisphere, of
a demographic problem which creates difficulties for development. One
must immediately add that in the northern hemisphere the nature of this
problem is reversed: here, the cause for concern is the drop in the
birthrate, with repercussions on the aging of the population, unable even
to renew itself biologically. In itself, this is a phenomenon capable of
hindering development. Just as it is incorrect to say that such
difficulties stem solely from demographic growth, neither is it proved
that all demographic growth is incompatible with orderly development.

On the other hand, it is very alarming to see governments in many
countries launching systematic campaigns against birth, contrary not only
to the cultural and religious identity of the countries themselves but
also contrary to the nature of true development. It often happens that
these campaigns are the result of pressure and financing coming from
abroad, and in some cases they are made a condition for the granting of
financial and economic aid and assistance. In any event, there is an
absolute lack of respect for the freedom of choice of the parties
involved, men and women often subjected to intolerable pressures,
including economic ones, in order to force them to submit to this new
form of oppression. It is the poorest populations which suffer such
mistreatment, and this sometimes leads to a tendency towards a form of
racism, or the promotion of certain equally racist forms of eugenics.

This fact too, which deserves the most forceful condemnation, is a sign
of an erroneous and perverse idea of true human development.

26. This mainly negative overview of the actual situation of development
in the contemporary world would be incomplete without a mention of the
coexistence of positive aspects.

The first positive note is the full awareness among large numbers of men
and women of their own dignity and of that of every human being. This
awareness is expressed, for example, in the more lively concern that
human rights should be respected, and in the more vigorous rejection of
their violation. One sign of this is the number of recently established
private associations, some worldwide in membership, almost all of them
devoted to monitoring with great care and commendable objectivity what is
happening internationally in this sensitive field.

At this level one must acknowledge the influence exercised by the
Declaration of Human Rights, promulgated some forty years ago by the
United Nations Organization. Its very existence and gradual acceptance by
the international community are signs of a growing awareness. The same is
to be said, still in the field of human rights, of other juridical
instruments issued by the United Nations Organization or other
International Organizations.[47]

The awareness under discussion applies not only to individuals but also
to nations and peoples, which, as entities having a specific cultural
identity, are particularly sensitive to the preservation, free exercise
and promotion of their precious heritage.

At the same time, in a world divided and beset by every type of conflict,
the conviction is growing of a radical interdependence and consequently
of the need for a solidarity which will take up interdependence and
transfer it to the moral plane. Today perhaps more than in the past,
people are realizing that they are linked together by a common destiny,
which is to be constructed together, if catastrophe for all is to be
avoided. From the depth of anguish, fear and escapist phenomena like
drugs, typical of the contemporary world, the idea is slowly emerging
that the good to which we are all called and the happiness to which we
aspire cannot be obtained without an effort and commitment on the part of
all, nobody excluded, and the consequent renouncing of personal
selfishness.

Also to be mentioned here, as a sign of respect for life despite all the
temptations to destroy it by abortion and euthanasia is a concomitant
concern for peace, together with an awareness that peace is indivisible.
It is either for all or for none. It demands an ever greater degree of
rigorous respect for justice and consequently a fair distribution of the
results of true development.[48]

Among today's positive signs we must also mention a greater realization
of the limits of available resources, find of the need to respect the
integrity and the cycles of nature and to take them into account when
planning for development, rather than sacrificing them to certain
demagogic ideas about the latter. Today this is called ecological concern.

It is also right to acknowledge the generous commitment of statesmen,
politicians, economists, trade unionists, people of science and
international officials many of them inspired by religious faith who at
no small personal sacrifice try to resolve the world's ills and who give
of themselves in every way so as to ensure that an ever increasing number
of people may enjoy the benefits of peace and a quality of life worthy of
the name.

The great International Organizations and a number of the Regional
Organizations, contribute to this in no small measure. Their united
efforts make possible more effective action.

It is also through these contributions that some Third World countries,
despite the burden of many negative factors, have succeeded in reaching a
certain self-sufficiency in food, or a degree of industrialization which
makes it possible to survive with dignity and to guarantee sources of
employment for the active population.

Thus, all is not negative in the contemporary world, nor could it be, for
the Heavenly Father's Providence lovingly watches over even our daily
cares (cf. Mt 6: 25-32; 10: 23-31; Lk 12: 6-7; 22-30). Indeed, the
positive values which we have mentioned testify to a new moral concern,
particularly with respect to the great human problems such as development
and peace.

This fact prompts me to turn my thoughts to the true nature of the
development of peoples, along the lines of the Encyclical which we are
commemorating, and as a mark of respect for its teaching.

27. The examination which the Encyclical invites us to make of the
contemporary world leads us to note in the first place that development
is not a straightforward process, as it were automatic and in itself
limitless, as though, given certain conditions, the human race were able
to progress rapidly towards an undefined perfection of some kind.[49]

Such an idea linked to a notion of "progress" with philosophical
connotations deriving from the Enlightenment, rather than to the notion
of "development"[50] which is used in a specifically economic and social
sense now seems to be seriously called into doubt, particularly since the
tragic experience of the two world wars, the planned and partly achieved

destruction of whole peoples, and the looming atomic peril. A naive
mechanistic optimism has been replaced by a well-founded anxiety for the
fate of humanity.

28. At the same time, however, the "economic" concept itself, linked to
the word development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a better
understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and services,
even for the benefit of the majority, is not enough for the realization
of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the availability of the
many real benefits provided in recent times by science and technology,
including the computer sciences, bring freedom from every form of
slavery. On the contrary, the experience of recent years shows that
unless all the considerable body of resources and potential at man's
disposal is guided by a moral understanding and by an orientation towards
the true good of the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress
him.

A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve to
enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelopment,
themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form of
superdevelopment, equally inadmissible, because like the former it is
contrary to what is good and to true happiness. This superdevelopment,
which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of material
goods for the. benefit of certain social groups, easily makes people
slaves of "possession" and of immediate gratification, with no other
horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement of the things
already owned with others still better. This is the so-called
civilization of "consumption" or "consumerism", which involves so much
"throwing-away" and "waste". An object already owned but now superseded
by something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible lasting
value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.

All of us experience firsthand the sad effects of this blind submission
to pure consumerism: in the first place a crass materialism, and at the
same time a radical dissatisfaction, because one quickly learns unless
one is shielded from the flood of publicity and the ceaseless and
tempting offers of products that the more one possesses the more one
wants, while deeper aspirations remain unsatisfied and perhaps even
stifled.

The Encyclical of Pope Paul VI pointed out the difference, so often
emphasized today, between "having" and "being",[51] which had been
expressed earlier in precise words by the Second Vatican Council.[52] To
"have" objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human subject,
unless it contributes to the maturing and enrichment of that subject's
"being", that is to say unless it contributes to the realization of the
human vocation as such.

Of course, the difference between "being" and "having", the danger
inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things possessed
compared to the value of "being", need not turn into a contradiction. One
of the greatest injustices in the contemporary world consists precisely
in this: that the ones who possess much are relatively few and those who
possess almost nothing are many. It is the injustice of the poor
distribution of the goods and services originally intended for all.

This then is the picture: there are some people the few who possess much
who do not really succeed in "being" because, through a reversal of the
hierarchy of values, they are hindered by the cult of "having"; and there
are others the many who have little or nothing--who do not succeed in

realizing their basic human vocation because they are deprived of
essential goods.

The evil does not consist in "having" as such, but in possessing without
regard for the quality and the ordered hierarchy of the goods one has.
Quality and hierarchy arise from the subordination of goods and their
availability to man's "being" and his true vocation.

This shows that although development has a necessary economic
dimension,
since it must supply the greatest possible number of the world's
inhabitants with an availability of goods essential for them "to be", it
is not limited to that dimension. If it is limited to this, then it turns
against those whom it is meant to benefit.

The characteristics of full development, one which is "more human" and
able to sustain itself at the level of the true vocation of men and women
without denying economic requirements, were described by Paul VI.[53]

29. Development which is not only economic must be measured and
oriented
according to the reality and vocation of man seen in his totality,
namely, according to his interior dimension. There is no doubt that he
needs created goods and the products of industry, which is constantly
being enriched by scientific and technological progress. And the ever
greater availability of material goods not only meets needs but also
opens new horizons. The danger of the misuse of material goods and the
appearance of artificial needs should in no way hinder the regard we have
for the new goods and resources placed at our disposal and the use we
make of them. On the contrary, we must see them as a gift from God and as
a response to the human vocation, which is fully realized in Christ.

However, in trying to achieve true development we must never lose sight
of that dimension which is in the specific nature of man, who has been
created by God in his image and likeness (cf. Gen 1:26). It is a bodily
and a spiritual nature, symbolized in the second creation account by the
two elements: the earth, from which God forms man's body, and the breath
of life which he breathes into man's nostrils (cf. Gen 2:7).

Thus man comes to have a certain affinity with other creatures: he is
called to use them, and to be involved with them. As the Genesis account
says (cf. Gen 2:15), he is placed in the garden with the duty of
cultivating and watching over it, being superior to the other creatures
placed by God under his dominion (cf. Gen 1:2526). But at the same time
man must remain subject to the will of God, who imposes limits upon his
use and dominion over things (cf. Gen 2:16-17), just as he promises him
immortality (cf. Gen 2:9; Wis 2:23). Thus man, being the image of God,
has a true affinity with him too.

On the basis of this teaching, development cannot consist only in the
use, dominion over and indiscriminate possession of created things and
the products of human industry, but rather in subordinating the
possession, dominion and use to man's divine likeness and to his vocation
to immortality. This is the transcendent reality of the human being, a
reality which is seen to be shared from the beginning by a couple, a man
and a woman (cf. Gen 1: 27), and is therefore fundamentally social.

30. According to Sacred Scripture therefore, the notion of development is
not only "lay" or "profane", but is also seen to be, while having a
socioeconomic dimension of its own, the modern expression of an essential
dimension of man's vocation.

The fact is that man was not created, so to speak, immobile and static.
The first portrayal of him, as given in the Bible, certainly presents him
as a creature and image, defined in his deepest reality by the origin and
affinity that constitute him. But all this plants within the human being
man and woman the seed and the requirement of a special task to be
accomplished by each individually and by them as a couple. The task is
"to have dominion" over the other created beings, "to cultivate the
garden". This is to be accomplished within the framework of obedience to
the divine law and therefore with respect for the image received, the
image which is the clear foundation of the power of dominion recognized
as belonging to man as the means to his perfection (cf. Gen 1:26-30;
2:15-16; Wis 9:2-3).

When man disobeys God and refuses to submit to his rule, nature rebels
against him and no longer recognizes him as its "master", for he has
tarnished the divine image in himself. The claim to ownership and use of
created things remains still valid, but after sin its exercise becomes
difficult and full of suffering (cf. Gen 3: 17-19).

In fact, the following chapter of Genesis shows us that the descendants
of Cain build "a city", engage in sheep farming, practice the arts
(music) and technical skills (metallurgy); while at the same time people
began to "call upon the name of the Lord" (cf. Gen 4:17-26).

The story of the human race described by Sacred Scripture is, even after
the fall into sin, a story of constant achievements, which, although
always called into question and threatened by sin, are nonetheless
repeated, increased and extended in response to the divine vocation given
from the beginning to man and to woman (cf. Gen 1: 26-28) and inscribed
in the image which they received.

It is logical to conclude, at least on the part of those who believe in
the word of God, that today's "development" is to be seen as a moment in
the story which began at creation, a story which is constantly endangered
by reason of infidelity to the Creator's will, and especially by the
temptation to idolatry. But this "development" fundamentally corresponds
to the first premises. Anyone wishing to renounce the difficult yet noble
task of improving the lot of man in his totality, and of all people, with
the excuse that the struggle is difficult and that constant effort is
required, or simply because of the experience of defeat and the need to
begin again, that person would be betraying the will of God the Creator.
In this regard, in the Encyclical Laborem Exercens I referred to man's
vocation to work, in order to emphasize the idea that it is always man
who is the protagonist of development.[54]

Indeed, the Lord Jesus himself, in the parable of the talents, emphasizes
the severe treatment given to the man who dared to hide the gift
received: "You wicked and slothful servant! You knew that I reap where I
have not sowed and gather where I have not winnowed? ... So take the
talent from him, and give it to him who has the ten talents" (Mt 25:
26-28). It falls to us, who receive the gifts of God in order to make
them fruitful, to "sow" and "reap". If we do not, even what we have will
be taken away from us.

A deeper study of these harsh words will make us commit ourselves more
resolutely to the duty, which is urgent for everyone today, to work
together for the full development of others: "development of the whole
human being and of all people".[55]

31. Faith in Christ the Redeemer, while it illuminates from within the
nature of development, also guides us in the task of collaboration. In
the Letter of Saint Paul to the Colossians, we read that Christ is "the
firstborn of all creation", and that "all things were created through
him" and for him (1:15-16). In fact, "all things hold together in him",
since "in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through
him to reconcile to himself all things (v. 20).

A part of this divine plan, which begins from eternity in Christ, the
perfect "image" of the Father, and which culminates in him, "the
firstborn from the dead" (v. 18), is our own history, marked by our
personal and collective effort to raise up the human condition and to
overcome the obstacles which are continually arising along our way. It
thus prepares us to share in the fullness which "dwells in the Lord" and
which he communicates "to his body, which is the Church" (v. 18; cf. Eph
1:22-23). At the same time sin, which is always attempting to trap us and
which jeopardizes our human achievements, is conquered and redeemed by
the "reconciliation" accomplished by Christ (cf. Col. 1: 20).

Here the perspectives widen. The dream of "unlimited progress" reappears,
radically transformed by the new outlook created by Christian faith,
assuring us that progress is possible only because God the Father has
decided from the beginning to make man a sharer of his glory in Jesus
Christ risen from the dead, in whom "we have redemption through his
blood... the forgiveness of our trespasses" (Eph 1: 7). In him God wished
to conquer sin and make it serve our greater good,[56] which infinitely
surpasses what progress could achieve.

We can say therefore as we struggle amidst the obscurities and
deficiencies of underdevelopment and superdevelopment that one day this
corruptible body will put on incorruptibility, this mortal body
immortality (cf. 1 Cor 15:54), when the Lord "delivers the Kingdom to God
the Father" (v. 24) and all the works and actions that are worthy of man
will be redeemed.

Furthermore, the concept of faith makes quite clear the reasons which
impel the Church to concern herself with the problems of development, to
consider them a duty of her pastoral ministry, and to urge all to think
about the nature and characteristics of authentic human development.
Through her commitment she desires, on the one hand, to place herself at
the service of the divine plan which is meant to order all things to the
fullness which dwells in Christ (cf. Col 1:19) and which he communicated
to his body; and on the other hand she desires to respond to her
fundamental vocation of being a "sacrament", that is to say "a sign and
instrument of intimate union with God and of the unity of the whole human
race".[57]

Some Fathers of the Church were inspired by this idea to develop in
original ways a concept of the meaning of history and of human work,
directed towards a goal which surpasses this meaning and which is always
defined by its relationship to the work of Christ. In other words, one
can find in the teaching of the Fathers an optimistic vision of history
and work, that is to say of the perennial value of authentic human
achievements, inasmuch as they are redeemed by Christ and destined for
the promised Kingdom.[58]

Thus, part of the teaching and most ancient practice of the Church is her
conviction that she is obliged by her vocation she herself, her ministers
and each of her members to relieve the misery of the suffering, both far
and near, not only out of her "abundance" but also out of her
"necessities". Faced by cases of need, one cannot ignore them in favor of
superfluous church ornaments and costly furnishings for divine worship;
on the contrary it could be obligatory to sell these goods in order to
provide food, drink, clothing and shelter for those who lack these
things.[59] As has been already noted, here we are shown a "hierarchy of
values"--in the framework of the right to property between "having" and
"being", especially when the "having" of a few can be to the detriment of
the "being" of many others.

In his Encyclical Pope Paul VI stands in the line of this teaching,
taking his inspiration from the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et
Spes.[60] For my own part, I wish to insist once more on the seriousness
and urgency of that teaching, and I ask the Lord to give all Christians
the strength to put it faithfully into practice.

32. The obligation to commit oneself to the development of peoples is not
just an individual duty, and still less an individualistic one, as if it
were possible to achieve this development through the isolated efforts of
each individual. It is an imperative which obliges each and every man and
woman, as well as societies and nations. In particular, it obliges the
Catholic Church and the other Churches and Ecclesial Communities, with
which we are completely willing to collaborate in this field. In this
sense, just as we Catholics invite our Christian brethren to share in our
initiatives, so too we declare that we are ready to collaborate in
theirs, and we welcome the invitations presented to us. In this pursuit
of integral human development we can also do much with the members of
other religions, as in fact is being done in various places.

Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of every human
being is in fact a duty of all towards all, and must be shared by the
four parts of the world: East and West, North and South; or, as we say
today, by the different "worlds". If, on the contrary, people try to
achieve it in only one part, or in only one world, they do so at the
expense of the others; and, precisely because the others are ignored,
their own development becomes exaggerated and misdirected.

Peoples or nations too have a right to their own full development, which
while including as already said the economic and social aspects should
also include individual cultural identity and openness to the
transcendent. Not even the need for development can be used as an
excuse
for imposing on others one's own way of life or own religious belief.

33. Nor would a type of development which did not respect and promote
human rights personal and social, economic and political, including the
rights of nations and of peoples be really worthy of man.

Today, perhaps more than in the past, the intrinsic contradiction of a
development limited only to its economic element is seen more clearly.
Such development easily subjects the human person and his deepest needs
to the demands of economic planning and selfish profit.

The intrinsic connection between authentic development and respect for
human rights once again reveals the moral character of development: the
true elevation of man, in conformity with the natural and historical
vocation of each individual, is not attained only by exploiting the
abundance of goods and services, or by having available perfect
infrastructures.

When individuals and communities do not see a rigorous respect for the
moral, cultural and spiritual requirements, based on the dignity of the
person and on the proper identity of each community, beginning with the
family and religious societies, then all the rest availability of goods,
abundance of technical resources applied to daily life, a certain level
of material well-being will prove unsatisfying and in the end
contemptible. The Lord clearly says this in the Gospel, when he calls the
attention of all to the true hierarchy of values: "For what will it
profit a man, if he gains the whole world and forfeits his life?" (Mt
16:26).

True development, in keeping with the specific needs of the human being
man or woman, child, adult or old person implies, especially for those
who actively share in this process and are responsible for it, a lively
awareness of the value of the rights of all and of each person. It
likewise implies a lively awareness of the need to respect the right of
every individual to the full use of the benefits offered by science and
technology.

On the internal level of every nation, respect for all rights takes on
great importance, especially: the right to life at every stage of its
existence; the rights of the family, as the basic social community, or
"cell of society"; justice in employment relationships; the rights
inherent in the life of the political community as such; the rights based
on the transcendent vocation of the human being, beginning with the right
of freedom to profess and practice one's own religious belief.

On the international level, that is, the level of relations between
States or, in present-day usage, between the different "worlds", there
must be complete respect for the identity of each people, with its own
historical and cultural characteristics. It is likewise essential, as the
Encyclical Populorum Progressio already asked, to recognize each people's
equal right "to be seated at the table of the common banquet",[61]
instead of lying outside the door like Lazarus, while "the dogs come and
lick his sores" (cf. Lk 16:21). Both peoples and individuals must enjoy
the fundamental equality[62] which is the basis, for example, of the
Charter of the United Nations Organization: the equality which is the
basis of the right of all to share in the process of full development.

In order to be genuine, development must be achieved within the framework
of solidarity and freedom, without ever sacrificing either of them under
whatever pretext. The moral character of development and its necessary
promotion are emphasized when the most rigorous respect is given to all
the demands deriving from the order of truth and good proper to the human
person. Furthermore the Christian who is taught to see that man is the
image of God, called to share in the truth and the good which is God
himself, does not understand a commitment to development and its
application which excludes regard and respect for the unique dignity of
this "image". In other words, true development must be based on the love
of God and neighbor, and must help to promote the relationships between
individuals and society. This is the "civilization of love" of which Paul
VI often spoke.

34. Nor can the moral character of development exclude respect for the
beings which constitute the natural world, which the ancient Greeks
alluding precisely to the order which distinguishes it--called the
"cosmos". Such realities also demand respect, by virtue of a threefold
consideration which it is useful to reflect upon carefully.

The first consideration is the appropriateness of acquiring a growing
awareness of the fact that one cannot use with impunity the different
categories of beings, whether living or inanimate, animals, plants, the
natural elements simply as one wishes, according to one's own economic
needs. On the contrary, one must take into account the nature of each
being and of its mutual connection in an ordered system, which is
precisely the "cosmos".

The second consideration is based on the realization which is perhaps
more urgent that natural resources are limited; some are not, as it is
said, renewable. Using them as if they were inexhaustible, with absolute
dominion, seriously endangers their availability not only for the present
generation but above all for generations to come.

The third consideration refers directly to the consequences of a certain
type of development on the quality of life in the industrialized zones.
We all know that the direct or indirect result of industrialization is,
ever more frequently, the pollution of the environment, with serious
consequences for the health of the population.

Once again it is evident that development, the planning which governs it,
and the way in which resources are used must include respect for moral
demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes limits on the use of the
natural world. The dominion granted to man by the Creator is not an
absolute power, nor can one speak of a freedom to "use and misuse", or to
dispose of things as one pleases. The limitation imposed from the
beginning by the Creator himself and expressed symbolically by the
prohibition not to "eat of the fruit of the tree" (cf. Gen 2:16-17) shows
clearly enough that, when it comes to the natural world, we are subject
not only to biological laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be
violated with impunity.

A true concept of development cannot ignore the use of the elements of
nature, the renewability of resources and the consequences of haphazard
industrialization three considerations which alert our consciences to the
moral dimension of development.[63]

35. Precisely because of the essentially moral character of development,
it is clear that the obstacles to development likewise have a moral
character. If in the years since the publication of Pope Paul's
Encyclical there has been no development or very little, irregular, or
even contradictory development the reasons are not only economic. As has
already been said, political motives also enter in. For the decisions
which either accelerate or slows down the development of peoples are
really political in character. In order to overcome the misguided
mechanisms mentioned earlier and to replace them with new ones which
will
be more just and in conformity with the common good of humanity, an
effective political will is needed. Unfortunately, after analyzing the
situation we have to conclude that this political will has been
insufficient.

In a document of a pastoral nature such as this, an analysis limited
exclusively to the economic and political causes of underdevelopment
(and, mutatis mutandis, of so-called super-development) would be
incomplete. It is therefore necessary to single out the moral causes
which, with respect to the behavior of individuals considered as
responsible persons, interfere in such a way as to slow down the course
of development and hinder its full achievement.

Similarly, when the scientific and technical resources are available
which, with the necessary concrete political decisions, ought to help
lead peoples to true development, the main obstacles to development will
be overcome only by means of essentially moral decisions. For believers,
and especially for Christians, these decisions will take their
inspiration from the principles of faith, with the help of divine grace.

36. It is important to note therefore that a world which is divided unto
blocs, sustained by rigid ideologies, and in which instead of
interdependence and solidarity different forms of imperialism hold sway,
can only be a world subject to structures of sin. The sum total of the
negative factors working against a true awareness of the universal common
good, and the need to further it, gives the impression of creating, in
persons and institutions, an obstacle which is difficult to overcome.[64]

If the present situation can be attributed to difficulties of various
kinds, it is not out of place to speak of "structures of sin", which, as
I stated in my Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia, are
rooted in personal sin, and thus always linked to the concrete acts of
individuals who introduce these structures, consolidate them and make
them difficult to remove.[65] And thus they grow stronger, spread, and
become the source of other sins, and so influence people's behavior.

"Sin" and "structures of sin" are categories which are seldom applied to
the situation of the contemporary world. However, one cannot easily gain
a profound understanding of the reality that confronts us unless we give
a name to the root of the evils which afflict us.

One can certainly speak of "selfishness" and of "shortsightedness", of
"mistaken political calculations" and "imprudent economic decisions". And
in each of these evaluations one hears an echo of an ethical and moral
nature. Man's condition is such that a more profound analysis of
individuals' actions and omissions cannot be achieved without implying,
in one way or another, judgments or references of an ethical nature.

This evaluation is in itself positive, especially if it is completely
consistent and if it is based on faith in God and on his law, which
commands what is good and forbids evil.

In this consists the difference between socio-political analysis and
formal reference to "sin" and the "structures of sin". According to this
latter viewpoint, there enter in the will of the Triune God, his plan for
humanity, his justice and his mercy. The God who is rich in mercy, the
Redeemer of man, the Lord and giver of life, requires from people
clear-cut attitudes which express themselves also in actions or omissions
towards one's neighbor. We have here a reference to the "second tablet"
of the Ten Commandments (cf. Ex 20:12-17; Dt 5: 16-21). Not to observe
these is to offend God and hurt one's neighbor, and to introduce into the
world influences and obstacles which go far beyond the actions and the
brief lifespan of an individual. This also involves interference in the
process of the development of peoples, the delay or slowness of which
must be judged also in this light.

37. This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be
supplemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that
among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the good of
neighbor and the "structures" created by them, two are very typical: on
the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and on the other, the
thirst for power, with the intention of imposing one's will upon others.
In order to characterize better each of these attitudes, one can add the
expression: "at any price". In other words, we are faced with the
absolutizing of human attitudes with all its possible consequences.

Since these attitudes can exist independently of each other, they can be
separated; however in today's world both are indissolubly united, with
one or the other predominating.

Obviously, not only individuals fall victim to this double attitude of
sin; nations and blocs can do so too. And this favors even more the
introduction of the "structures of sin" of which I have spoken. If
certain forms of modern "imperialism" were considered in the light of
these moral criteria, we would see that hidden behind certain decisions,
apparently inspired only by economics or politics, are real forms of
idolatry: of money, ideology, class, technology.

I have wished to introduce this type of analysis above all in order to
point out the true nature of the evil which faces us with respect to the
development of peoples: it is a question of a moral evil, the fruit of
many sins which lead to "structures of sin". To diagnose the evil in this
way is to identify precisely, on the level of human conduct, the path to
be followed in order to overcome it.

38. This path is long and complex, and what is more it is constantly
threatened because of the intrinsic frailty of human resolutions and
achievements, and because of the mutability of very unpredictable
external circumstances. Nevertheless, one must have the courage to set
out on this path, and, where some steps have been taken or a part of the
journey made, the courage to go on to the end.

In the context of these reflections the decision to set out or to
continue the journey involves, above all, a moral value which men and
women of faith recognize as a demand of God's will, the only true
foundation of an absolutely binding ethic.

One would hope that also men and women without an explicit faith would be
convinced that the obstacles to integral development are not only
economic but rest on more profound attitudes which human beings can
make
into absolute values. Thus one would hope that all those who, to some
degree or other, are responsible for ensuring a "more human life" for
their fellow human beings, whether or not they are inspired by a
religious faith, will become fully aware of the urgent need to change the
spiritual attitudes which define each individual's relationship with
self, with neighbor, with even the remotest human communities, and with
nature itself; and all of this in view of higher values such as the
common good or, to quote the felicitous expression of the Encyclical
Populorum Progressio, the full development "of the whole individual and
of all people."[66]

For Christians, as for all who recognize the precise theological meaning
of the word "sin", a change of behavior or mentality or mode of existence
is called "conversion", to use the language of the Bible (cf. Mk 13:3, 5;
Is 30:15). This conversion specifically entails a relationship to God,
and to the sin committed, to its consequences and hence to one's
neighbor, either an individual or a community. It is God, in "whose hands
are the hearts of the powerful"[67] and the hearts of all, who according
to his own promise and by the power of his Spirit can transform "hearts
of stone" into "hearts of flesh" (cf. Ezek 36:26).

On the path towards the desired conversion, towards the overcoming of the
moral obstacles to development, it is already possible to point to the
positive and moral value of the growing awareness of interdependence
among individuals and nations. The fact that men and women in various
parts of the world feel personally affected by the injustices and
violations of human rights committed in distant countries, countries
which perhaps they will never visit, is a further sign of a reality
transformed into awareness, thus acquiring a moral connotation.

It is above all a question of interdependence, sensed as a system
determining relationships in the contemporary world, in its economic,
cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral
category. When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the
correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a "virtue", is
solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague 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. This
determination is based on the solid conviction that what is hindering
full development is that desire for profit and that thirst for power
already mentioned. These attitudes and "structures of sin" are only
conquered--presupposing the help of divine grace--by a diametrically
opposed attitude: a commitment to the good of one's neighbor with the
readiness, in the Gospel sense, to "lose oneself" for the sake of the
other instead of exploiting him, and to "serve him" instead of oppressing
him for one's own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40-42; 20: 25; Mk 10: 42-45; Lk
22: 25-27).

39. The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its
members recognize one another as persons. Those who are more
influential,
because they have a greater share of goods and common services, should
feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share with them all they
possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in the same spirit of
solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive attitude or one that is
destructive of the social fabric, but, while claiming their legitimate
rights, should do what they can for the good of all. The intermediate
groups, in their turn, should not selfishly insist on their particular
interests, but respect the interests of others.

Positive signs in the contemporary world are the growing awareness of the
solidarity of the poor among themselves, their efforts to support one
another, and their public demonstrations on the social scene which,
without recourse to violence, present their own needs and rights in the
face of the inefficiency or corruption of the public authorities. By
virtue of her own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her
stand beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to
help satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the
context of the common good.

The same criterion is applied by analogy in international relationships.
Interdependence must be transformed into solidarity, based upon the
principle that the goods of creation are meant for all. That which human
industry produces through the processing of raw materials, with the
contribution of work, must serve equally for the good of all.

Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination to preserve their
own hegemony, the stronger and richer nations must have a sense of moral
responsibility for the other nations, so that a real international system
may be established which will rest on the foundation of the equality of
all peoples and on the necessary respect for their legitimate
differences. The economically weaker countries, or those still at
subsistence level, must be enabled, with the assistance of other peoples
and of the international community, to make a contribution of their own
to the common good with their treasures of humanity and culture, which
otherwise would be lost for ever.

Solidarity helps us to see the "other" whether a person, people or nation
not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capacity and physical
strength to be exploited at low cost and then discarded when no longer
useful, but as our "neighbor", a "helper" (cf. Gen 2: 18-20), to be made
a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the banquet of life to which all
are equally invited by God. Hence the importance of reawakening the
religious awareness of individuals and peoples.

Thus the exploitation, oppression and annihilation of others are
excluded. These facts, in the present division of the world into opposing
blocs, combine to produce the danger of war and an excessive
preoccupation with personal security, often to the detriment of the
autonomy, freedom of decision, and even the territorial integrity of the
weaker nations situated within the so-called "areas of influence" or
"safety belts".

The "structures of sin" and the sins which they produce are likewise
radically opposed to peace and development, for development, in the
familiar expression of Pope Paul's Encyclical, is "the new name for
peace".[68]

In this way, the solidarity which we propose is the path to peace and at
the same time to development. For world peace is inconceivable unless the
world's leaders come to recognize that interdependence in itself demands
the abandonment of the politics of blocs, the sacrifice of all forms of
economic, military or political imperialism, and the transformation of
mutual distrust into collaboration. This is precisely the act proper to
solidarity among individuals and nations.

The motto of the pontificate of my esteemed predecessor Pius XII was Opus
iustitiae pax, peace as the fruit of justice. Today one could say, with
the same exactness and the same power of biblical inspiration (cf. Is
32:17; Jas 3:18): Opus solidaritatis pax, peace as the fruit of
solidarity.

The goal of peace, so desired by everyone, will certainly be achieved
through the putting into effect of social and international justice, but
also through the practice of the virtues which favor togetherness, and
which teach us to live in unity, so as to build in unity, by giving and
receiving, a new society and a better world.

40. Solidarity is undoubtedly a Christian virtue. In what has been said
so far it has been possible to identify many points of contact between
solidarity and charity, which is the distinguishing mark of Christ's
disciples (cf. Jn 13: 35)

In the light of faith, solidarity seeks to go beyond itself, to take on
the specifically Christian dimensions of total gratuity, forgiveness and
reconciliation. One's neighbor is then not only a human being with his or
her own rights and a fundamental equality with everyone else, but becomes
the living image of God the Father, redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ
and placed under the permanent action of the Holy Spirit. One's neighbor
must therefore be loved, even if an enemy, with the same love with which
the Lord loves him or her; and for that person's sake one must be ready
for sacrifice, even the ultimate one: to lay down one's life for the
brethren (cf. 1 Jn 3: 16).

At that point, awareness of the common fatherhood of God, of the
brotherhood of all in Christ "children in the Son" and of the presence
and life-giving action of the Holy Spirit will bring to our vision of the
world a new criterion for interpreting it. Beyond human and natural
bonds, already so close and strong, there is discerned in the light of
faith a new model of the unity of the human race, which must ultimately
inspire our solidarity. This supreme model of unity, which is a
reflection of the intimate life of God, one God in three persons, is

what we Christians mean by the word "communion". This specifically
Christian communion, jealously preserved, extended and enriched with the
Lord's help, is the soul of the Church's vocation to be a "sacrament", in
the sense already indicated.

Solidarity therefore must play its part in the realization of this divine
plan, both on the level of individuals and on the level of national and
international society. The "evil mechanisms" and "structures of sin" of
which we have spoken can be overcome only through the exercise of the
human and Christian solidarity to which the Church calls us and which she
tirelessly promotes. Only in this way can such positive energies be fully
released for the benefit of development and peace.

Many of the Church's canonized saints offer a wonderful witness of such
solidarity and can serve as examples in the present difficult
circumstances. Among them I wish to recall Saint Peter Claver and his
service to the slaves at Cartagena de Indias, and Saint Maximilian Maria
Kolbe who offered his life in place of a prisoner unknown to him in the
concentration camp at Auschwitz.

41. The Church does not have technical solutions to offer for the problem
of underdevelopment as such, as Pope Paul VI already affirmed in his
Encyclical.[69] For the Church does not propose economic and political
systems or programs, nor does she show preference for one or the other,
provided that human dignity is properly respected and promoted, and
provided she herself is allowed the room she needs to exercise her
ministry in the world.

But the Church is an "expert in humanity",[70] and this leads her
necessarily to extend her religious mission to the various fields in
which men and women expend their efforts in search of the always relative
happiness which is possible in this world, in line with their dignity as
persons.

Following the example of my predecessors, I must repeat that whatever
affects the dignity of individuals and peoples, such as authentic
development, cannot be reduced to a "technical" problem. If reduced in
this way, development would be emptied of its true content, and this
would be an act of betrayal of the individuals and peoples whom
development is meant to serve.

This is why the Church has something to say today, just as twenty years
ago, and also in the future, about the nature, conditions, requirements
and aims of authentic development, and also about the obstacles which
stand in its way. In doing so the Church fulfills her mission to
evangelize, for she offers her first contribution to the solution of the
urgent problem of development when she proclaims the truth about Christ,
about herself and about man, applying this truth to a concrete
situation.[71]

As her instrument for reaching this goal, the Church uses her social
doctrine. In today's difficult situation, a more exact awareness and a
wider diffusion of the "set of principles for reflection, criteria for