雾里看花---川普联合国痛斥邪恶议程——现在支持乌克兰战争?

作者:change?  于 2025-9-27 02:48 发表于 最热闹的华人社交网络--贝壳村

通用分类:政经军事|已有4评论






特朗普联合国的邪恶议程——现在支持乌克兰战争?

所有全球主义喉舌都纷纷抨击唐纳德·特朗普在社交媒体上发布的关于乌克兰以某种方式夺回其领土并赢得战争的帖子,并将其描绘成他政策的彻底转变。英国媒体当然是领头羊,《每日快报》对此大加赞扬。唐纳德·特朗普在乌克兰领土让步问题上来个180度大转弯。他要把乌克兰全部夺回来。但以下是他们不想让你思考的。

他今天早些时候在联合国的所作所为。特朗普在联合国的讲话无异于对过去八十年来破坏国家和人类进步的特定意识形态和机构的公开宣战。

马尔科·卢比奥预演了特朗普在联合国的所作所为----- 

显然,总统希望今天在联合国传达他著名的“以实力求和平”的口号。你预计他会说什么?
嗯,我认为总统必须解决并且即将要解决的问题之一就是联合国本身。
这就是为什么我们仍然需要联合国?
它拥有巨大的潜力。联合国是一个有潜力在世界各地做一些伟大事情的组织,但它并没有这样做。

特朗普在演讲中谈到这一点时,他加倍强调了联合国一直倡导的两项政策:支持不受约束的移民和绿色政策。最后,我只想重申,移民和所谓的绿色可再生能源的高成本正在摧毁很大一部分自由世界和我们地球的很大一部分。那些珍视自由的国家正因其在这两个问题上的政策而迅速衰落。

如果你想再次伟大,就需要强大的边界和传统能源。特朗普明确表示,这些政策是由心怀恶意的人推动的,而且这些邪恶的意图已经控制了各个机构。

这让我想起了教皇约翰·保罗二世1987年发表的那篇意义非凡的通谕《关怀社会》教皇在其中谈到了罪恶的结构。他说,人们可以谈论罪恶的结构。它们根植于个人的罪恶,因此总是与个人的具体行为联系在一起,这些行为引入了这些结构,巩固了它们,使其难以消除,因此它们变得更加强大、蔓延,并成为其他罪恶的根源,从而影响了人们的行为。

我认为这是一个非常重要的概念。是的,个人的罪恶是存在的,但我们所反对的是创造那些使罪恶的意识形态永久存在的结构。这些意识形态否认了人是按照上帝的形象被创造的本质。而这正是特朗普所要打击的。

特朗普在联合国发表讲话之前,紧随周日查理·柯克非凡追悼会的之后。会上,一位又一位发言人明确表示,这场战斗确实是正义与邪恶之间的斗争。特朗普在联合国发表的讲话将这场斗争提升到了一个新的高度。

我是苏珊·科金达,几十年来,我一直在揭露帝国环保运动的反人类根源,表明其潜在的意识形态与西方文明所代表的一切背道而驰,
以及它是如何被用来试图摧毁美国和其他国家。

如果您觉得我们对这场真正的斗争(而非新闻标题所报道的斗争)的深入分析有价值,请点赞并订阅。

今天我将向你们展示三个关键点。首先,特朗普的外交政策到底是怎么回事。
其次,他是如何瞄准帝国邪恶机构的。
第三,这场斗争正在催生建设者的复兴。


特朗普外交政策的真正走向

那么,让我来告诉你特朗普最近关于乌克兰的言论。他的许多支持者都在怀疑他是否落入了新保守主义者的手中。以下是关键的
引言: 

我认为,在欧盟的支持下,乌克兰有能力打赢这场战争,并最终夺回乌克兰的原有领土。随着时间的推移、耐心的积累,以及欧洲,特别是北约的财政支持,这场战争爆发时的原有边界完全是一个选择。

克里姆林宫发言人德米特里佩斯科夫驳斥了乌克兰夺回其领土的想法,认为这是一个有缺陷的论点,并指出,前线的现实说明了一切。

但稍早之前发生的事情是这样的。特朗普与扎林斯基会面。只进行了短暂的新闻发布会,只有扎林斯基发表了开场白。当记者问特朗普:“总统先生,您与普京总统的会谈有什么进展吗?您还信任他吗?” 特朗普回答说:“呃,我会在大约一个月后告诉你。”

此外,TAS (塔斯社)还对昨天在联合国发生的事情进行了非常有趣的报道。他们报道称:“美国没有加入乌克兰、欧洲和欧盟谴责俄罗斯的声明。”该声明由乌克兰外交部长安德烈·塞加宣读。共有38个国家加入了该声明,包括斯洛伐克。

此外,唐纳德·特朗普政府或常驻联合国代表团的任何官员都没有出席齐格加的讲话。所以,让我们回顾一下特朗普的帖子,他当时说,乌克兰可以通过时间、耐心以及欧洲的财政支持赢得胜利。他知道这些因素并不存在。

当天早些时候,他曾表示,欧洲国家正因为绿色政策和大规模移民而走向毁灭。

就连我认为主要是为了攻击唐纳德·特朗普而存在的《卫报》,也刊登了一篇标题为“特朗普语气的转变对乌克兰来说很有价值,但需要的不仅仅是言语”。毫无疑问,特朗普感到沮丧,但他不断发展出意想不到的新侧翼,试图为真正的外交创造空间。而与此同时,全球主义者仍在继续他们无休止的战争驱动。我们以前就见过他用言语向外交僵局投掷手榴弹。

让我们来看看美俄关系的另一个重要方面。弗拉基米尔·普京最近提出将《削减战略武器条约》延长一年,至2027年。普京表示:“为了防止新的战略军备竞赛的出现,并保持可接受的可预见性和克制程度,我们认为,在当前动荡时期,维持《新削减战略武器条约》确立的现状是合理的。” 特朗普尚未对此做出直接回应,但在他的联合国演讲中,他重申了他毕生渴望彻底消除核武器的愿望。

特朗普如何直击帝国邪恶机构的命门

正是在那次联合国演讲中,特朗普真正击中了要害。他不仅批评了政策。他还宣称这些机构从根本上就是邪恶的,并揭露了推行这些政策的人。首先,他猛烈抨击了联合国本身。联合国不仅没有解决它应该解决的问题,而且常常在制造新的问题,让我们去解决。最好的例子就是我们这个时代的头号政治问题——

失控的移民危机。它已经失控了。你们的国家正在被毁掉。联合国正在资助对西方国家及其边境的攻击。2024年,联合国预算拨款3.72亿美元,用于支持估计有62.4万移民进入美国。想想看。联合国正在支持那些非法进入美国的人,然后我们必须把他们赶出去。

但特朗普却更进一步,宣称任何导致大规模贩卖儿童的制度本质上都是邪恶的。然而,这正是全球主义移民议程的所作所为,这就是它的全部意义所在。

然后,他又对绿色议程的骗局进行了毁灭性的攻击。特朗普提醒所有人,早在1982年,联合国环境规划署就预测,到2000年,气候变化将造成一场全球性灾难,其不可逆转性堪比核浩劫。结果呢?现在就是这样。这就是致命一击。碳足迹是心怀不轨之人编造的骗局,他们正在走向彻底毁灭的道路。他称之为一场骗局,并描述了欧洲是如何自我毁灭的。

特朗普点名联合国环境计划至关重要,因为当你回顾其起源时,你会看到它毫不掩饰的邪恶。联合国环境计划最初由加拿大人莫里斯·斯特朗(Maurice Frederick Strong (April 29, 1929 – November 27, 2015) 犹太人 他的表姐是中国人曾經熟悉的著名美国左翼记者安娜 路易 斯特朗, 葬于八宝山革命公墓领导,他是绿色议程、世界经济论坛和人口控制优生运动交汇的关键人物。就像环保主义者菲利普亲王希望自己能变成致命病毒,来帮助解决人口过剩问题一样,斯特朗也毫不犹豫地公开了自己的真实意图。他说:“如果我们不改变,我们这个物种将无法生存。

坦率地说,我们可能会走到这样的地步:

拯救世界的唯一途径就是工业文明的崩溃。

不仅如此,斯特朗和世界上许多未来的精英一样,认识到人们不会心甘情愿地走向自我毁灭。他建议,我们或许需要修改投票箱民主的概念,以产生能够做出艰难决策的强大政府,尤其是在维护这一转型所需的全球环境方面。现代工业文明的毁灭和法西斯政治手段正是我们一直面临的挑战,也是唐纳德·特朗普及其运动所挑战的。

普罗米修斯行动的组织者们几十年来一直在揭露和对抗这种现象。如果您想参与其中,并了解战略背景和历史深度,那么请订阅我们的免费时事通讯或成为付费会员,帮助我们。建立这场能够支持特朗普总统的运动,在这场泰坦尼克号般的战斗中奋力前行。因为建设者的复兴正是全球主义者真正担心的。

特朗普正在释放人类作为城市建设者和创造者的创造力

正如史蒂文·米勒在查理·柯克纪念有力地指出的那样:“这场战斗是善与恶的较量。” 但他赋予了善的理念强有力的内涵,它可以在那些城市建设者、生产者和创造者身上找到。

我们的敌人无法理解我们的力量、我们的决心、我们的毅力、我们的热情。我们的血统和遗产可以追溯到雅典、罗马、费城和蒙蒂塞洛。我们的祖先建造了城市。他们创造了艺术和建筑。他们建立了工业。你们什么都不是。你们是邪恶。你们是嫉妒。你们是羡慕。你们是仇恨。你们是什么都不是。你什么也建不起来。你什么也生产不出来。你什么也创造不出来。我们才是建设者。我们才是创造者。我们才是提升人类的人。

你以为你能杀死查理·柯克。你让他永垂不朽。你让查理·柯克永垂不朽,现在数百万人将继承他的遗志,而我们将用余生,去完成查理为之献出最后一丝奉献的事业。

你无法打败我们。你无法减缓我们。你无法阻止我们。你无法吓倒我们。

我们会把查理和艾丽卡放在心上,每一天,都会更加努力地战斗,

因为你对我们所做的一切。

你不知道你唤醒了一条恶龙。你不知道我们将会多么坚定地拯救这个文明,拯救西方,拯救这个共和国。

现在,回想一下教皇约翰·保罗二世关于罪恶结构的思想,然后再想想西方文明的制度,基督教,以及我们的共和国,实际上都是善良的基石。特朗普深谙此道。

还记得特朗普2020年在达沃斯的演讲吗?当时他乐观地谈到了文明建设、人类创造力和技术进步。这不仅仅是空谈,而是对美国所代表的价值观的宣示。特朗普在联合国演讲的结尾再次强调了这一点,邀请全世界庆祝美国即将到来的250周年诞辰。

帝国的机构想要让人们相信,他们只是消费者,他们的存在正在毁灭地球,他们应该为人类的进步感到内疚。

但特朗普说的恰恰相反。人类的使命是建设、创造,突破可能性的界限。特朗普的联合国演讲不仅仅是又一份政治声明,而是对定义我们时代的战线的根本揭露。他在联合国指出,环保运动、全球主义移民议程不仅是误导性的政策,更是旨在破坏人类进步和国家主权的邪恶体系。


如果你把特朗普总统在联合国的演讲与上周日所有纪念查理·柯克的非凡纪念活动放在一起,你就会发现,罪恶的结构确实正受到西方文明复兴的挑战。正因如此,你的支持至关重要。

订阅并随时了解这场战斗的进展,因为如果我们要全面实施特朗普的愿景,理解这些更深层次的动态至关重要。建设者的复兴已经开始,邪恶的机构正惊慌失措。

所以,请保持专注,保持动员,感谢你的收看。
请花点时间订阅我们的免费新闻通讯,地址:prometheianaction.com。
特朗普揭露批驳联合国的邪恶议程——现在支持乌克兰战争?
00:00 引言 03:46 特朗普外交政策的真正走向 06:45 特朗普如何直击帝国的邪恶机构 10:21 “建设者复兴”

本期节目探讨唐纳德·特朗普在联合国发表的激烈演讲,该演讲直指破坏人类进步的全球意识形态和机构。我们深入剖析他对联合国移民和绿色政策的批判,以及他对全球主义议程的大胆立场。此次演讲的意义与近期查理·柯克的纪念活动并列,凸显了善与恶之间更广泛的斗争。此外,本期节目还将深入探讨特朗普在社交媒体上发布的乌克兰问题、他的外交策略,以及这场意识形态冲突中涌现出的“建设者复兴”运动。

【留言前几条翻译】

@marygossett4547
联合国从未做过任何有价值的事情。我们不需要联合国。

@kimberlycuthbertson9983
特朗普总统在联合国的演讲真是太棒了……**‼️❤****

@gundisaluusmenendiz
我是欧洲人,我们应该摆脱联合国和北约,让他们自生自灭。

@maryannknox7158
取消联合国

@scottwilson1258
我希望欧盟/英国人民能听从我们伟大总统的号召!

@AlisonQuinto-p1z
我不停地高呼:感谢上帝,赐予我一位能够对抗邪恶计划的斗士!

@oneworldactorsproductionsa1417
“人口过剩”也是个骗局

@maryannknox7158
我祈祷邪恶的撒旦般的联合国被摧毁和瓦解,奉耶稣基督的名***️

@GabrielKish
没人说联合国是入侵的幕后黑手……
联合国是我们的敌人,不是俄罗斯。

@MK98-n1k
解散联合国,他们一文不值。

@janalmond4003
贩卖儿童、虐待和剥削儿童是最重要的罪行,必须予以制止。否则,我们只能说自己不是人。

@wenflenful
是的。联合国很久以前就被邪恶势力渗透了。消灭它吧。

@mimi-ur8pc 他们暂停自动扶梯,希望特朗普摔倒受伤。他们关掉他的提词器,希望他结巴,忘记他的讲话。但针对他的武器没有一个得逞,唯一受害的只有那些邪恶的全球主义者。巴比伦正在崩塌。谢谢你,特朗普总统。 @clroger4 我以为只有我了解这些事情。 为此,我会停止资助他们,把他们赶出纽约!!! @User-blu-7999 他们还没搞清楚,DJ特朗普总统总是比他们领先十步…… 他们真是蠢透了,蠢透了,蠢透了……!!! 特朗普不需要提词器!!!  @shaunshaun4733 是的,真是无耻小人。 @EliteAmerican1776 左派全球主义者正在消亡,这都是上帝的杰作。

@derrickricks9047
联合国可以被定义为一个全球性的恐怖组织。总部设在纽约。


@gundisaluusmenendiz
I'm European and we need to get rid of the UN and NATO, let them fend for themselves.

@maryannknox7158
Delete the United Nations

@scottwilson1258
I hope the People of the EU/UK were Listening to our Great President!

@AlisonQuinto-p1z
I could not stop shouting, Thank You Lord for a fighter against their evil plans!

@oneworldactorsproductionsa1417
"Overpopulation" is also a SCAM

@maryannknox7158
I Pray Against the Evil Satanic Demonic United Nations to be taken down and dismantled in Jesus Christ Name ***️

@GabrielKish
No one is talking about the UN being behind the Invasions....
The UN is our enemy, not Russia.

@MK98-n1k
Disband the UN, they are worthless.

@janalmond4003
The trafficking of children, their torture and exploitation is the MOST IMPORTANT CRIME to bring to an end. Otherwise we can say we are not human beings.

@wenflenful
Yes. The UN was infiltrated long ago by evil. Get rid of it.

@derrickricks9047
The UN could be defined as a world wide terror organization. Based in NY NY.


VOA 特朗普联大讲话:美国将对俄罗斯实施严厉惩罚,并敦促欧洲加入并协助这一努力
VOA专访:美国务院中文发言人谈特朗普联大讲话及美中关系

FBI 宣布 “一六暴乱”案重磅消息:“我们FBI当时有 300 名特工在人群中……”|

為什麼這位華裔讓民主黨人怕都怕死?今後想入籍美國必須知道這件事


教皇约翰·保罗二世1987年发表的那篇意义非凡的通谕《关怀社会》

教皇在其中谈到了罪恶的结构。他说,人们可以谈论罪恶的结构。它们根植于个人的罪恶,因此总是与个人的具体行为联系在一起,这些行为引入了这些结构,巩固了它们,使其难以消除,因此它们变得更加强大、蔓延,并成为其他罪恶的根源,从而影响了人们的行为。

圣座
训导权
历法
教宗
罗马教廷及其他组织
礼仪庆典
枢机主教团
新闻办公室
梵蒂冈新闻 - 梵蒂冈广播电台
罗马观察报
若望·保禄二世通谕

若望·保禄二世
社会关怀
致主教、司铎
修会会士、教会子女
以及所有善心人士
庆祝《民族发展》二十周年

祝福

尊敬的弟兄们、亲爱的子女们:
祝你们健康,并赐予宗座祝福!

一、引言

1. 教会对社会的关怀,旨在促进人与社会的真正发展,尊重并促进人性的各个层面,一直以来都以各种不同的方式表达出来。近年来,罗马教宗的训导是其介入社会事务的特殊途径之一。教宗以良十三世的《新事》通谕1为参考,频繁探讨这一问题,有时甚至将各种社会文献的发布日期与该通谕2的周年纪念日相一致。

历任教宗都通过这些讯息,对教会社会训导的新方面进行新的阐释。因此,这一训导始于良十三世的杰出贡献,并因训导的后续贡献而不断丰富,如今已成为一部更新的教义“宝库”。它逐渐建立起来,因为教会在耶稣基督所启示的圆满圣言中,并在圣神的协助下(参若14:16, 26;16:13-15),解读历史进程中不断展开的事件。因此,教会力求引导人们,在理性反思和人文科学的支持下,回应他们作为负责任的世俗社会建设者的使命。

2. 这庞大的社会训导体系的一部分,是著名的《民族发展》通谕,由我尊敬的前任教宗保禄六世于1967年3月26日发表。


如果我们注意到1987年在教会和民间世界的许多地方以各种形式举行的一系列纪念活动,就不难看出这封通谕的持久意义。为此,宗座正义与和平委员会向东方天主教会主教会议和主教团发出了一份通函,征求关于如何最好地庆祝通谕周年、丰富其教义并在必要时对其进行更新的意见和建议。在二十周年之际,同一委员会组织了一次隆重的纪念活动,我本人也参加了并致闭幕词。5 现在,考虑到对上述通函的答复,我认为在1987年年底,以“民族发展”为主题发表一篇通谕是恰当的。

3. 我主要希望以此方式实现两个至关重要的目标:一方面,向保禄六世的这份历史性文献及其训导致敬;另一方面,追随我尊敬的伯多禄教廷前任们的脚步,重申社会训导的延续性及其不断更新。事实上,延续性和更新性正是教会训导永恒价值的证明。

这双重维度是教会在社会领域训导的典型特征。一方面,它是恒定的,因为它在其基本启示、其“反思原则”、“判断标准”、其基本的“行动指导”6,以及最重要的是,它与主的福音息息相关方面始终保持一致。另一方面,它常新,因为它会根据历史条件的变化以及构成人民和社会生活背景的事件的不断演变而进行必要且适时的调整。

4. 我坚信,《民族发展》通谕在六十年代向人民和社会发出的教诲,在八十年代后期的今天,依然具有强大的力量,它呼吁人们的良知,使我们始终在“民族发展”的目标和灵感的框架内,追溯当今世界的主要脉络,而这些目标和灵感至今仍远未穷尽。因此,我打算将这一讯息及其可能的运用,应用于当下这个与二十年前同样充满戏剧性的历史时刻,以扩大其影响力。

众所周知,时间保持着恒定不变的节奏。然而,今天,我们却感觉时间流逝得越来越快,尤其是由于我们所处环境的现象日益繁复和复杂。因此,在过去二十年中,世界格局在保留某些基本不变的同时,也发生了显著的变化,并呈现出一些全新的面貌。

当前正值基督信仰第三个千年的前夕,人们普遍期盼着新的“降临节”,这在某种程度上触动了每个人。这为我们提供了一个机会,让我们能够更深入地研读通谕的教义,并展望其未来可能的发展。

本次反思旨在通过对当今世界的神学探究,强调需要根据通谕中的建议,提出一个更全面、更细致的发展理念。同时也旨在指出一些将其付诸实践的方法。

二、《人民进步》通谕的独创性

5. 教宗保禄六世的这份文件一经发表,就因其独创性而引起了公众的关注。它以具体而清晰的方式,在教会的社会训导中,明确了上述延续性和革新性的特征。因此,通过仔细重读通谕,重新发现这一教义的诸多方面,将成为当前反思的主线。


但首先,我想就其出版日期——1967年——谈一谈。教宗保禄六世选择在那一年发布社会通谕,这一事实本身就促使我们将这份文件与1965年12月8日闭幕的梵蒂冈第二次大公会议联系起来思考。

6. 我们应该从中看到更多的东西,而不仅仅是时间上的接近。《民族发展》通谕在某种程度上,是一份践行梵蒂冈大公会议训导的文件。它不仅不断引用梵蒂冈大公会议的文本,8 也源于教会对社会问题的关注,这种关注启发了梵蒂冈大公会议的全部努力——尤其是《牧职宪章》——以协调和发展其社会训导的若干主题。

因此,我们可以肯定,《民族发展》通谕是对梵二《牧职宪章》开篇呼吁的一种回应:“当代人,特别是贫困者或任何受苦者,的喜乐与希望、忧患与焦虑,也是基督追随者的喜乐与希望、忧患与焦虑。事实上,任何真正人性化的事情,都会在他们心中引起共鸣。”9 这些话表达了梵二这份伟大文献的根本动机,它首先指出了千百万人生活在贫困和欠发达的境况。

这种贫困和欠发达,换个说法,就是今天的“忧患与焦虑”,特别是“贫困者”的“忧患与焦虑”。面对这片广阔的痛苦和苦难,梵二希望展现喜乐和希望的前景。保禄六世的通谕也秉持着同样的宗旨,完全忠实于梵二的启示。

7. 通谕的主题也与教会社会训导的伟大传统相符,它再次直接阐述了梵二会议,尤其是在《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》中提出的全新阐释和丰富的综合。

关于通谕再次阐明的内容和主题,应强调以下几点:认识到教会作为“人类专家”的职责,“审视时代的征兆,并根据福音的光照来诠释它们”10;同样深刻地意识到她“服务”的使命,这一使命与国家的职能截然不同,即使她关注的是人民的具体处境”11;提到了人民处境中众所周知的不平等现象12;确认了梵二的教导,忠实地呼应了教会关于“普世善品”13的悠久传统;欣赏有助于人类解放的文化和技术文明14,但同时也认识到它们的局限性15;最后,关于发展这一具体主题,这正是通谕的主题,它强调较发达国家负有“帮助发展中国家”16的“最重大义务”。通谕提出的发展理念直接源于牧函处理这一问题的方法17。

这些以及其他对牧函的明确引用使人们得出结论,通谕本身就是将梵二在社会事务中的教导应用于发展和人民的欠发达。

8. 以上简要分析有助于我们更好地理解通谕的独创性,其独创性可概括为三点。

第一点在于,它本身就是一份由天主教会最高权威颁布的文件,既面向教会本身,也面向“所有善意人士”,18 所讨论的问题乍一看纯粹是经济和社会问题:人民的发展。“发展”一词源自社会和经济科学的词汇。从这个角度来看,《民族发展》通谕与探讨“工人状况”的《新事》通谕直接相关。19 乍一看,这两个主题似乎都与教会作为宗教机构的正当关切无关——而“发展”甚至比“工人状况”更无关。

与良十三世通谕相呼应,必须承认保禄六世的这份文件的优点在于强调了人民的伦理和文化特征。与发展相关的问题,以及教会介入这一领域的合法性和必要性。


此外,教会的社会训导再次展现了其将天主圣言应用于民众生活、社会生活以及与之相关的世俗现实的本质,提供了“反思的原则”、“判断的标准”和“行动的指引”。20 在保禄六世的文献中,我们发现这三个要素普遍具有实践性,即指向道德行为。

因此,当教会关注“民族发展”时,不应指责她超越了自身特定的职权范围,更不应指责她超越了主所赐予的使命。

9. 《民族发展》的第二个独创性体现在它对通常所说的“社会问题”的广阔视野。

事实上,教宗若望二十三世在其通谕《慈母与导师》中已经探讨了这一更广阔的视角,21 梵二大公会议在《牧职宪章》中也表达了同样的观点。22 然而,教会的社会训导尚未达到如此清晰地肯定社会问题已具有世界性维度的程度,23 这一肯定及其相关分析也尚未像保禄六世在其通谕中所做的那样,被转化为“行动指南”。

如此明确的立场蕴含着丰富的内涵,值得指出。

首先,必须消除一个可能存在的误解。承认“社会问题”已具有世界性维度,并不意味着它失去了其深刻性或国家和地方重要性。相反,这意味着,特定国家或地区的工业企业或工人和工会运动中的问题不应被视为毫无关联的孤立案例。相反,它们越来越依赖于超越地域和国界的因素的影响。

不幸的是,从经济角度来看,发展中国家的数量远多于发达国家;缺乏发展所提供的商品和服务的人口数量远多于拥有这些商品和服务的人口数量。

因此,我们面临着一个严重的问题,即原本为所有人提供的生存资料分配不均,由此产生的利益分配也不均。而这种情况的发生并非贫困人口的过错,更不是某种依赖于自然条件或整体环境的必然性。

保禄六世通谕在宣布社会问题已具有全球性时,首先指出了一个道德事实,这个事实的基础是对现实的客观分析。用通谕本身的话来说,“每个人都必须意识到”这一事实,24 正是因为它直接关系到良知,而良知是道德决策的根源。

在此框架下,通谕的独创性与其说在于对社会问题普遍性的历史性肯定,不如说在于对这一现实的道德评估。因此,政治领袖以及富裕国家的公民,尤其是基督徒,作为个体,负有道德义务,根据其各自责任的程度,在个人决策和政府决策中,考虑到这种普遍性关系,这种普遍性关系,即他们的行为与千百万人的贫困和欠发达之间存在的相互依存关系。教宗保禄的通谕将这一道德义务更简洁地翻译为“团结互助的责任”25;尽管世界上许多情况已经发生了变化,但这一肯定在今天仍然具有与它撰写时相同的效力和有效性。

另一方面,在不偏离这一道德愿景的前提下,通谕的独创性还在于这样一个基本洞见:如果从普遍相互依存的角度来思考,发展的概念本身就会发生显著变化。真正的发展不能仅仅在于财富的积累和商品与服务的增多,而要以牺牲大众发展为代价,不充分考虑人类的社会、文化和精神层面。26

10. 第三点,通谕对教会整体的社会训导以及发展的概念本身做出了非常独到的贡献。这种独到之处体现在通谕结尾的一句话中,这句话既可以被视为通谕的总结,也可以被视为其历史标签:“发展是和平的新名称。”27


事实上,如果社会问题已经具有全球性的维度,那是因为对正义的诉求只有在这个层面才能得到满足。忽视这一诉求可能会鼓励不公正的受害者以暴力回应,就像许多战争的起源一样。那些被排除在公平分配原本属于所有人的利益之外的人们可能会扪心自问:为什么不以暴力回应那些首先对我们施暴的人呢?如果我们从世界分裂为意识形态阵营的角度来审视这一局势——这种分裂早在1967年就已存在——并考虑到随之而来的经济和政治影响及相互依存,危险就会更加严重。

通谕中关于历史性措辞的惊人内容,首先值得思考,其次,通谕本身也提到了这一点28:巨额资金本应用于促进各国人民的发展,却被发达国家和发展中国家用来敛财,或用于增加武器储备,从而扰乱了真正的优先事项,这该如何解释?考虑到用于援助贫困国家的资金往往难以直接转移,这一问题就更加严重了。如果“发展是和平的新名称”,那么战争和军事准备就是各国人民全面发展的主要敌人。

鉴于教宗保禄六世的这一表述,我们应重新审视发展的概念。当然,发展的概念不应仅限于通过增加商品来满足物质需求,而应忽视大多数人的苦难,将个人和国家的自私自利作为主要动机。正如圣雅各伯书信尖锐地提醒我们:“你们中间的战争和斗殴是从哪里来的呢?岂不是你们肢体中争战的私欲吗?你们贪恋,却得不到。”(雅4:1-2)

相反,在一个不同的世界里,一个以全人类的共同福祉为中心,或者说,以“所有人的精神和人性发展”为中心,而不是以追求个人利益为中心,和平才有可能通过“人与人之间更完善的正义”实现。29

鉴于现代人对尊重正义与建立真正和平之间的密切联系如此敏感,通谕的这一新内容也具有永恒的当代价值。

三、当代世界概览

11. 《民族发展》通谕的基本教义在其时代因其新颖性而广受赞誉。我们今天所处的社会环境与二十年前已不可同日而语。因此,我现在想简要回顾一下当今世界的一些特点,以便再次从“民族发展”的角度来阐述保禄六世通谕的教义。

12. 首先需要注意的是,当时人们对发展的期盼如此强烈,而今天看来却远未实现。

在这方面,通谕没有抱有任何幻想。其措辞严肃,有时甚至带有戏剧性,但仅限于强调形势的严峻性,并提醒所有人有迫切的义务为解决这一问题做出贡献。在那些年里,人们普遍抱有乐观的态度,认为无需付出过多努力就能克服贫困民族的经济落后,为他们提供基础设施,并帮助他们实现工业化。

在此历史背景下,联合国组织在各国自身努力的基础上,连续二十年推动了发展。30 事实上,联合国采取了一些双边和多边措施,旨在帮助许多国家,其中一些国家已经独立一段时间,而另一些国家——大多数——则是刚刚从非殖民化进程中诞生的国家。教会方面,感到有责任加深对新形势所带来问题的理解,希望以其宗教和人文启迪支持这些努力,赋予它们“灵魂”和有效的动力。

13. 我们不能说这些宗教、人文、经济和技术方面的举措是徒劳的,因为它们确实取得了一定的成果。但总的来说,考虑到各种因素,不可否认的是,从发展的角度来看,当前的世界形势给人留下了相当负面的印象。


因此,我想提请大家关注一些一般指标,但并不排除其他具体指标。无需深入分析数字和统计资料,只需直面无数人——儿童、成人和老年人——换句话说,他们是真实而独特的人,正承受着难以承受的贫困重担,这个现实就已足够。由于世界许多地方的境况明显恶化,数百万人失去了希望。面对我们众多兄弟姐妹所经历的这种极度贫困和匮乏的悲剧,正是主耶稣亲自前来质问我们(参见玛窦福音 25:31-46)。

14. 首先要指出的负面观察是,所谓的发达北方地区和发展中的南方地区之间的差距持续存在,而且往往还在不断扩大。这个地理术语仅供参考,因为无论发达还是发展中,我们都无法忽视一个事实:贫富的界限在各个社会内部都是交织在一起的。事实上,正如富裕国家存在着直至贫困的社会不平等一样,在欠发达国家,人们也常常看到自私自利和炫耀财富的现象,这既令人不安,又令人愤慨。

世界某些地区,尤其是发达的北方国家,商品和服务的丰富,与南方国家相比,却出现了令人无法接受的滞后,而人类的大部分正是生活在这个地缘政治区域。

纵观各个领域——食品生产和分配、卫生、医疗和住房、饮用水供应、工作条件(尤其是女性)、预期寿命以及其他经济和社会指标——总体情况令人失望,无论是就其本身而言,还是与发达国家的相应数据相比。“差距”一词自然而然地浮现在脑海中。

也许这个词并不适合用来描述真实的现实,因为它会给人一种停滞不前的印象。但事实并非如此。近年来,发达国家和发展中国家的发展速度不一,这进一步拉大了差距。因此,发展中国家,尤其是其中最贫穷的国家,面临着极其严重的发展滞后。

此外,不同人口群体之间存在文化和价值体系的差异,这些差异并不总是与经济发展水平相匹配,但却加剧了差距。正是由于这个问题具有普遍性,这些因素和方面使得社会问题更加复杂。

我们观察到,世界各地被这种日益扩大的差距所隔开,并注意到每个地区似乎都在走自己的路,取得各自的成就,由此我们就能理解为什么人们会把同一个世界划分成不同的世界:第一世界、第二世界、第三世界,有时还有第四世界。31 这些表述显然并非旨在详尽地概括所有国家,但却意义重大:它们表明人们普遍认为,世界的统一,即人类的统一,正受到严重的破坏。这种措辞,除了其或多或少客观的价值之外,无疑隐藏着一种道德内涵,教会作为“全人类团结的圣事或标记和工具”32,对此不能漠不关心。

15. 然而,如果不将欠发达的“经济和社会指标”与其他同样负面甚至更令人不安的指标(首先是文化水平)结合起来,那么刚才描绘的图景就不完整。这些指标包括文盲、难以或不可能获得高等教育、无法参​​与建设自己的国家、各种形式的剥削以及对个人及其权利的经济、社会、政治甚至宗教压迫、各种形式的歧视,尤其是基于种族差异的极其可恶的歧视。如果说其中一些祸害在较发达的北方地区令人遗憾,那么在发展中国家和欠发达国家,它们无疑更为频繁、更为持久、也更难以根除。


值得注意的是,在当今世界,经济主动权在诸多权利中常常受到压制。然而,这项权利不仅对个人重要,也对公共利益至关重要。经验告诉我们,否认这项权利,或以所谓的社会人人“平等”的名义对其进行限制,会削弱,甚至在实践中彻底摧毁公民的主动性,即公民的创造性主体性。结果,与其说是真正的平等,不如说是“拉低水平”。创造性主动性被被动、依赖和对官僚机构的屈从所取代,而官僚机构作为所有商品和生产资料的唯一“命令”和“决策”机构——即使不是“所有者”——将每个人都置于几乎绝对的依赖地位,这与资本主义社会中工人无产阶级的传统依赖性相似。这引发了一种挫败感或绝望感,使人们倾向于退出民族生活,迫使许多人移民,也促成了一种“心理”移民。

从“各个民族的权利”的角度来看,这种情况也会产生后果。事实上,一个民族常常被剥夺其主体性,也就是说,被剥夺其在经济、政治社会以及某种程度上的文化意义上所享有的“主权”,因为在一个民族共同体中,所有这些生活维度都是紧密相连的。

还必须重申,任何社会团体,例如一个政党,都无权篡夺唯一领导者的角色,因为这会导致社会和公民个体真正主体性的毁灭,就像在各种形式的极权主义中一样。在这种情况下,个人和人民都变成了“客体”,尽管人们发表了各种相反的声明和口头保证。

我们应该在此补充一点,当今世界还有许多其他形式的贫困。难道某些匮乏或剥夺不配得上贫困这个称号吗?否认或限制人权——例如宗教自由权、参与社会建设的权利、组织和成立工会的自由,以及在经济事务中采取主动行动的自由——难道这些权利的匮乏,不与物质财富的匮乏一样,甚至更甚于物质财富的匮乏,对人类的贫困化难道不堪比提倡吗?不充分肯定这些权利的发展,难道真的是人类层面的发展吗?

简而言之,正如二十年前《民族发展》通谕所指出的,现代欠发达不仅是经济的,也是文化的、政治的,甚至仅仅是人类的欠发达。因此,在这一点上,我们必须扪心自问,当今悲惨的现实,是否至少在一定程度上,是过于狭隘的发展观,即主要局限于经济的发展观造成的。

16. 应当指出,尽管过去二十年来,发达国家和发展中国家以及国际组织为寻求摆脱困境,或至少是缓解部分症状,做出了值得称赞的努力,但情况却明显恶化。

造成这种恶化的原因多种多样。其中最突出的无疑是发展中国家自身的严重疏忽,尤其是那些掌握经济和政治权力的国家。我们也不能视而不见发达国家的责任,它们并不总是,至少在适当的程度上,感到有义务帮助那些脱离了它们所属的富裕世界的国家。

此外,我们必须谴责现有的经济、金融和社会机制,这些机制虽然受人操纵,但往往几乎是自动运作的,从而加剧了一部分人富裕而另一部分人贫困的状况。这些机制由较发达国家直接或间接地操纵,其运作本身就有利于操纵它们的人的利益,最终扼杀或制约着欠发达国家的经济。这些机制稍后将不得不在伦理道德层面进行仔细的分析。

《民族进步》已经预见到,在这种制度下,富人的财富将会增加,而穷人的贫困将持续下去。33 所谓第四世界的出现就是这一预测的证明。


17. 尽管世界范围内有多少社会呈现出分裂的迹象,并以惯常的“第一世界”、“第二世界”、“第三世界”甚至“第四世界”等名称来表达,但它们之间的相互依存依然紧密相连。当这种相互依存与其伦理要求脱节时,就会给最弱小的国家带来灾难性的后果。事实上,由于某种内在动力,并在某种只能称之为反常的机制的推动下,这种相互依存甚至在富裕国家也引发了负面影响。正是在这些国家内部,人们会遇到更为具体的欠发达现象,尽管规模较小。因此,显而易见的是,发展要么被世界各地共享,要么即使在不断进步的地区也会经历倒退。这在很大程度上揭示了真正发展的本质:要么世界各国都参与其中,要么就不是真正的发展。

在发达国家也日益受到影响的欠发达具体迹象中,有两个尤其揭示了一种悲惨的局面。首先是住房危机。在联合国宣布的国际住房年期间。关注数百万缺乏适当住房或根本没有住房的人们,旨在唤醒每个人的良知,并找到解决这一严重问题及其对个人、家庭和社会造成的负面影响的办法。34

住房短缺问题普遍存在,这在很大程度上是由于城市化现象日益严重造成的。35 即使是在最发达的民族,也呈现出这样一种悲惨的景象:个人和家庭实际上挣扎求生,没有屋顶,或者屋顶太小,甚至没有屋顶。

住房短缺本身就是一个极其严重的问题,它应该被视为一系列缺陷的标志和总结:经济、社会、文化,甚至仅仅是人为的缺陷。鉴于问题的严重性,我们无需多言就能明白,我们距离真正的人民发展还有多远。

18. 失业和就业不足现象是绝大多数国家共同面临的另一个指标。

每个人都认识到工业化国家中这一问题的现实性及其日益严重的程度。36 尽管发展中国家人口增长率高、年轻人数量众多,这一问题令人担忧,但在经济高度发达的国家,工作机会似乎正在减少,就业机会不增反减。

这种现象也给个人和社会带来了一系列负面影响,从羞辱到丧失每个男人和女人都应有的自尊,促使我们认真思考过去二十年的发展模式。《劳动演说》通谕中的话语在此极为贴切:“必须强调的是,这一进步的构成要素,以及以教会所宣扬并不断祈祷的正义与和平精神来验证这一进步的最有效方式……是对人类劳动的不断重新评估,既要考虑其客观目的,也要考虑所有劳动主体——也就是人——的尊严。”另一方面,“我们不得不为一个令人不安的、极其巨大的事实所震惊:……大量人口失业……这一事实无疑表明,无论是在各个政治共同体内部,还是在它们在大陆和世界层面的关系中,工作和就业的组织都存在问题,而这些问题恰恰出现在最关键、最具社会意义的环节上。”37

第二种现象与前一种现象一样,由于其普遍性且有扩散的趋势,是我们今天所见的国家状况和人民发展质量的一个非常明显的负面信号。

19. 第三种现象,同样是近期的一个特征,尽管并非在所有地方都存在,但无疑同样表明了发达国家和欠发达国家之间的相互依存关系。这就是国际债务问题,教宗正义与和平委员会就此发布了一份文件。38

在这一点上,我们不能忽视此类问题与民族发展问题之间的密切联系——其日益严重的程度早在《民族发展》39中就已预见到。


发展中国家人民之所以接受大量可用资本的供给,是因为他们希望能够将其投资于发展项目。因此,获得资本以及接受贷款可以被视为对发展的贡献,这本身就是值得追求且合法的,尽管这种做法或许有些轻率,有时甚至有些草率。

债务国内部和国际金融市场的情况都发生了变化;原本旨在促进发展的工具已经变成了一种适得其反的机制。这是因为,债务国为了偿还债务,不得不将改善或至少维持其生活水平所需的资本输出。也因为出于同样的原因,他们无法获得新的、同样重要的融资。

通过这种机制,原本用于促进人民发展的手段反而变成了发展的绊脚石,在某些情况下甚至加剧了欠发达状况。

正如宗座正义与和平委员会最近的文件[40]所述,这些观察应当促使我们反思民族间相互依存的伦理特征。同样,这些观察也应当促使我们反思发展合作的要求和条件,这些要求和条件同样受到伦理原则的启发。

20. 如果我们在此探讨发展进程严重滞后的原因——这种滞后的出现与《民族发展》通谕的指示相悖,而《民族发展》通谕曾寄予厚望——那么,我们尤其应该关注造成当今局势的政治根源。

面对诸多无疑错综复杂的因素,我们无法指望在此做出全面的分析。然而,我们不能忽视二战以来政治格局中一个引人注目的事实,这一事实对民族发展的前进产生了重大影响。

我指的是两个对立的阵营的存在,通常被称为东方阵营和西方阵营。这种描述的原因并非纯粹的政治因素,正如其名,也与地缘政治有关。两个阵营都倾向于吸收或聚集其他国家或国家集团,并使其加入或参与的程度有所不同。

这种对立首先是政治性的,因为每个阵营都认同一种组织社会和行使权力的体系,而这种体系本身就是对其他阵营的替代。反过来,政治对立又源于更深层次的意识形态对立。

西方存在着一种制度,其历史渊源受到上个世纪工业化发展而来的自由资本主义原则的启发。东方存在着一种制度,其灵感源于马克思主义集体主义,这种集体主义源于对无产阶级阶级状况的特定解读。两种意识形态基于对人及其自由和社会角色截然不同的理解,在经济层面上,各自提出并仍在推行截然相反的劳动组织形式和所有制结构,尤其是在所谓的生产资料方面。

随着对立体系和权力中心的形成,以及各自独特的宣传和灌输形式,意识形态的对立不可避免地会演变成日益增长的军事对立,并催生出两大武装集团,彼此都对对方的统治心存疑虑和恐惧。

反过来,国际关系也必然会感受到这种“集团逻辑”及其各自“势力范围”的影响。始于二战末期的两大集团之间的紧张关系,主宰了随后的整个四十年。有时,它以“冷战”的形式出现,有时通过操纵局部冲突而演变成“代理人战争”,有时则以公开的全面战争的威胁让人们心神不宁,焦虑不安。

尽管目前这种危险似乎有所减弱,但并未完全消失,尽管就销毁一种核武器达成了初步协议,但各集团的存在和对抗仍然是一个真实存在且令人担忧的事实,仍然笼罩着世界局势。


21. 这种情况在涉及发展中国家的国际关系中尤其会产生负面影响。众所周知,东西方之间的紧张关系本身并非两种不同发展水平之间的对立,而是两种关于个人和民族发展的概念之间的对立,而这两种概念都是不完善的,需要彻底修正。这种对立转移到发展中国家本身,从而加剧了南北之间经济水平上业已存在的差距,而这种差距源于两个世界(较发达世界和欠发达世界)之间的距离。

这就是为什么教会的社会训导对自由资本主义和马克思主义集体主义都持批判态度的原因之一。因为从发展的角度来看,一个问题自然而然地出现:这两种体系在何种程度上能够进行变革和更新,从而有利于或促进​​现代社会中个人和民族的真正和全面发展?事实上,这些变革和更新对于全人类共同发展的事业而言是迫切且必要的。

那些刚刚获得独立、正在努力建立自身文化和政治认同、需要所有富裕和发达国家提供有效且公正援助的国家,发现自己深陷意识形态冲突,有时甚至被其压倒。这些冲突不可避免地会造成内部分裂,有时甚至会引发全面内战。此外,发展投资和援助常常被转移用途,用于维持冲突,这与本应受益的国家的利益背道而驰。许多国家越来越意识到沦为某种新殖民主义牺牲品的危险,并正在努力摆脱这种危险。正是这种意识,尽管面临重重困难、不确定性,有时甚至充满矛盾,却催生了国际不结盟国家运动。该运动的积极意义在于,它希望以有效的方式维护每个民族拥有自身认同、独立和安全的权利,以及在平等和团结的基础上分享普惠于所有人的福祉的权利。

22. 鉴于这些考虑,我们很容易对过去二十年的情况有更清晰的认识,也更容易理解北半球,即东西方之间的冲突,是南方发展受阻或停滞的重要原因。

发展中国家非但没有成为自主的国家,致力于在公平分享本应惠及所有人的商品和服务方面取得进步,反而沦为机器的零件,如同巨大齿轮上的齿轮。社会传播领域也常常如此,这些领域主要由位于北半球的中心负责,并不总是充分考虑这些国家的优先事项和问题,也不尊重它们的文化构成。它们常常强加一种扭曲的人生观和人性观,从而无法回应真正发展的要求。

两大阵营都以各自的方式,隐含着一种通常所说的帝国主义倾向,或某种形式的新殖民主义倾向:正如历史(包括近代史)所表明的那样,它们常常容易陷入这种诱惑。

正是这种由战争和过分夸大的安全担忧造成的异常局面,扼杀了所有人为了人类共同福祉而团结合作的动力,尤其损害了爱好和平的人民的利益,他们被阻挠获得本应属于所有人的福祉。

由此看来,当前的世界分裂直接阻碍了发展中国家和欠发达国家真正改变其欠发达状况。然而,各国人民并不总是听天由命。此外,受军费开支、官僚主义和内在低效所扼杀的经济的真正需求,现在似乎更倾向于采取一些能够缓和现有反对力量、更容易开启富有成效的对话和真正的和平合作的进程。

23. 《民族发展》通谕指出,用于武器生产的资源和投资应当用于减轻贫困人民的苦难41,这更加迫切地呼吁消除两大阵营之间的对立。


如今,现实是,这些资源被用来使两大阵营各自超越对方,从而保障自身的安全。那些在历史、经济和政治上都可能发挥领导作用的国家,却因这种根本性的扭曲而无法充分履行其团结互助的义务,造福那些渴望全面发展的人民。

现在恰逢其时——毫不夸张地说——国家间的领导地位只有通过能够并愿意为共同利益做出广泛而慷慨的贡献才能得到认可。

如果一个国家或多或少地故意屈服于自我封闭的诱惑,而未能履行其在国际社会中优越地位所带来的责任,那么它将严重违背其明确的道德义务。这在历史的境况中显而易见,信士们洞悉天意的安排,随时准备利用万民来实现其计划,使“万民的谋划落空”(参阅圣咏 33[32]:10)。

当西方表现出逐渐沉溺于日益增长的自私孤立,而东方则似乎出于可疑的原因而忽视其在减轻人类苦难方面合作的义务时,我们面临的不仅是对人类合理期望的背叛——这种背叛预示着不可预见的后果——而且也是对道德义务的真正背弃。

24. 如果说武器生产在当今世界严重扰乱了人类的真正需求,阻碍了人们使用能够满足这些需求的手段,那么武器贸易也同样应受谴责。事实上,对于后者,必须补充的是,道德审判甚至更为严厉。众所周知,这是一种无国界的贸易,甚至能够跨越集团的壁垒。它深谙如何克服东西方之间的隔阂,尤其是南北之间的隔阂,甚至——而且更为严重——将其渗透到构成南半球的各个地区。因此,我们面临着一个奇怪的现象:尽管经济援助和发展计划面临着难以逾越的意识形态壁垒以及关税和贸易壁垒的阻碍,但无论来源如何,武器却几乎完全自由地在世界各地流通。正如宗座正义与和平委员会最近关于国际债务的文件42所指出的那样,众所周知,在某些情况下,发达国家借出的资金被用于欠发达国家购买武器。

如果除此之外,我们再加上核武器大规模储存所带来的巨大且举世公认的危险,那么合乎逻辑的结论似乎是:在当今世界,包括经济领域,普遍存在的景象注定会让我们更快地走向死亡,而不是像《民族进步》通谕所设想的那样,关注真正的发展,从而引领所有人走向“更人性化”的生活。43

这种状况的后果体现在一个伤口的溃烂中,它代表并揭示了现代世界的不平衡和冲突:数百万难民因战争、自然灾害、迫害和各种歧视而失去了家园、工作、家人和祖国。这些难民的悲剧反映在一个分裂而荒凉的世界中,男人、女人和孩子们绝望的脸上,他们再也找不到家园。

我们也不能对当今世界另一个令人痛心的伤口视而不见:恐怖主义现象。恐怖主义的意图在于肆意杀人毁物,制造恐怖和不安全的气氛,通常包括劫持人质。即使某种意识形态或创造更美好社会的愿望被援引为这种非人道行为的动机,恐怖主义行为也永远无法得到辩护。尤其当像今天这样,这些决定和行动——有时会导致真正的屠杀,甚至绑架与冲突无关的无辜民众——声称是为了推进某种事业而进行宣传时,这种做法就更不值得辩护了。更糟糕的是,如果这些决定和行动本身就是目的,以至于谋杀仅仅是为了杀戮。面对如此恐怖和苦难,我几年前说过的话仍然适用,我想再次重申:“基督教禁止的是通过仇恨的方式、通过谋杀手无寸铁的人、通过恐怖主义的手段来寻求解决方案。”44


25. 在此,有必要谈谈人口问题以及当今人们对此问题的讨论方式,这与保禄六世在其通谕45中所述,以及我本人在《家庭团体》宗座劝谕46中详细阐述的观点一致。

不可否认,人口问题的存在,尤其是在南半球,给发展带来了诸多困难。

必须立即补充的是,在北半球,这个问题的性质正好相反:令人担忧的是出生率的下降,以及由此引发的人口老龄化,人口甚至无法在生物学上自我更新。这种现象本身就足以阻碍发展。正如说这些困难完全源于人口增长是错误的一样,也没有证据表明所有人口增长都与有序发展相矛盾。

另一方面,令人担忧的是,许多国家的政府正在系统性地发起反对生育的运动,这不仅违背了这些国家自身的文化和宗教特征,也违背了真正发展的本质。这些运动往往是迫于来自国外的压力和资金,有时甚至被作为提供财政和经济援助的条件。无论如何,对当事人的选择自由完全缺乏尊重,男男女女常常承受着难以忍受的压力,包括经济压力,以迫使他们屈服于这种新形式的压迫。遭受这种虐待的正是最贫困的群体,这有时会导致某种形式的种族主义倾向,或助长某些同样带有种族主义色彩的优生学。

这一事实也应受到最强烈的谴责,它表明了对真正人类发展的错误和扭曲的理解。

26. 如果不提​​及当代世界发展现状中并存的积极方面,那么这种以负面为主的概述是不完整的。

第一个积极的方面是,众多男女充分意识到了自身的尊严以及每个人的尊严。这种意识体现在,例如,人们更加强烈地关注人权应得到尊重,并更加坚决地反对侵犯人权的行为。其中一个标志是近期成立的私人协会的数量,其中一些协会的成员遍布全球,几乎所有协会都致力于以极其谨慎和值得称赞的客观性来监测这一敏感领域的国际动态。

在这个层面上,我们必须承认联合国组织四十年前颁布的《人权宣言》所产生的影响。它的存在及其逐渐被国际社会接受本身就表明了人们的意识日益增强。在人权领域,联合国组织或其他国际组织颁布的其他法律文书也同样如此。47

我们所讨论的这种意识不仅适用于个人,也适用于国家和民族。作为具有特定文化认同的实体,国家和民族对其珍贵遗产的保护、自由行使和弘扬尤为敏感。

与此同时,在一个分裂并饱受各种冲突困扰的世界里,人们日益坚信一种彻底的相互依存,并因此更加需要一种团结互助,将这种相互依存提升到道德层面。如今,人们或许比过去更加深刻地意识到,他们被共同的命运紧密联系在一起,只有共同构建这个命运,才能避免全人类的灾难。从当代世界典型的痛苦、恐惧和诸如毒品之类的逃避现实现象的深渊中,一种观念逐渐浮现:我们所有人所追求的善和我们所渴望的幸福,若非全人类(无一例外)共同努力、共同承诺,并因此放弃个人私利,就无法实现。

此外,值得一提的是,作为尊重生命的标志——尽管存在着通过堕胎和安乐死毁灭生命的种种诱惑——是对和平的关注,以及对和平不可分割性的认识。它要么属于所有人,要么属于任何人。它要求人们更加严格地尊重正义,从而公平地分配真正发展的成果。48

在当今的积极迹象中,我们还必须提到人们更加认识到可用资源的有限性,以及尊重自然的完整性和循环的必要性,并在规划发展时将其纳入考量,而不是为了某些煽动性的观念而牺牲它们。今天,这被称为生态关怀。


我们也应当承认政治家、政客、经济学家、工会会员、科学家和国际官员的慷慨奉献——他们中的许多人受到宗教信仰的鼓舞——他们不惜牺牲个人利益,努力解决世界弊病,竭尽全力,确保越来越多的人能够享受和平的益处和名副其实的高质量生活。

一些重要的国际组织和一些区域组织为此做出了不小的贡献。他们的共同努力使得行动更加有效。

也正是由于这些贡献,一些第三世界国家尽管承受着诸多不利因素的重负,却成功地实现了一定的粮食自给,或实现了一定程度的工业化,使其能够有尊严地生存,并为劳动人口提供就业保障。

因此,当代世界并非全是负面的,也不可能全是,因为天父的眷顾甚至关照着我们的日常琐事(参阅玛窦福音 6:25-32;10:23-31;路加福音 12:6-7, 22-30)。事实上,我们提到的积极价值观体现了一种新的道德关怀,尤其关乎发展与和平等人类重大问题。

这一事实促使我思考民族发展的真正本质,这与我们正在纪念的通谕的思路一致,也是为了表达对其教诲的敬意。

四真正的人类发展

27. 通谕邀请我们对当代世界进行审视,这首先使我们注意到,发展并非一个直截了当的过程,它并非自动自发、本身无限,仿佛在特定条件下,人类就能迅速迈向某种未定义的完美境界。49

这种观念——与源自启蒙运动的哲学内涵“进步”概念相关,而非与特定经济和社会意义上的“发展”概念相关——50 如今似乎受到了严重的质疑,尤其是在经历了两次世界大战的悲惨经历、有计划且部分实现的对整个民族的毁灭以及迫在眉睫的原子弹危机之后。天真的机械乐观主义已被对人类命运的合理担忧所取代。

28. 然而,与此同时,与“发展”一词相关的“经济”概念本身也陷入了危机。事实上,如今人们更加深刻地认识到,仅仅积累商品和服务,即使是为了大多数人的利益,也不足以实现人类的幸福。因此,近年来科技(包括计算机科学)带来的诸多实际益处,也未能将人类从各种形式的奴役中解放出来。相反,近年来的经验表明,除非人类所掌握的大量资源和潜力都以道德理解和对人类真正福祉的追求为指导,否则它们很容易反过来压迫人类。

关于最近时期的一个令人不安的结论应该能给我们一些启发:除了自身不可接受的欠发达苦难之外,我们还面临着一种同样不可接受的超级发展形式,因为它与前者一样,与善和真正的幸福背道而驰。这种超级发展,即为了特定社会群体的利益而过度提供各种物质产品,很容易使人们沦为“占有”和即时满足的奴隶,除了不断增加或用更好的东西替换已有的东西之外,别无他途。这就是所谓的“消费”或“消费主义”文明,它包含着大量的“丢弃”和“浪费”。一件已经拥有但现在被更好的东西取代的物品被丢弃,既不考虑其本身可能具有的持久价值,也不考虑其他更贫穷的人。

我们所有人都亲身体验过这种盲目屈服于纯粹消费主义的悲惨后果:首先是粗俗的物质主义,同时是彻底的不满,因为人们很快就会明白——除非人们远离铺天盖地的宣传和源源不断的诱人商品——拥有的越多,欲望也就越多,而更深层次的渴望却得不到满足,甚至可能被扼杀。


教宗保禄六世的通谕指出了“拥有”与“存在”之间的区别,这一点如今屡屡被强调,51 梵蒂冈第二次大公会议早已以精准的措辞表达了这一点。52 “拥有”物品和财富本身并不能使人性完美,除非它有助于人性“存在”的成熟和丰富,也就是说,除非它有助于实现人性本身的使命。

当然,“存在”与“拥有”之间的区别,以及相对于“存在”的价值,仅仅增加或替换所拥有物品所固有的危险,并不一定会导致矛盾。当代世界最大的不公正之一恰恰在于:拥有大量财富的人相对较少,而几乎一无所有的人却很多。这种不公正源于原本应惠及所有人的商品和服务分配不均。

因此,情况就是这样:有些人——少数拥有大量财富的人——无法真正“存在”,因为价值等级的颠倒,他们被“拥有”的崇拜所阻碍;而另一些人——多数拥有极少甚至一无所有的人——无法实现其基本的人类使命,因为他们被剥夺了必需品。

罪恶不在于“拥有”本身,而在于不顾所拥有物品的质量和有序的等级制度而占有。质量和等级制度源于物品及其可获得性对人的“存在”及其真正使命的从属关系。

这表明,尽管发展具有必要的经济维度,因为它必须为尽可能多的世界居民提供他们“存在”所必需的物品,但它并不局限于这一维度。如果它仅限于此,那么它就会反过来损害那些它本应造福的人。

保禄六世曾描述过全面发展的特征,即“更人性化”的发展,能够在不否定经济需求的情况下,在男女真正使命的层面上持续发展。53

29. 发展不仅仅是经济的发展,它必须根据人的整体性及其使命,即人的内在维度来衡量和引导。毫无疑问,人需要创造的财富和工业产品,而科技进步不断丰富着这些财富和产品。物质财富的日益丰富不仅满足了需求,也开辟了新的视野。滥用物质财富和人为需求的出现,绝不应妨碍我们重视并善用这些新财富和资源。相反,我们必须将它们视为天主的恩赐,以及对在基督里圆满实现的人类使命的回应。

然而,在努力实现真正发展的过程中,我们绝不能忽视人性中蕴含的维度,人是天主按照自己的肖像和样式所造(参创1:26)。这本质既有肉体,也有灵性,在第二次创造的记载中,这象征着两种元素:地,天主用地造人的身体;以及天主吹入人鼻孔的生命之气(参创2:7)。

因此,人与其他受造物产生了某种亲和力:他被召唤去使用它们,并与它们互动。正如《创世记》的记载(参创2:15),人被安置在伊甸园中,肩负着耕种和看守的责任,比天主置于他统治下的其他受造物更优越(参创1:25-26)。但与此同时,人必须始终服从天主的旨意,天主限制人对万物的使用和统治(参见创 2:16-17),正如祂预示人终有一死(参见创 2:9;智 2:23)。因此,人作为天主的肖像,也与天主有着真正的亲和力。基于这一教导,发展不应仅仅在于对受造之物和人类工业产品的使用、统治和无差别的占有,而应在于将占有、统治和使用置于人的神圣相似性和人永生的使命之下。这是人类超越性的现实,这一现实从一开始就被视为由一对夫妇,一男一女共同拥有(参见创 1:27),因此从根本上来说,它是社会性的。

30. 因此,根据圣经,发展的概念不仅是“世俗的”或“世俗的”,它本身也被视为人类使命本质维度的现代表达,尽管它本身具有社会经济维度。


事实上,人并非被造得一动不动、静止不动。圣经对人的最初描绘,无疑将人描绘成一个受造物和肖像,其最深层的本质由构成他的起源和亲缘关系所定义。但这一切都在人类——男人和女人——心中埋下了种子,并要求他们各自以及作为夫妻共同完成一项特殊的任务。这项任务就是“治理”其他受造物,“耕耘园地”。这项任务必须在服从天主律法的框架内完成,因此要尊重所接受的肖像。这肖像是统治权的明确基础,而统治权被认为是人通往完美的途径(参见创世记 1:26-30;2:15-16;智经 9:2-3)。

当人违背天主,拒绝服从他的统治时,自然就会反抗他,不再承认他是它的“主人”,因为他玷污了自身神圣的肖像。对受造物的所有权和使用权依然有效,但在罪恶之后,行使这一权利变得困难重重,充满苦难(参见创世记 3:17-19)。

事实上,《创世记》的下一章向我们展示了加音的后裔建造了“一座城”,从事牧羊业,从事艺术(音乐)和技术(冶金术);与此同时,人们开始“呼求上主的名”(参见创世记 4:17-26)。

圣经所描述的人类历史,即使在堕落犯罪之后,仍然是一个不断成就的故事。尽管这些成就总是受到质疑和罪恶的威胁,但它们仍在不断重复、增长和扩展,以响应从起初赋予男人和女人的神圣使命(参见创世记 1:26-28),并铭刻在他们所接受的肖像中。

至少对于那些相信天主圣言的人来说,合乎逻辑的结论是:今天的“发展”应被视为始于创世之初的故事中的一个瞬间,而这个故事不断因违背造物主旨意,尤其是受偶像崇拜的诱惑而受到威胁。但这种“发展”从根本上与第一个前提相符。任何人若以斗争艰巨、需要不断努力为借口,或仅仅因为经历过失败、需要重新开始,而放弃改善全人类乃至所有人命运这一艰巨而崇高的任务,那么这个人就是在背叛造物主天主的旨意。在这方面,我在《劳动练习》通谕中提到了人的劳动圣召,以强调人始终是发展的主角。54

事实上,主耶稣本人在塔冷通谕中,就强调了胆敢隐瞒所获礼物的人将受到的严厉惩罚:“你这又恶又懒的仆人!你知道我没有种的地方要收割,我没有扬的地方要聚敛吗?……把那一千银子夺过来,交给那有一万银子的。”(玛窦福音 25:26-28)我们领受天主的恩赐,是为了使它们结出果实,我们有责任“撒种”和“收割”。如果我们不这样做,连我们所有的也将被夺走。

更深入地研读这些严厉的话语,将使我们更加坚定地致力于当今每个人迫切需要履行的责任,即共同努力,促进他人的全面发展:“全人类和所有人的发展”。55

31. 对救赎主基督的信仰,不仅从内在照亮了发展的本质,也引导我们完成合作的任务。在圣保禄致歌罗西人书中,我们读到基督是“一切受造物的首生者”,并且“万物都是藉着他造的”,并且是为他而造的(1:15-16)。事实上,“万物都靠他而立”,因为“天主乐意使一切的丰盛都居住在他内,并藉着他使万物与自己和好了”(20节)。

这神圣计划的一部分,始于永恒的基督——天父完美的“肖像”,并以祂——“从死者中首先复生的”(18节)——为顶点。这计划的一部分,就是我们自身的历史,以我们个人和集体的努力为标志,提升人类的境况,并克服我们前进道路上不断出现的障碍。因此,这计划预备我们分享“居住在主内”的丰盛,祂将这些丰盛“赐给他的身体,就是教会”(18节;参阅弗1:22-23)。与此同时,那总是试图陷害我们、危及我们人类成就的罪恶,却因基督所成就的“和好”而被征服和救赎(参阅哥1:20)。

在此,视野更加开阔。 “无限进步”的梦想再次出现,基督教信仰所创造的新观点彻底改变了这种梦想,它向我们保证,进步之所以可能,只是因为天父从一开始就决定让人类在从死里复活的耶稣基督里分享他的荣耀,在耶稣基督里“我们因他的血得蒙救赎”。


在这里,视野更加开阔。“无限进步”的梦想再次出现,并被基督教信仰所创造的新视角彻底改变,它向我们保证,进步之所以可能,唯有因为天父从一开始就决定让人在从死里复活的耶稣基督里分享他的荣耀,在耶稣基督里“我们藉这爱子的血得蒙救赎……过犯得以赦免”(弗 1:7)。天主希望在他里面战胜罪恶,并使它服务于我们更大的益处,56 这益处无限地超越了进步所能达到的。

因此,当我们在欠发达和过度发达的晦涩和不足中挣扎时,我们可以说,终有一天,这必朽坏的身体将变成不朽坏的,这必死的身体将变成不死的(参见格前 15:54),那时主“要把国交与父神”(24节),所有值得人类付出的努力和行为都将得到救赎。

此外,信仰的概念清晰地阐明了促使教会关注发展问题、将其视为牧灵职责、并敦促所有人思考真正人类发展的本质和特征的原因。一方面,教会渴望通过自身的奉献,服务于神圣的计划,这计划旨在使万物达到基督内(参见哥1:19)的圆满,并由基督传授给他的身体;另一方面,教会渴望回应其作为“圣事”的基本使命,即“与天主亲密结合以及全人类合一的标记和工具”。57

一些教父受到这一理念的启发,以独创的方式发展了一种关于历史意义和人类工作的概念,其目标超越了历史意义本身,并且始终以其与基督工作的关系为界。换句话说,在教父们的教导中,我们可以找到一种对历史和工作的乐观看法,也就是说,它认为真正的人类成就具有永恒的价值,因为它们被基督救赎,并注定要进入应许的天国。58

因此,教会的教导和最古老的实践之一,就是她坚信,她——她自己、她的圣职人员以及她的每一位成员——有责任不仅从她的“富足”中,而且从她的“必需品”中,去救济远近受苦者的苦难。面对需要帮助的情况,人们不能为了追求多余的教堂装饰和昂贵的敬拜用品而忽视它们;相反,为了给那些缺乏这些东西的人提供食物、饮料、衣服和住所,出售这些物品可能是义务。59 正如前文所述,这里向我们展示了财产权框架内“拥有”与“存在”之间的“价值等级”,尤其是当少数人的“拥有”可能损害许多其他人的“存在”时。

教宗保禄六世在其通谕中秉持了这一教导,其灵感源自《牧职宪章》。60 就我个人而言,我想再次强调这一教导的严肃性和紧迫性,并祈求上主赐予所有基督徒力量,使他们能够忠实地将其付诸实践。

32. 致力于民族发展的义务不仅仅是个人的责任,更不是个人主义的责任,仿佛可以通过每个人的孤立努力来实现这种发展。这是每个男人和女人、社会和国家都应尽的义务。尤其,它要求天主教会以及其他教会和教会团体在这方面与他们合作。从这个意义上说,正如我们天主教徒邀请我们的基督教兄弟参与我们的倡议一样,我们也宣布我们愿意与他们合作,并欢迎他们向我们发出的邀请。在追求人类全面发展的过程中,我们也可以与其他宗教信徒一起做很多事情,事实上,我们正在各地这样做。

在全人发展和每个人发展方面的合作实际上是所有人对所有人的责任,必须由世界的四个部分共同承担:东方和西方,北方和南方;或者,正如我们今天所说,由不同的“世界”共同承担。相反,如果人们试图只在一个部分或一个世界实现这一目标,那么他们就会以牺牲其他部分为代价;正是因为忽视了他人,他们自身的发展才被夸大和误导。

人民或国家也有权实现自身的充分发展,这不仅包括——正如前文所述——经济和社会层面的发展,也应包括个人的文化认同和对超越的开放。即使是发展的需要,也不能成为将自己的生活方式或宗教信仰强加于人的借口。


33. 任何不尊重和促进人权(包括个人权利、社会权利、经济权利和政治权利,以及国家和民族的权利)的发展,都不是真正值得人类追求的发展。

如今,或许比过去更加清晰地看到了仅限于经济因素的发展的内在矛盾。这种发展很容易使人及其最深层的需求屈从于经济计划和自私利益的要求。

真正的发展与尊重人权之间的内在联系再次揭示了发展的道德特质:人的真正提升,符合每个人的自然和历史使命,并非仅仅通过利用丰富的商品和服务,或拥有完善的基础设施就能实现。

如果个人和社群未能严格尊重基于人格尊严和每个社群(从家庭和宗教团体开始)的固有身份的道德、文化和精神需求,那么所有其他的一切——商品的供应、丰富的日常生活技术资源、一定程度的物质福祉——都将无法令人满足,最终沦为可鄙之物。主在福音中明确地阐明了这一点,他呼吁所有人关注真正的价值等级:“人就是赚得全世界,赔上自己的生命,有什么益处呢?”(玛16:26)

真正的发展,符合人类——无论男女、儿童、成人还是老年人——的具体需求,尤其对于那些积极参与并负责这一进程的人来说,意味着对所有人和每个人权利的价值有着深刻的认识。同样,这也意味着要深刻认识到尊重每个人充分利用科技成果的权利的必要性。

在每个国家的内部层面,尊重所有权利都至关重要,尤其是:生命在其存在的各个阶段的权利;作为基本社会团体或“社会细胞”的家庭的权利;就业关系中的正义;政治团体生活中固有的权利;以及基于人类超越性使命的权利,首先是自由信奉和实践自身宗教信仰的权利。

在国际层面,即国家之间,或按当今的说法,不同“世界”之间关系的层面上,必须完全尊重每个民族的身份,包括其自身的历史和文化特征。同样重要的是,正如《民族发展》通谕所要求的那样,承认每个民族都有平等的权利“坐在共同筵席的餐桌上”,61 而不是像拉匝禄那样躺在门外,“让狗来舔他的疮”(参见路加福音 16:21)。无论是民族还是个人,都必须享有基本平等62,例如,这是《联合国宪章》的基础:这种平等是人人享有充分发展权利的基础。

发展若要真正实现,就必须在团结与自由的框架内实现,不得以任何借口牺牲其中任何一方。当对源于人性本有的真善秩序的一切要求给予最严格的尊重时,发展的道德性及其必要的促进就得到了强调。此外,基督徒被教导认识到人是天主的肖像,蒙召分享天主本身的真善,他们不会理解,对发展及其应用的承诺,会排除对这一“肖像”独特尊严的尊重和敬重。换句话说,真正的发展必须建立在对天主和邻人的爱之上,并且必须有助于促进个人与社会之间的关系。这就是保禄六世经常提到的“爱的文明”。

34. 发展的道德特质也不能排除对构成自然世界的众生的尊重,古希腊人——正是暗指区分自然世界的秩序——称之为“宇宙”。这样的现实也需要尊重,这基于三方面的考量,值得仔细思考。

首先,我们必须逐渐意识到,人们不能根据自身的经济需要,随意使用不同类别的众生,无论是生物还是非生物——动物、植物、自然元素。相反,我们必须考虑到每个众生的本质及其在一个有序体系中的相互联系,而这个体系正是宇宙。

第二个考虑基于这样一种认识——或许更为紧迫——即自然资源是有限的;有些资源并非如人们所说是可再生的。将它们视为取之不尽、用之不竭的绝对支配,不仅会严重危及当代人,更重要的是,会危及子孙后代的生存。

第三个考虑直接涉及某种发展模式对工业化地区生活质量的影响。我们都知道,工业化的直接或间接后果越来越频繁地是环境污染,这会对人口健康造成严重后果。

再次显而易见的是,发展、管理发展的规划以及资源的使用方式必须尊重道德要求。道德要求之一无疑对自然世界的利用施加了限制。造物主赋予人类的统治权并非绝对的权力,也不能说人类拥有“使用和滥用”的自由,或随心所欲地处置事物的自由。造物主自始便赋予的限制,象征性地体现在“不可吃树上的果子”(参创2:16-17)的禁令中。这充分表明,在自然界中,我们不仅要遵守生物法则,还要遵守道德法则,违反这些法则必将受到惩罚。

真正的发展理念不能忽视自然要素的利用、资源的可再生性以及随意工业化的后果——这三个因素警醒我们的良知,让我们意识到发展的道德维度。63

五、现代问题的神学解读

35. 正因为发展本质上具有道德性,阻碍发展的因素显然也同样具有道德性。如果自教宗保禄通谕发布以来,这些年来没有发展——或者发展极少、不规律,甚至自相矛盾——其原因不仅仅是经济方面的。正如前文所述,政治动机也在其中发挥作用。因为那些加速或减缓民族发展的决定实际上都具有政治性质。为了克服前文提到的误导性机制,并以更公正、更符合人类共同福祉的新机制取而代之,需要有效的政治意愿。遗憾的是,在分析了现状之后,我们不得不得出结论,这种政治意愿是远远不够的。

在像这样一份牧灵性质的文件中,仅仅局限于分析欠发达(以及所谓的超级发达,也作了必要的修改)的经济和政治原因,是不完整的。因此,有必要找出道德原因,这些原因就被视为负责任的个人的行为而言,会以某种方式阻碍发展进程并阻碍其充分实现。

同样,当科学技术资源可用,并结合必要的具体政治决策,应该能够帮助引导民族实现真正的发展时,发展的主要障碍只有通过本质上道德的决策才能克服。对于信徒,尤其是基督徒来说,这些决定将源于信仰原则,并借助神圣的恩宠。

36. 因此,重要的是要注意,一个被僵化的意识形态所束缚、分裂成集团的世界,一个由各种形式的帝国主义所主导而非相互依存和团结的世界,只能是一个受制于罪恶结构的世界。所有阻碍真正认识到普世共同福祉及其必要性的负面因素,似乎在个人和机构中制造了难以克服的障碍。64


如果当前的局势可以归咎于各种困境,那么谈论“罪恶的结构”也并非不妥。正如我在《和解与忏悔》宗座劝谕中所述,这些结构根植于个人的罪恶,因此始终与个人的具体行为息息相关。正是这些人引入、巩固了这些结构,并使其难以消除。65 因此,它们不断壮大、蔓延,成为其他罪恶的根源,从而影响人们的行为。

“罪恶”和“罪恶的结构”这两个类别很少被应用于当代世界的处境。然而,如果我们不明确困扰我们的罪恶根源,就很难深刻理解我们所面临的现实。

我们当然可以谈论“自私”、“短视”、“错误的政治算计”和“轻率的经济决策”。在每一种评价中,我们都能听到伦理和道德本质的回响。人类的处境如此,以至于对个人行为和疏忽的更深入分析,必然会以某种方式牵涉到伦理方面的判断或参照。

这种评价本身是积极的,尤其当它完全一致,并且基于对天主及其诫命行善、禁止作恶的律法的信仰时。

社会政治分析与正式提及“罪”和“罪的结构”之间的区别就在于此。根据后一种观点,三位一体天主的旨意、他对人类的计划、他的正义和他的慈悲都包含在内。这位富于怜悯的天主,人类的救赎主,生命的主宰和赐予者,要求人们拥有明确的态度,这些态度也体现在对邻人的作为或疏忽上。我们在此引用了十诫中的“第二块石板”(参见出埃及记 20:12-17;申命记 5:16-21)。不遵守这些就是冒犯上帝,伤害邻人,并给世界带来远远超出个人行为和短暂生命的影响和障碍。这也涉及到对民族发展进程的干预,其发展是否迟缓也必须以此为依据来判断。

37. 这种具有宗教性质的一般分析,可以通过一些具体的思考来补充,以表明在违背上帝旨意、邻人之善以及由此产生的“结构”的行为和态度中,有两种非常典型:一方面是无所顾忌的利润欲望,另一方面是权力欲,意图将自己的意志强加于人。为了更好地描述每一种态度,可以加上“不惜一切代价”这句话。换句话说,我们面临着人类态度的绝对化及其所有可能的后果。

由于这些态度可以彼此独立存在,因此它们可以被分离;然而,在当今世界,两者密不可分,非此即彼。

显然,不仅个人会成为这种双重罪恶态度的受害者,国家和集团也可能如此。这更助长了我所说的“罪恶结构”的出现。如果用这些道德标准来审视某些形式的现代“帝国主义”,我们就会发现,在某些看似仅受经济或政治驱动的决策背后,隐藏着真正的偶像崇拜:对金钱、意识形态、阶级和技术的崇拜。

我之所以希望引入这种分析,首先是为了指出我们在民族发展方面所面临的邪恶的本质:这是一个道德上的邪恶问题,是诸多罪恶的产物,这些罪恶导致了“罪恶结构”。以这种方式诊断邪恶,就是在人类行为的层面上,准确地识别出克服邪恶应遵循的道路。

38. 这条道路漫长而复杂,而且由于人类决心和成就的内在脆弱性,以及难以预测的外部环境的变幻莫测,它不断受到威胁。然而,我们必须有勇气踏上这条道路,并且,如果已经迈出了一些步伐或完成了一部分旅程,更要有勇气坚持到底。

在这些反思的背景下,决定踏上或继续这段旅程,首先涉及一种道德价值,这种道德价值被有信仰的男女视为天主旨意的要求,是绝对具有约束力的伦理的唯一真正基础。

希望那些没有明确信仰的男女也能认识到,全面发展的障碍不仅在于经济,还在于人类能够转化为绝对价值的更深层次的态度。因此,希望所有在某种程度上有责任确保人类同胞过上“更人性化的生活”的人,无论是否受到宗教信仰的启发,都能充分意识到改变精神态度的迫切需要,这种态度决定了每个人与自身、与邻人、与最遥远的人类社群以及与自然本身的关系;所有这些都是为了更高的价值观,例如共同福祉,或者,用《民族发展》通谕的恰当表述来说,即“整个个人和所有人”的全面发展。66

对于基督徒,以及所有认识到“罪”一词确切神学含义的人而言,行为、心态或生存方式的改变被称为“皈依”,用《里赫勒》的话来说(参见谷 13:3, 5;依 30:15)。这种皈依具体意味着与天主、与所犯的罪、与其后果,以及与邻人(无论是个人还是团体)建立关系。正是天主,“掌权者的心”67 以及所有人的心都在祂手中,祂按照自己的应许,并借着祂圣灵的力量,能够将“石心”转变为“肉心”(参见结 36:26)。

在迈向理想的转变、克服发展中的道德障碍的道路上,我们已经能够看到个人和国家之间日益增强的相互依存意识所具有的积极道德价值。世界各地的男男女女都切身感受到遥远国度(或许他们永远不会踏足)发生的不公正和侵犯人权行为的影响,这进一步表明现实已转化为意识,并获得了道德内涵。

这首先是一个相互依存的问题,它被视为一个决定当代世界经济、文化、政治和宗教等诸多因素之间关系的体系,并被接受为一个道德范畴。当相互依存以这种方式得到认可时,与之相关的道德和社会态度,即“美德”,就是团结互助。因此,这并不是对远近众多人民的不幸遭遇而产生的模糊的同情或肤浅的悲痛。相反,这是一种坚定不移地致力于公共福祉的决心;也就是说,为了所有人和每个人的福祉,因为我们实际上都对所有人负有责任。这一决心基于坚定的信念:阻碍全面发展的,正是上文提到的对利益的渴望和对权力的渴求。这些态度和“罪恶的结构”只有通过截然相反的态度才能克服——前提是得到天主恩宠的帮助:致力于邻人的福祉,并随时准备在福音的意义上,为了他人而“牺牲自我”,而不是剥削他人;“服侍他人”,而不是为了自己的利益而压迫他人(参见玛窦福音 10:40-42;20:25;谷福音 10:42-45;路加福音 22:25-27)。

39. 当每个社会的成员彼此承认为人时,其内部的团结互助才是有效的。那些拥有更多财产和公共服务的较有影响力的人,应该对弱势群体感到有责任感,并愿意与他们分享自己的一切。弱势群体也应秉持同样的团结精神,不应采取纯粹消极或破坏社会结构的态度,而应在主张自身合法权利的同时,尽力为所有人的福祉服务。而中间群体则不应自私地坚持自身利益,而应尊重他人的利益。

当代世界的积极信号是,穷人之间的团结意识日益增强,他们努力相互支持,并在社会舞台上公开示威,在公共当局的低效或腐败面前,不诉诸暴力,表达自身的需求和权利。教会凭借其自身的福音使命,感到有责任与穷人站在一起,辨别他们诉求的正义性,并帮助他们满足诉求,同时不忽视在公共福祉的背景下群体的福祉。

同样的标准也适用于国际关系。相互依存必须转化为团结,其基础是“万物皆共享”的原则。人类工业通过原材料加工和劳动贡献所生产的产品,必须平等地服务于所有人的福祉。

强盛富饶的国家必须克服一切形式的帝国主义和维护自身霸权的决心,对其他国家抱有道德责任感,从而建立一个真正的国际体系,该体系将建立在所有民族平等和对其合理差异予以必要尊重的基础上。经济较弱或仍处于温饱线上的国家,必须在其他民族和国际社会的援助下,利用其人文和文化宝藏为公共福祉做出自己的贡献,否则这些财富将永远消亡。

团结互助帮助我们将“他者”——无论是个人、民族还是国家——视为不仅仅是某种工具,拥有劳动能力和体力,可以被廉价利用,然后在不再有用时被丢弃,而应视为我们的“近人”、“帮助者”(参见创世记 2:18-20),与我们平等地分享天主平等邀请所有人共享的生命盛宴。因此,重新唤醒个人和民族的宗教意识至关重要。这样,对他人的剥削、压迫和灭绝就被排除在外了。在当今世界分裂为对立阵营的背景下,这些事实共同导致了战争的危险和对个人安全的过度关注,这往往损害了位于所谓“势力范围”或“安全带”内的弱国的自治权、决策自由,甚至领土完整。

“罪恶的结构”及其产生的罪恶同样与和平与发展背道而驰,因为用教宗保禄通谕中耳熟能详的表述来说,发展是“和平的新名称”。68

因此,我们所倡导的团结互助是通往和平的道路,同时也是通往发展的道路。因为,除非世界各国领导人认识到相互依存本身就要求摒弃集团政治,牺牲一切形式的经济、军事或政治帝国主义,并将相互不信任转化为合作,否则世界和平是不可想象的。这正是个人之间和国家之间团结互助的应有之义。

我尊敬的前任教宗庇护十二世的座右铭是“Opus iustitiae pax”(和平是正义的果实)。今天,我们也可以同样精准地、同样具有圣经启示力量地再次强调(参见依撒意亚书 32:17;雅3:18):Opus solidaritatis pax(和平是团结的果实)。

人人都渴望的和平目标,必将通过落实社会和国际正义来实现,也必将通过践行有利于团结互助、教导我们团结共处的美德来实现,从而通过给予和接受,在团结中建设一个新的社会和一个更美好的世界。

40. 团结互助无疑是基督徒的美德。综观以上所述,我们可以看出团结互助与爱德之间有许多交汇之处,而爱德正是基督门徒的显著特征(参若十三35)。在信德的光照下,团结互助力求超越自身,展现出基督徒独有的完全无偿、宽恕与和好的维度。因此,我们的近人不仅是拥有自身权利、与他人享有基本平等的人,更是天父活生生的肖像,被耶稣基督的宝血救赎,并被置于圣神的永久感动之下。因此,即使近人是敌人,我们也必须以主爱他的爱去爱他;为了他,我们必须准备好牺牲,甚至是终极的牺牲:为弟兄们舍命(参若一三16)。

此时,对天主共同父性的认识,对基督内所有“子内子女”的兄弟情谊,以及对圣神临在及其赋予生命之行动的认识,将为我们对世界的理解带来一个新的标准。超越人与自然之间业已如此紧密牢固的联系,在信德的光照下,我们辨识出一种人类合一的新模式,这模式最终必将激发我们的团结互助。这种至高无上的合一模式,反映了三位一体天主的亲密生活,正是我们基督徒所说的“共融”。这种独特的基督徒共融,在主的协助下得到精心维护、扩展和丰富,正是教会使命的灵魂,即成为上文所指的“圣事”。

因此,团结必须在实现这一神圣计划中发挥作用,无论是在个人层面,还是在国家和国际社会层面。我们所说的“邪恶机制”和“罪恶结构”只有通过践行教会呼吁我们并孜孜不倦地倡导的人类和基督徒团结才能克服。只有这样,才能充分释放这些积极的能量,造福发展与和平。教会的许多封圣圣人为这种团结提供了美好的见证,并在当前艰难的处境中树立了榜样。其中,我想提及圣伯多禄·克拉弗及其在卡塔赫纳为奴隶们提供的服务,以及圣马克西米利安·玛利亚·科尔贝,他在奥斯维辛集中营中为一位素不相识的囚犯献出了自己的生命。

六一些具体的指导方针

41. 正如教宗保禄六世在其通谕[69]中已明确指出,教会本身并不能提供任何技术革命来解决欠发达问题。因为教会并不主张任何经济或政治制度或方案,也不会偏袒任何一方,只要人性尊严得到适当的尊重和促进,并且教会自身也拥有在世上履行其使命所需的空间。

然而,教会是“人性方面的专家”,[70]这必然使其将宗教使命扩展到各个领域,在这些领域中,人们为寻求与人性尊严相符的、在世上可能存在的、始终相对的幸福而付出了努力。

我必须重申,效仿我的前任,任何影响个人和民族尊严的问题,例如真正的发展,都不能被简化为一个“技术”问题。如果以这种方式贬低发展,其真正内涵将被掏空,这将是对发展本应服务的个人和民族的背叛。

正因如此,教会今天,如同二十年前一样,以及在未来,都对真正发展的性质、条件、要求和目标,以及阻碍其发展的障碍,都有所发言。教会在这样做的过程中,履行了其福传的使命,因为当教会宣扬关于基督、关于自身和关于人类的真理,并将这些真理应用于具体情况时,教会就为解决紧迫的发展问题做出了自己的首次贡献。71

教会运用其社会训导作为实现这一目标的工具。在当今的困境中,更准确地认识并更广泛地传播教会训导72所提出的“反思原则、判断标准和行动指南”,将有助于正确界定所面临的问题并找到最佳解决方案。

由此可见,我们面临的问题首先是道德问题;无论是对发展问题本身的分析,还是克服当前困境的手段,都不能忽视这一基本维度。

教会的社会训导并非自由资本主义与马克思主义集体主义之间的“第三条道路”,甚至也不是其他不那么对立的解决方案的可能替代方案:相反,它构成了一个独立的范畴。它也不是一种意识形态,而是在信仰和教会传统的光照下,对人类生存的复杂现实(无论是在社会中还是在国际秩序中)进行认真反思的结果的精确表述。它的主要目的是解释这些现实,确定它们是否符合福音关于人及其使命的教义,而这种使命既是世俗的,又是超越的;因此,它的目的是指导基督徒的行为。因此,它不属于意识形态的领域,而是神学的领域,尤其是道德神学的领域。

宣讲和传播社会训导是教会福传使命的一部分。由于这项训导旨在引导人们的行为,因此它根据每个人的角色、圣召和处境,激发人们“致力于正义”。

谴责邪恶和不公,也是社会领域福传使命的一部分,而社会领域福传使命是教会先知角色的一部分。但必须明确的是,宣讲始终比谴责更重要,谴责不能忽视宣讲,谴责赋予了宣讲真正的坚实性和更高动力。


42. 今日,教会的社会训导比以往更须开放国际视野,这与梵蒂冈第二次大公会议73、最近的通谕74,尤其是我们正在纪念的通谕75相符。因此,在此背景下,重新审视并进一步阐明近年来教会训导所处理的典型主题和指导方针并非多余。

在此,我想指出其中之一:对穷人的选择或偏爱。这是一种选择,或一种在实践基督徒爱德时的特殊优先地位,教会的整个传统都为此作证。它影响着每一位基督徒的生活,因为他或她努力效法基督的生活,但它同样适用于我们的社会责任,从而适用于我们的生活方式,以及有关财产所有权和使用权的合理决策。

此外,鉴于当今社会问题已呈现出全球性的维度76,这种对穷人的偏爱,以及由此引发的种种决定,必然会波及到无数饥饿、贫困、无家可归、得不到医疗照顾,以及最重要的,对美好未来失去希望的人。我们不可能不考虑这些现实的存在。忽视它们就等于像那个假装不认识躺在门口的乞丐拉撒路的“财主”(参见路加福音 16:19-31)77。

我们的日常生活以及我们在政治和经济领域的决策都必须以这些现实为依据。同样,国家领导人和国际机构的负责人,虽然有义务在其发展计划中始终将真正的人性维度作为优先事项,但也不应忘记优先考虑日益加剧的贫困现象。不幸的是,穷人的数量不但没有减少,反而在不断增加,这不仅在欠发达国家,而且——这似乎同样令人震惊——在较发达国家也是如此。

有必要再次强调基督教社会教义的典型原则:世间的财富本是为所有人而设的。78 私有财产权是有效且必要的,但它并不否定这一原则的价值。事实上,私有财产处于“社会抵押”之下,79 这意味着它具有内在的社会功能,其基础正是财富的普遍归宿原则,并由这一原则所证明。同样,在这种对穷人的关怀中,我们不应忽视那种特殊形式的贫困,即被剥夺基本人权,特别是宗教自由权以及经济自主权。

43. 对穷人——用一个非常有意义的词来说,他们就是“主的穷人”80——的关怀,必须在各个层面转化为具体的行动,直至最终实现一系列必要的改革。每个地方的情况都会表明哪些改革最为紧迫以及如何实现这些改革。但正如上文所述,国际不平衡形势所要求的改革也不容忽视。

在这方面,我想特别提及:国际贸易体系的改革,该体系受保护主义和日益增长的双边主义的拖累;世界货币和金融体系的改革,该体系目前被认为存在不足;技术交流及其合理使用的问题;以及在国际法律秩序框架内审查现有国际组织结构的必要性。

当今的国际贸易体系经常歧视发展中国家新兴产业的产品,并阻碍原材料生产商的发展。此外,还存在一种国际分工,即某些缺乏有效劳动法或劳动法执行不力的国家生产的低成本产品销往世界其他地区,为从事这种不分国界的生产方式的公司带来丰厚的利润。

世界货币和金融体系的特点是汇率和利率波动过大,这损害了较贫穷国家的国际收支平衡和债务状况。

技术形式及其转让是当今国际交流的主要问题之一,也是由此造成的严重损害之一。发展中国家被拒绝提供所需技术或接收无用技术的情况屡见不鲜。

许多人认为,国际组织似乎正处于其存在的一个阶段,需要对其运作方式、运作成本和效率进行仔细审查,并酌情进行修正。显然,如果没有各方的合作,如此微妙的进程就无法实施。这就要求克服政治竞争,并放弃一切操纵这些组织的欲望,因为这些组织的存在完全是为了共同的利益。

现有的机构和组织已经为各国人民的福祉发挥了良好的作用。然而,当今人类正处于其真正发展的一个全新且更加艰难的阶段。它需要更高程度的国际秩序,以服务于全世界的社会、经济和文化。

44. 发展首先要求需要发展的国家具有主动精神。81 每个国家都必须根据自身的责任行事,不应期望从更受青睐的国家那里得到一切,而应与处境相同的其他国家合作。每个国家都必须发现并充分利用其自身的自由领域。每个国家都必须有能力主动响应自身作为一个社会的需求。同样,每个国家都必须认识到自身的真正需求,以及由此而产生的权利和义务。民族的发展始于每个民族致力于自身发展,并与他人合作,并在此过程中得到最恰当的实现。

因此,发展中国家自身应尽可能地通过接触更广泛的文化和自由的信息交流,支持每个公民的自我肯定。正如《民族发展》通谕所倡导的那样,任何促进识字率以及完善和深化识字率的基础教育,都是对真正发展的直接贡献。82 在世界许多地方,这些目标仍远未实现。

为了走这条道路,各国自身必须根据其人民的具体情况、地理环境和文化传统,确定自身的优先事项,并清楚地认识到自身的需要。

一些国家必须增加粮食产量,以确保始终有生存和日常生活所需的粮食。在当今世界,饥荒夺走了如此多的受害者,尤其是在幼童之中——但也有一些不太发达的国家实现了粮食自给自足的目标,甚至成为粮食出口国。

其他国家需要改革某些不公正的结构,特别是其政治体制,以便用民主和参与式的政府形式取代腐败、独裁和专制的政府形式。我们希望这一进程能够推广并不断发展壮大。因为政治共同体的“健康”——体现在所有公民自由且负责任地参与公共事务、参与法治以及尊重人权的前提下——是“完整的个体和所有人”发展的必要条件和可靠保障。

45. 如果没有所有人——尤其是国际社会——在团结互助的框架下,从最受忽视的群体开始,包容所有人,上述所有目标都无法实现。但发展中国家自身也有义务在彼此之间以及与世界上最贫困的国家之间践行团结。

例如,理想的做法是,同一地理区域内的国家应该建立合作形式,以减少对更强大生产国的依赖;它们应该向该地区的产品开放边境;它们应该研究如何使彼此的产品互补;它们应该联合起来,提供各自无法单独提供的服务;它们应该将合作扩展到货币和金融领域。

在许多这样的国家中,相互依存已成为现实。承认这一点,并使其更具可操作性,是避免过度依赖更富裕、更强大国家的一种替代方案,也是人们所期望的发展的一部分,它不与任何国家对抗,而是发掘并最大限度地利用自身的潜力。属于同一地理区域的发展中国家,尤其是“南方”国家,可以而且应该在平等、自由和参与国际社会的准则的启发下,建立新的区域组织——正如目前已经发生并取得良好成果的那样。

全球团结的必要条件是自治和自由自决,在诸如上述协会内部也同样如此。但与此同时,团结也要求我们愿意为了整个国际社会的福祉而做出必要的牺牲。


七、结语

46. 各民族和个人都渴望自由:他们对全面发展的追求,表明他们渴望克服阻碍他们享受“更人性化的生活”的诸多障碍。

近年来,在《民族发展》通谕发布后的一段时间里,一种应对贫困和欠发达问题的新方法在世界某些地区,尤其是在拉丁美洲,得到了推广。这种方法将解放作为行动的基本范畴和首要原则。教会训导当局恰当地指出了这种神学反思和方法所蕴含的积极价值,以及损害信仰的偏差和偏差风险。83

值得补充的是,渴望摆脱一切形式奴役个人和社会的自由,是高尚而正当的。事实上,这正是发展的目的,或者更确切地说,解放与发展,考虑到两者之间的密切联系。

单纯的经济发展无法使人获得自由,相反,最终只会使人更加被奴役。如果发展不包含人与社会的文化、超越和宗教层面,如果它不承认这些层面的存在,也不努力将其目标和优先事项导向这些层面,那么这种发展就更无助于真正的解放。人类只有完全做自己,充分履行其权利和义务,才能获得完全的自由。整个社会也是如此。

通往真正解放的道路上,需要克服的主要障碍是罪恶以及罪恶不断滋生和蔓延所构建的结构。84

基督释放了我们自由(参见加拉太书 5:1),这自由鼓励我们成为众人的仆人。因此,发展与解放的进程在团结互助的实践中具体成形,即在对近人,尤其是最贫困者的爱与服务中具体成形:“因为,当真理与爱缺失时,解放的进程将导致自由的消亡,而自由也将失去所有支撑。”85

47. 鉴于近年来的悲惨经历以及当前主要负面的景象,教会必须坚定地肯定克服阻碍发展的障碍的可能性,无论这些障碍是过度的还是不足的。教会必须坚定地肯定对真正解放的信心。归根结底,这种信心和这种可能性基于教会对神圣承诺的认识,这承诺保证我们当代的历史不会自我封闭,而是向天主之国开放。

教会也对人充满信心,尽管她知道人可能犯下的恶行。因为她深知,尽管人人都遗传了罪孽,并且都有可能犯下罪孽,但人身上仍存在着足够的品质和能量,以及一种基本的“善”(参创1:31),因为他是造物主的肖像,处于基督救赎的影响之下,而基督“以某种方式与每个人结合”86,并且因为圣神有效的行动“充满大地”(智1:7)。

因此,绝望、悲观或惰性是没有理由的。尽管令人悲伤,但必须指出的是,正如一个人可能因自私和对过度利益和权力的渴望而犯罪一样,一个人也可能因恐惧、犹豫不决,以及基本上是懦弱,而无法满足众多深陷欠发达境地的人们的迫切需要。我们所有人都被召唤,事实上也有责任,去面对第二个千年最后十年的巨大挑战,也因为当前的危险威胁着每个人:一场世界经济危机,一场没有国界、没有赢家或输家的战争。面对这样的威胁,富人和国家与穷人和国家之间的区别将毫无意义,除非那些拥有更多、能够做得更多的人承担更大的责任。

然而,这并非唯一的动机,甚至不是最重要的动机。事关人的尊严,造物主已将维护和促进人的尊严的重任托付给我们,历史的每个时刻,男男女女都对人的尊严负有严格而负责任的责任。正如许多人或多或少已经清楚地意识到的那样,目前的局势似乎与这种尊严格格不入。每个人都被召唤在这场和平的斗争中发挥自己的作用,这场斗争将以和平的方式进行,以确保和平发展,保护自然本身以及我们周围的世界。教会也深深地参与到这项事业中,并希望它最终取得成功。

因此,我谨效仿教宗保禄六世在其《民族发展》通谕87中的做法,以朴素和谦卑的态度,呼吁所有人,所有男女,无一例外。我希望他们认识到当前形势的严峻性和每个人的个人责任,并通过个人和家庭的生活方式、资源的运用、公民活动、对经济和政治决策的贡献以及对国家和国际事业的个人承诺,落实这些由团结互助和关爱穷人所激发的措施。这正是当前形势的要求,尤其是人格尊严的要求,是造物主天主不可磨灭的肖像,在我们每个人身上都一脉相承。

在这一承诺中,教会的子女们必须成为榜样和指引,因为他们蒙召,按照耶稣亲自在纳匝肋会堂所宣布的计划,“向贫穷的人传福音……报告被掳的得释放,瞎眼的得看见,叫那受压迫的得自由,报告主悦纳人的禧年”(路四18-19)。强调平信徒,无论男女,所担负的卓越角色是恰当的,正如最近举行的主教会议所重申的那样。他们的任务是以基督徒的承诺来激活世俗的现实,以此表明他们是和平与正义的见证人和推动者。我特别想向那些通过圣洗圣事和宣认同一信经,与我们分享真实(尽管不完美)共融的人致辞。我确信,通谕中所表达的关切及其背后的动机对他们来说并不陌生,因为这些动机都源于耶稣基督的福音。在此,我们得以找到一份新的邀请,共同见证我们关于人性尊严的共同信念:人性由天主创造,由基督救赎,由圣神圣化,并蒙召在世间过着与此尊严相符的生活。我同样向犹太民族发出这一呼吁,他们与我们共同继承了“我们的信德之父”亚巴郎(参罗 4:11-12)88 的遗产,也继承了旧约的传统;我也向穆斯林发出这一呼吁,他们与我们一样,信仰一位公正仁慈的天主。此外,我将此呼吁扩展至世界各大宗教的所有信徒。

去年10月27日,在圣方济各城阿西西举行的会议,旨在为和平祈祷并致力于和平——每个人都忠于自己的宗教信仰——表明,和平,以及作为其必要条件的全人及所有民族的发展,在很大程度上也与宗教息息相关,而和平与发展的圆满实现,又取决于我们忠于作为信士的圣召。因为这首先取决于天主。

48. 教会深知,任何世俗的成就都不能与天国混为一谈,而所有这些成就都只是反映并在某种意义上预示着天国的光荣,即我们在历史终结时,即主再来时所期待的天国。但这种期待绝不能成为对人们的具体个人处境以及他们的社会、国家和国际生活缺乏关心的借口,因为前者是由后者决定的,尤其是在今天。

无论在历史的某个时刻,为了使人们的生活“更人性化”,通过每个人的共同努力和神圣的恩宠,所有能够而且应该做到的事情是多么不完美和短暂,都不会有任何损失或徒劳。这是梵蒂冈第二次大公会议的教导,在《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》中一段富有启发性的文字中写道:“当我们按照主的命令,并在祂的圣神内,将我们本性和我们事业的成果——人的尊严、友爱共融和自由——传播到世上时,我们将再次找到它们,这一次,它们洗净了罪恶的污点,焕然一新,焕然一新,当基督将一个永恒而普世的国度呈现给祂的父时……这国度已在世上奥迹中临在。”89

天主之国临在,首先体现在圣体圣事的庆典中,即主的祭献中。在那庆典中,地上的果实和人手的劳作——饼和酒——借着圣神的能力和牧者的话语,以神秘而真实而实质的方式转化为主耶稣基督的圣体圣血,他是天主之子,也是玛利亚之子。藉着他,父的国度临到我们中间。

今世的财富和我们双手的劳动成果——饼和酒——是为了最终王国的到来,因为主通过祂的圣神将它们吸收到自己里面,以便将自己奉献给圣父,并在祂唯一的祭祀中将自己与我们一同奉献,这祭祀预示着天国的到来,并宣告它的最终降临。

因此,主通过圣体圣事——圣事和祭祀——将我们与祂自己结合在一起,祂以一种比任何自然结合都更强大的纽带将我们与祂自己以及彼此结合在一起;如此结合,祂派遣我们到全世界,通过信仰和行动,为天主的爱作证,为祂王国的到来做准备,并期待它,尽管是在当今时代的朦胧之中。

我们所有参加圣体圣事的人都被召唤通过这件圣事来发现我们在世界上为发展与和平而采取的行动的深刻意义;并从中汲取力量,更加慷慨地奉献自己,效法基督的榜样,祂在这件圣事中为祂的朋友舍命(参若十五13)。我们个人的奉献,如同基督的奉献,并与祂结合,不会徒然,反而必将硕果累累。

49. 我呼吁今年的圣母年,是为了让天主教信徒能够越来越多地仰望玛利亚,她在我们信仰的朝圣之路上走在我们前面90,并以母爱的关怀,在她的圣子、我们的救赎主面前为我们转求。我愿意将现代世界的这个艰难时刻,以及正在进行和将要进行的努力(往往伴随着巨大的痛苦),都托付给她和她的转求,为我的前任保禄六世所倡导和宣扬的民族的真正发展作出贡献。

秉承历代基督徒的虔诚,我们将个人的困境呈献给圣母,愿她将这些困境呈献给她的圣子,祈求祂减轻和改变这些困境。我们也向她展现社会形势和国际危机本身,包括贫困、失业、粮食短缺、军备竞赛、对人权的蔑视,以及部分或全部冲突的局势或危险等令人担忧的方面。我们本着孝顺的精神,愿将这一切呈现在她“慈悲的眼目”面前,并再次满怀信德和希望地重复那句古老的对句:“至圣天主之母,光荣的圣母啊,求祢不要轻视我们在急难中的恳求,求祢常救我们脱离一切危险。”

至圣玛利亚,我们的母亲和王后,转向她的儿子说:“他们没有酒了”(若2:3)。她也赞美天父,因为“祂叫有权势的从宝座上降下来,叫卑微的升高;叫饥饿的得饱美食,叫富足的空手而去”(路1:52-53)。她慈母般的关怀延伸至世人生活中的个人和社会层面。91

在至圣圣三面前,我将本通谕中所有文字托付给玛利亚,并邀请所有人反思并积极致力于促进民族的真正发展,正如为此意向的弥撒祷文所言:“天父,祢赋予所有民族一个共同的起源,祢的旨意是将他们聚集在祢内,成为一个家庭。求祢以祢爱的火焰和为所有兄弟姐妹确保正义的渴望,充满所有人的心。愿我们通过分享祢所赐予的美好事物,为每个人争取正义与平等,终止一切分裂,建立一个建立在爱与和平基础上的人类社会。”92 最后,我以所有兄弟姐妹的名义,向他们致以特别的祝福,以示问候和良好祝愿。

于一九八七年十二月三十日,即我任教宗第十年,在罗马圣伯多禄大殿颁布。

约翰·保罗二世

1. 利奥十三世,《Rerum Novarum》通谕(1891 年 5 月 15 日):利奥尼斯十三世 P. M. Acta,XI,罗马 1892 年,第 97-144 页。

2. 庇护十一世,《Quadragesimo Anno》通谕(1931 年 5 月 15 日):AAS 23 (1931),第 177-J28 页;约翰二十三世,《Mater et Magistra》(1961 年 5 月 15 日); AAS 53 (1961),第 401-464 页;保禄六世,使徒信 Octogesima Adveniens(1971 年 5 月 14 日):AAS 63 (1971),第 401-441 页;约翰·保罗二世,劳动通谕(1981 年 9 月 14 日):AAS 73 (1981),第 577-647 页。庇护十二世还为利奥十三世通谕五十周年发表了无线电讯息(1941 年 6 月 1 日):AAS 33 (1941),第 195-205 页。

3. 参见。梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,关于神圣启示的教义宪法,Dei Verbum,n。 4.

4. 保禄六世,《人民进步通谕》(1967 年 3 月 26 日):AAS 59 (1967),第 257-299 页。

5. 参见。 《罗马观察家》,1987 年 5 月 25 日。

6. 参见。信理部,《基督徒自由与解放训令》,《自由意识》(1986年3月22日),72;宗座公报 79(1987年),第586页;保禄六世,《将临期十八周》宗座牧函(1971年5月14日),第4号;宗座公报 63(1971年),第403页及后续页。

7. 参阅《救主之母》通谕(1987年3月25日),第3号;宗座公报 79(1987年),第363页及后续页; 1987 年 1 月 1 日弥撒讲道:罗马观察家报,1987 年 1 月 2 日。

8. 《人民进步》通谕引用了梵蒂冈第二次大公会议的文件十九次,其中十六次引用的是《现代世界教会牧会章程》(Gaudium et Spes)。

9. 欢乐与希望,n. 1.

10.同上,n。 4;参见人民的进步,n. 13:位置。前引,第 263、264 页。

11. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 3;流行病进展,n。 13:位置。引,第。 264.

12. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 63;流行病进展,n。 9:位置。引,第。 269.

13. 参见。 Gaudium 等 Spes。名词69;流行病进展,n。 22:位置。引,第。 269.

14. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 57;流行病进展,n。 41:位置引,第。 277.

15. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 19;流行病进展,n。 41:位置引文,第 277f 页。

16. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 86;流行病进展,n。 48:loc.cit.,第 48 页281.

17. 参见。 Gaudium et Spes,n。 69;人民进步,nn。 14-21:地点。前引,第 264-268 页。

18. 参见。人民进步通谕的铭文:loc。引,第。 257.

19. 利奥十三世通谕《Rerum Novarum》以“工人的状况”为主要主题。 利奥尼斯十三世 P. M. Acta, XI, Romae 1892, p. 97.

20. 参见。信仰教义集会,基督教自由与解放指导,Libertatis Conscientia(1986 年 3 月 22 日),n。 72:AAS 79 (1987),第 72 页。第586章保禄六世,使徒信 Octogesima Adveniens(1971 年 5 月 14 日);名词4:AAS 63 (1971),第 403f 页。

21. 参见。 《Mater et Magistra》通谕(1961 年 5 月 15 日):AAS 53 (1961),第 17 页。 440.

22. Gaudium et Spes,n。 63.

23. 参见。通谕《人民进步》,n。 3:位置。引,第。 258:比照。也同上,n. 9:位置。引,第。 261.

24. 参见。同上,n. 3:位置。引,第。 258.

25.同上,n。 48:位置引,第。 281.

26. 参见。同上,n. 14:位置。同上,第264页:“发展不能仅仅局限于经济增长。为了实现真正的发展,发展必须是完整的:整体的,也就是说,它必须促进每个人的福祉,以及全人类的福祉。”

27. 同上,第87号:同上,第299页。

28. 参见同上,第53号:同上,第283页。

29. 参见同上,第76号:同上,第295页。

30. 此处提到的十年是指1960-1970年和1970-1980年,当前十年是第三个十年(1980-1990年)。

31. “第四世界”这一表述不仅偶尔用于所谓的欠发达国家,也尤其用于中高收入国家中的极度贫困或赤贫群体。

32. 梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《教会宪章》,《教会宪章》,第1号。

33. 《人民的进步》通谕,第33号:同上,第273页。

34. 值得注意的是,圣座为庆祝国际年,特别发布了由教宗正义和平委员会发布的题为《你对你无家可归的兄弟做了什么?》的特别文件:《教会与住房问题》(1987年12月27日)。

35 参阅保禄六世,《降临节八日通谕》(1971年5月14日),第111-122号。 8-9:宗座公报 63 (1971),第406-408页。

36. 联合国最近出版的《1987年世界经济概览》提供了最新数据(见第8-9页)。在实行市场经济的发达国家,失业率从1970年的3%跃升至1986年的8%,目前已达2900万人。

37. 《劳动实践》通谕(1981年9月14日),第18号:宗座公报 73 (1981),第624-625页。

38. 《服务人类社会:国际债务问题的伦理探讨》(1986年12月27日)。

39. 《民族进步》通谕,第54号:同上,第283页及后续页:“发展中国家将不再面临债务负担过重的风险,因为债务偿还会吞噬其大部分收益。贷款的利率和偿还期限可以适当调整,以免给任何一方造成过重的负担,并考虑到赠与、无息或低息贷款以及清偿债务所需的时间。”

40. 参见《服务于人类社会:国际债务问题的伦理探讨》(1986年12月27日)的“介绍”。

41. 参见《民族进步》通谕,第53号;同上,第283页及后续页。 283.

42. 为人类社会服务:国际债务问题的道德方法(986 年 12 月 27 日),III,2,1。

43. 参见。通谕《人民进步》,nn。 20-21:地点。引文,第 267f 页。

44. 爱尔兰德罗赫达地址(1979 年 9 月 29 日),n。 5:AAS 71 (1979),II,p。 1079.

45. 参见。通谕《人民进步》,n。 37:位置引文,第 275f 页。

46. 参见。宗座劝告 Familiaris Consortio(1981 年 11 月 22 日),尤其是 n. 30:宗座公报 74 (1982),第115-117页。

47. 参见:《人权:国际文书汇编》,联合国,纽约,1983年;若望保禄二世,《人类救主》通谕(1979年3月4日),第17号;宗座公报 71 (1979),第296页。

48. 参见:梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《论教会在现代世界牧职宪章》,第78号;保禄六世,《民族发展》通谕,第76号:同上。同上,第294页及以下:“向苦难宣战,与不公作斗争,不仅能改善境况,还能促进所有人的人文和精神进步,从而增进人类的共同福祉……和平是日复一日建立起来的,是为了追求天主所预定的秩序,这意味着人类之间更完美的正义。”

49. 参阅宗座劝谕《家庭团体》(1981年11月22日),第6号;宗座公报 74(1982年),第88页:“……历史并非仅仅是朝着更美好方向的固定进程,而是自由的进程,甚至是各种自由之间的斗争……”

50. 因此,通谕中使用的是“发展”一词,而不是“进步”,但其目的是试图赋予“发展”一词最完整的含义。

51. 《民族发展》通谕第19号:同上,第266页及后续页:“增加财富并非国家或个人的最终目标。一切成长都是矛盾的……因此,一味追求财富会成为个人成就和人类真正伟大的障碍……无论对国家还是个人而言,贪婪都是道德欠发达最明显的表现。”;另参保禄六世,《八日先知》(1971年5月14日),第9号:宗座公报 63(1971年),第407页及后续页。

52. 参阅《论教会在现代世界》牧函第35号;保禄六世,《致外交使团的讲话》(1965年1月7日),宗座公报 57(1965年),第407页及后续页。 232.

53. 参见。通谕《人民进步》,nn。 20-21:地点。引文,第 267f 页。

54.Cf。 Laborem Exercens 通谕(1981 年 9 月 14 日),n。 4:AAS 73 (1981),第 584f 页,保罗六世通谕 Populorum Progressio,n。 15:位置。引,第。 265.

55. 通谕《Populorum Progressio》,n。 42:位置引,第。 278.

56. 参见。 Praecium Paschale,Misale Romanum,编辑。典型值阿特拉,1975 年,第 14 页。 272:“O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!”

57. 梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《教会教义宪法》,Lumen Gentium,n。 1.

58. 参见。例如,圣巴西尔大帝,Regulae Fusius Tractatae,Interrogatio XXXVII,nn。 1-2:PG 31, 1009-1012 西尔的西奥多雷,德普罗维登西亚,奥拉蒂奥七世:PG 83, 665-686;圣奥古斯丁,《De Civitate Dei》,XIX,n。 17:CCL 48 683-685。

59. 参见。例如,St. John Chrysostom,In Evang。 S.马特哈伊,霍姆。 50, 3-4: PG 58, 508-510,St. Ambrose De Officiis Ministrorum,lib。 II,XXVIII,136-140:PL 16 139-141; St. Possidius,Vita S. Augustini Episcopi,XXIV:PL 32,53f。

60. 通谕《Populorum Progressio》,n。 23:位置。引,第。 268:“凡有今世财富的人,看见弟兄穷乏,却塞住怜悯的心,爱天主怎能住在他内呢?”(若一 3:17)众所周知,教父们曾用多么有力的言辞来描述拥有一切的人对待穷乏之人的正确态度。”在上一期中,教宗引用了梵蒂冈第二次大公会议牧函《论教会在现代世界》第69条。

61. 参阅《民族发展》通谕第47条:“……一个自由不再是空话,穷人拉匝禄也能与富人同桌吃饭的世界。”

62. 参阅同上,第47号:“更确切地说,问题是建立一个世界,让每个人,无论其种族、宗教或国籍,都能过上完全人性化的生活,摆脱他人强加于他的奴役……”;另参阅梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《教会在现代世界中的牧职宪章》,《牧职宪章》,第29号。这种根本的平等是教会始终反对一切形式种族主义的基本原因之一。

63. 参阅《Val Visdende讲道》(1987年7月12日),第5号;《罗马观察报》,1987年7月13-14日;保禄六世,《Octogesima Adveniens》宗座牧函(1971年5月14日),第29号。 21:AAS 63 (1971),第 416f 页。

64. 参见。梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《现代世界教会教牧宪章》,Gaudium et Spes,n。 25.

65. 宗座劝告 Reconciliatio et Paenitentia(1984 年 12 月 2 日),n。 16:“每当教会谈到罪恶的情况,或谴责某些情况,或某些社会群体(无论大小,甚至整个国家或国家集团)的集体行为是社会罪恶时,教会都知道并宣称,这些社会罪恶是众多个人罪恶累积和集中的结果。这属于那些制造、支持或利用罪恶的人的个人罪恶;属于那些本可以避免、消除或至少限制某些社会罪恶,却因懒惰、恐惧或默许、暗中同谋或漠不关心而未能做到的人的个人罪恶;属于那些逃避改变世界之所谓不可能的人的个人罪恶,也属于那些回避所需努力和牺牲,编造更高尚的似是而非的理由的人的个人罪恶。因此,真正的责任在于个人。一种情况——或者同样,一种制度、一种结构、一种社会本身——本身并不是道德行为的对象。因此,一种情况本身不可能是好是坏。” (宗座公报 77) (1985),第。 217.

66. 通谕《Populorum Progressio》,n。 42:位置引,第。 278.

67. 参见。 Liturgia Horarum、Feria III hebdomadae IIIae Temporis 每年、Preces ad Vesperas。

68. 通谕《Populorum Progressio》,n。 87:位置引,第。 299.

69. 参见。同上,n. 13;地点引文,第 263f、296f 页。

70. 参见。同上,n. 13:位置。引,第。 263.

71. 参见。在拉丁美洲主教团第三届全体会议开幕式上的致辞(1979年1月28日):宗座公报 71(1979),第189-196页。

72. 信理部,《基督徒自由与解放训令》,《Libertatis Conscientia》(1986年3月22日),第72号;宗座公报 79(1987),第586页;保禄六世,《Octogesima Adveniens》宗座牧函(1971年5月14日),第4号;宗座公报 63(1971),第403页及后续页。

73. 参阅《论教会在现代世界》,《牧职宪章》,第二部分,第五章,第二节:“建立国际社会”,第83-90页。

74. 参见。约翰二十三世,《Mater et Magistra》通谕(1961 年 5 月 15 日):AAS 53 (1961),第 17 页。 440;通谕 Pacem in Terris(1963 年 4 月 11 日),第四部分:AAS 55 (1963),第 291-296 页;保禄六世使徒书信 Octogesima Adveniens(1971 年 5 月 14 日),nn 2-4:AAS 63 (1971),第 402-404 页。

75. 参见。通谕《人民进步》,nn。 3、9:位置。前引,第 258、261 页。

76. 同上,n. 3:位置。引,第。 258.

77. 通谕《Populorum Progressio》,n。 47:位置引,第。 280;信仰教义集会,基督教自由与解放指导,Libertatis Conscientia(1986 年 3 月 22 日),n。 68:AAS 79 (1987),第 583f 页。

78. 参见。梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《现代世界教会教牧宪章》,Gaudium et Spes,n。 69;保罗六世,通谕《人民进步》,n。 22:位置。引,第。 268;信仰教义集会,基督教自由与解放指导,Libertatis Conscientia(1986 年 3 月 22 日),n。 90:宗座公报 79(1987),第594页;圣多玛斯·阿奎那,《神学大全》IIa IIae,第66题,第2条。

79. 参阅:在拉丁美洲主教团第三届全体会议开幕式上的致辞(1979年1月28日):宗座公报 71(1979),第189-196页;《致波兰主教团的宣教》(Ad Limina)第6号(1987年12月17日):《罗马观察报》,1987年12月18日。

80. 因为主愿意与他们认同(玛窦福音 25:31-46),并特别眷顾他们(参阅圣咏 12[11]:6;路加福音 1:52-53)。

81. 《民族发展》通谕,第55号:同上,第284页:“这些人需要帮助,需要被说服,让他们掌握自身的发展,逐步获得发展所需的资源。”;参见《教会在现代世界中的牧职宪章》,第86号。

82. 《民族发展》通谕,第35号:同上,第274页:“基础教育是发展计划的首要目标。”

83. 参见信理部,《关于“解放神学”若干方面的训诫》(Libertatis Nuntius,1984年8月6日),引言:宗座公报 76(1984年),第876页及之后。

84. 参见。宗座劝告 Reconciliatio et Paenitentia(1984 年 12 月 2 日),n。 16:AAS 77 (1985),第 213-217 页;信理部,《基督徒自由与解放》训令,Libertatis Conscientia(1986年3月22日,第38、42号;宗座公报 79 (1987),第569、571页)。

85. 信理部,《基督徒自由与解放》训令,Libertatis Conscientia(1986年3月22日,第24号;宗座公报 79 (1987),第564页)。

86. 参阅《教会在现代世界中的牧职宪章》,Gaudium et Spes,第22号;若望保禄二世,《人类救主》通谕(1979年3月4日,第8号;宗座公报 71 (1979),第272页)。

87. 《人民》通谕《Progressio》第5号:同上,第259页:“我们相信,所有善心人士,连同我们的天主教子女和基督徒弟兄,都能够而且应该就此计划达成一致”;另参第81-83、87号:同上,第296-298、299页。

88. 参阅梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《关于教会与非基督教宗教关系的宣言》,《教会与非基督教宗教关系宣言》,第4号。

89. 《牧职宪章》,第39号。

90. 参阅梵蒂冈第二次大公会议,《教会宪章》,《教会宪章》,第58号;若望保禄二世,《救主之母》通谕(1987年3月25日),第5-6号:《宗座公报》第79号(1987),第365-367页。

91. 参阅保禄六世,《玛利亚的敬礼》宗座劝谕(1974年2月2日),第37号;宗座公报 66(1974),第148页及之后;若望保禄二世,《墨西哥萨波潘圣母朝圣地讲道》(1979年1月30日),第4号;宗座公报 71(1979),第230页。

92. 《为了民族的发展》弥撒经书:《罗马弥撒经书》,1975年修订版,第820页。

河南郑州货车司机被交警查车逼到跳高架坠亡 家属痛哭质问交警为什么要逼死他



高兴

感动

同情

搞笑

难过

拍砖

支持

鲜花

发表评论 评论 (4 个评论)

回复 change? 2025-9-27 04:09
The Holy See
the holy see
English

×
The Holy See
the holy see
Magisterium
Calendar
Supreme Pontiffs
Roman Curia and Other Organizations
Liturgical Celebrations
College of Cardinals
Press Office
Vatican News - Radio Vaticana
L'Osservatore Romano
John Paul II Encyclicals
zoomText
A
A
A
pdf
Print
DE  - EN  - ES  - FR  - HU  - IT  - LA  - PL  - PT
IOANNES PAULUS PP. II
SOLLICITUDO REI SOCIALIS
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



Blessing

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

I. INTRODUCTION

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 Jesus3 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 March 26, 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 '60s, retain all their force as an appeal to conscience today in the last part of the '80s, 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 nuanced concept of development, according to the suggestions contained in the Encyclical. Its aim is also to indicate some ways of putting it into effect.

II. ORIGINALITY OF THE ENCYCLICAL POPULORUM PROGRESSIO

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 rereading 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 December 8, 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 underdevelopment 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 people12; 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's15; 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, 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 alludes28: 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 St. James pointedly reminds us: "What causes wars, and what causes fighting 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.

III. SURVEY OF THE CONTEMPORARY WORLD

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 indifference.

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 or her 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 the 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 maneuvered directly or indirectly by the more developed countries, by their very functioning favor the interests of the people manipulating them at 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 under development. 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 Home less 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 Progressio39 - 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 have 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 counterproductive 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 Progressio, 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 des**tion 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 neocolonialism 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 new- 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 peoples41 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 - the 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 Encyclicals45 and what I myself stated at length in the Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio.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 demo graphic growth, neither is it proved that all demo graphic 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 avail able resources, and 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.

IV. AUTHENTIC HUMAN DEVELOPMENT

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 super-development, 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 1:25-26). 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 his mortality (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 s**ture therefore, the notion of development is not only "lay" or "profane," but it is also seen to be, while having a socio-economic 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 f
回复 change? 2025-9-27 04:10
30. According to Sacred s**ture therefore, the notion of development is not only "lay" or "profane," but it is also seen to be, while having a socio-economic 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 s**ture 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 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 St. Paul to the Colossians, we read that Christ is "the first-born 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 individual must enjoy the fundamental equality62 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

V. A THEOLOGICAL READING OF MODERN PROBLEMS

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 slow 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 superdevelopment) 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 into 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 sociopolitical 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 toward 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 brief life span 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 and 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 Rihle (cf. Mk 13:3, 5, Is 30:15). This conversion specifically entails a relationship to God, 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 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 toward the desired conversion, toward 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 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 dimension 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 St. Peter Claver and his service to the slaves at Cartagena de Indias, and St. Maximilian Maria Kolbe who offered his life in place of a prisoner unknown to him in the concentration camp at Auschwitz.

VI. SOME PARTICULAR GUIDELINES

41. The Church does not have technical revolutions 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 judgment and directives for action" proposed by the Church's teaching72 would be of great help in promoting both the correct definition of the problems being faced and the best solution to them.

It will thus be seen at once that the questions facing us are above all moral questions; and that neither the analysis of the problem of development as such nor the means to overcome the present difficulties can ignore this essential dimension.

The Church's social doctrine is not a "third way" between liberal capitalism and Marxist collectivism, nor even a possible alternative to other solutions less radically opposed to one another: rather, it constitutes a category of its own. Nor is it an ideology, but rather the accurate formulation of the results of a careful reflection on the complex realities of human existence, in society and in the international order, in the light of faith and of the Church's tradition. Its main aim is to interpret these realities, determining their conformity with or divergence from the lines of the Gospel teaching on man and his vocation, a vocation which is at once earthly and transcendent; its aim is thus to guide Christian behavior. It therefore belongs to the field, not of ideology, but of theology and particularly of moral theology.

The teaching and spreading of her social doctrine are part of the Church's evangelizing mission. And since it is a doctrine aimed at guiding people's behavior, it consequently gives rise to a "commitment to justice," according to each individual's role, vocation and circumstances.

The condemnation of evils and injustices is also part of that ministry of evangelization in the social field which is an aspect of the Church's prophetic role. But it should be made clear that proclamation is always more important than condemnation, and the latter cannot ignore the former, which gives it true solidity and the force of higher motivation.

42. Today more than in the past, the Church's social doctrine must be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican Council,73 the most recent Encyclicals,74 and particularly in line with the Encyclical which we are commemorating.75 It will not be superfluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium in recent years.

Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of primacy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradition of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the ownership and use of goods.

Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the social question has assumed,76 this love of preference for the poor, and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the "rich man" who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate (cf. Lk 16:19-31).77

Our daily life as well as our decisions in the political and economic fields must be marked by these realities. Likewise the leaders of nations and the heads of international bodies, while they are obliged always to keep in mind the true human dimension as a priority in their development plans, should not forget to give precedence to the phenomenon of growing poverty. Unfortunately, instead of becoming fewer the poor are becoming more numerous, not only in less developed countries but-and this seems no less scandalous-in the more developed ones too.

It is necessary to state once more the characteristic principle of Christian social doctrine: the goods of this world are originally meant for all.78 The right to private property is valid and necessary, but it does not nullify the value of this principle. Private property, in fact, is under a "social mortgage,"79 which means that it has an intrinsically social function, based upon and justified precisely by the principle of the universal destination of goods. Likewise, in this concern for the poor, one must not overlook that special form of poverty which consists in being deprived of fundamental human rights, in particular the right to religious freedom and also the right to freedom of economic initiative.

43. The motivating concern for the poor - who are, in the very meaningful term, "the Lord's poor"80 - must be translated at all levels into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of necessary reforms. Each local situation will show what reforms are most urgent and how they can be achieved. But those demanded by the situation of international imbalance, as already described, must not be forgotten.

In this respect I wish to mention specifically: the reform of the international trade system, which is mortgaged to protectionism and increasing bilateralism; the reform of the world monetary and financial system, today recognized as inadequate; the question of technological exchanges and their proper use; the need for a review of the structure of the existing international organizations, in the framework of an international juridical order.

The international trade system today frequently discriminates against the products of the young industries of the developing countries and discourages the producers of raw materials. There exists, too, a kind of international division of labor, whereby the low-cost products of certain countries which lack effective labor laws or which are too weak to apply them are sold in other parts of the world at considerable profit for the companies engaged in this form of production, which knows no frontiers.

The world monetary and financial system is marked by an excessive fluctuation of exchange rates and interest rates, to the detriment of the balance of payments and the debt situation of the poorer countries.

Forms of technology and their transfer constitute today one of the major problems of international exchange and of the grave damage deriving therefrom. There are quite frequent cases of developing countries being denied needed forms of technology or sent useless ones.

In the opinion of many, the international organizations seem to be at a stage of their existence when their operating methods, operating costs and effectiveness need careful review and possible correction. Obviously, such a delicate process cannot be put into effect without the collaboration of all. This presupposes the overcoming of political rivalries and the renouncing of all desire to manipulate these organizations, which exist solely for the common good.

The existing institutions and organizations have worked well for the benefit of peoples. Nevertheless, humanity today is in a new and more difficult phase of its genuine development. It needs a greater degree of international ordering, at the service of the societies, economies and cultures of the whole world.

44. Development demands above all a spirit of initiative on the part of the countries which need it.81 Each of them must act in accordance with its own responsibilities, not expecting everything from the more favored countries, and acting in collaboration with others in the same situation. Each must discover and use to the best advantage its own area of freedom. Each must make itself capable of initiatives responding to its own needs as a society. Each must likewise realize its true needs, as well as the rights and duties which oblige it to respond to them. The development of peoples begins and is most appropriately accomplished in the dedication of each people to its own development, in collaboration with others.

It is important then that as far as possible the developing nations themselves should favor the self-affirmation of each citizen, through access to a wider culture and a free flow of information. Whatever promotes literacy and the basic education which completes and deepens it is a direct contribution to true development, as the Encyclical Populorum Progressio proposed.82 These goals are still far from being reached in so many parts of the world.

In order to take this path, the nations themselves will have to identify their own priorities and clearly recognize their own needs, according to the particular conditions of their people, their geographical setting and their cultural traditions.

Some nations will have to increase food production, in order to have always available what is needed for subsistence and daily life. In the modern world - where starvation claims so many victims, especially among the very young - there are examples of not particularly developed nations which have nevertheless achieved the goal of food self-sufficiency and have even become food exporters.

Other nations need to reform certain unjust structures, and in particular their political institutions, in order to replace corrupt, dictatorial and authoritarian forms of government by democratic and participatory ones. This is a process which we hope will spread and grow stronger. For the "health" of a political community - as expressed in the free and responsible participation of all citizens in public affairs, in the rule of law and in respect for the promotion of human rights - is the necessary condition and sure guarantee of the development of "the whole individual and of all people."

45. None of what has been said can be achieved without the collaboration of all - especially the international community - in the framework of a solidarity which includes everyone, beginning with the most neglected. But the developing nations themselves have the duty to practice solidarity among themselves and with the neediest countries of the world.

It is desirable, for example, that nations of the some geographical area should establish forms of cooperation which will make them less dependent on more powerful producers; they should open their frontiers to the products of the area; they should examine how their products might complement one another; they should combine in order to set up those services which each one separately is incapable of providing; they should extend cooperation to the monetary and financial sector.

Interdependence is already a reality in many of these countries. To acknowledge it, in such a way as to make it more operative, represents an alternative to excessive dependence on richer and more powerful nations, as part of the hoped-for development, without opposing anyone, but discovering and making best use of the country's own potential. The developing countries belonging to one geographical area, especially those included in the term "South," can and ought to set up new regional organizations inspired by criteria of equality, freedom and participation in the comity of nations- as is already happening with promising results.

An essential condition for global solidarity is autonomy and free self-determination, also within associations such as those indicated. But at the same time solidarity demands a readiness to accept the sacrifices necessary for the good of the whole world community.

VII. CONCLUSION

46. Peoples and individuals aspire to be free: their search for full development signals their desire to overcome the many obstacles preventing them from enjoying a "more human life."

Recently, in the period following the publication of the encyclical Populorum Progressio, a new way of confronting the problems of poverty and underdevelopment has spread in some areas of the world, especially in Latin America. This approach makes liberation the fundamental category and the first principle of action. The positive values, as well as the deviations and risks of deviation, which are damaging to the faith and are connected with this form of theological reflection and method, have been appropriately pointed out by the Church's Magisterium.83

It is fitting to add that the aspiration to freedom from all forms of slavery affecting the individual and society is something noble and legitimate. This in fact is the purpose of development, or rather liberation and development, taking into account the intimate connection between the two.

Development which is merely economic is incapable of setting man free, on the contrary, it will end by enslaving him further. Development that does not include the cultural, transcendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimensions and does not endeavor to direct its goals and priorities toward the same, is even less conducive to authentic liberation. Human beings are totally free only when they are completely themselves, in the fullness of their rights and duties. The same can be said about society as a whole.

The principal obstacle to be overcome on the way to authentic liberation is sin and the structures produced by sin as it multiplies and spreads.84

The freedom with which Christ has set us free (cf. Gal 5:1) encourages us to become the servants of all. Thus the process of development and liberation takes concrete shape in the exercise of solidarity, that is to say in the love and service of neighbor, especially of the poorest: "For where truth and love are missing, the process of liberation results in the death of a freedom which will have lost all support."85

47. In the context of the sad experiences of recent years and of the mainly negative picture of the present moment, the Church must strongly affirm the possibility of overcoming the obstacles which, by excess or by defect, stand in the way of development. And she must affirm her confidence in a true liberation. Ultimately, this confidence and this possibility are based on the Church's awareness of the divine promise guaranteeing that our present history does not remain closed in upon itself but is open to the Kingdom of God.

The Church has confidence also in man, though she knows the evil of which he is capable. For she well knows that - in spite of the heritage of sin, and the sin which each one is capable of committing -  there exist in the human person sufficient qualities and energies, a fundamental "goodness" (cf. Gen 1:31), because he is the image of the Creator, placed under the redemptive influence of Christ, who "united himself in some fashion with every man,"86 and because the efficacious action of the Holy Spirit "fills the earth" (Wis 1:7).

There is no justification then for despair or pessimism or inertia. Though it be with sorrow, it must be said that just as one may sin through selfishness and the desire for excessive profit and power, one may also be found wanting with regard to the urgent needs of multitudes of human beings submerged in conditions of underdevelopment, through fear, indecision and, basically, through cowardice. We are all called, indeed obliged, to face the tremendous challenge of the last decade of the second Millennium, also because the present dangers threaten everyone: a world economic crisis, a war without frontiers, without winners or losers. In the face of such a threat, the distinction between rich individuals and countries and poor individuals and countries will have little value, except that a greater responsibility rests on those who have more and can do more.

This is not however the sole motive or even the most important one. At stake is the dignity of the human person, whose defense and promotion have been entrusted to us by the Creator, and to whom the men and women at every moment of history are strictly and responsibly in debt. As many people are already more or less clearly aware, the present situation does not seem to correspond to this dignity. Every individual is called upon to play his or her part in this peaceful campaign, a campaign to be conducted by peaceful means, in order to secure development in peace, in order to safeguard nature itself and the world about us. The Church too feels profoundly involved in this enterprise, and she hopes for its ultimate success.

Consequently, following the example of Pope Paul VI with his Encyclical Populorum Progressio,87 I wish to appeal with simplicity and humility to everyone, to all men and women without exception. I wish to ask them to be convinced of the seriousness of the present moment and of each one's individual responsibility, and to implement - by the way they live as individuals and as families, by the use of their resources, by their civic activity, by contributing to economic and political decisions and by personal commitment to national and international undertakings - the measures inspired by solidarity and love of preference for the poor. This is what is demanded by the present moment and above all by the very dignity of the human person, the indestructible image of God the Creator, which is identical in each one of us.

In this commitment, the sons and daughters of the Church must serve as examples and guides, for they are called upon, in conformity with the program announced by Jesus himself in the synagogue at Nazareth, to "preach good news to the poor...to proclaim release to the captives and recovering of sight to the blind, to set at liberty those who are oppressed, to proclaim the accept able year of the Lord" (Lk 4:18-19). It is appropriate to emphasize the preeminent role that belongs to the laity, both men and women, as was reaffirmed in the recent Assembly of the Synod. It is their task to animate temporal realities with Christian commitment, by which they show that they are witnesses and agents of peace and justice. I wish to address especially those who, through the sacrament of Baptism and the profession of the same Creed, share a real, though imperfect, communion with us. I am certain that the concern expressed in this Encyclical as well as the motives inspiring it will be familiar to them, for these motives are inspired by the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We can find here a new invitation to bear witness together to our common convictions concerning the dignity of man, created by God, redeemed by Christ, made holy by the Spirit and called upon in this world to live a life in conformity with this dignity. I likewise address this appeal to the Jewish people, who share with us the inheritance of Abraham, "our father in faith" (cf. Rm 4:11f.)88 and the tradition of the Old Testament, as well as to the Muslims who, like us, believe in a just and merciful God. And I extend it to all the followers of the world's great religions.

The meeting held last October 27 in Assisi the city of St. Francis, in order to pray for and commit ourselves to peace - each one in fidelity to his own religious profession - showed how much peace and, as its necessary condition, the development of the whole person and of all peoples, are also a matter of religion, and how the full achievement of both the one and the other depends on our fidelity to our vocation as men and women of faith. For it depends, above all, on God.

48. The Church well knows that no temporal achievement is to be identified with the Kingdom of God, but that all such achievements simply reflect and in a sense anticipate the glory of the Kingdom, the Kingdom which we await at the end of history, when the Lord will come again. But that expectation can never be an excuse for lack of concern for people in their concrete personal situations and in their social, national and international life, since the former is conditioned by the latter, especially today.

However imperfect and temporary are all the things that can and ought to be done through the combined efforts of everyone and through divine grace, at a given moment of history, in order to make people's lives "more human," nothing will be lost or will have been in vain. This is the teaching of the Second Vatican Council, in an enlightening passage of the Pastoral Constitution Gaudium et Spes: "When we have spread on earth the fruits of our nature and our enterprise - human dignity, fraternal communion, and freedom - according to the command of the Lord and in his Spirit, we will find them once again, cleansed this time from the stain of sin, illumined and transfigured, when Christ presents to his Father an eternal and universal kingdom...here on earth that kingdom is already present in mystery."89

The Kingdom of God becomes present above all in the celebration of the sacrament of the Eucharist, which is the Lord's Sacrifice. In that celebration the fruits of the earth and the work of human hands - the bread and wine - are transformed mysteriously, but really and substantially, through the power of the Holy Spirit and the words of the minister, into the Body and Blood of the Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God and Son of Mary, through whom the Kingdom of the Father has been made present in our midst.

The goods of this world and the work of our hands-the bread and wine-serve for the coming of the definitive Kingdom, since the Lord, through his Spirit, takes them up into himself in order to offer himself to the Father and to offer us with himself in the renewal of his one Sacrifice, which anticipates God's Kingdom and proclaims its final coming.

Thus the Lord unites us with himself through the Eucharist- Sacrament and Sacrifice-and he unites us with himself and with one another by a bond stronger than any natural union; and thus united, he sends us into the whole world to bear witness, through faith and works, to God's love, preparing the coming of his Kingdom and anticipating it, though in the obscurity of the present time.

All of us who take part in the Eucharist are called to discover, through this sacrament, the profound meaning of our actions in the world in favor of development and peace; and to receive from it the strength to commit ourselves ever more generously, following the example of Christ, who in this sacrament lays down his life for his friends (cf. Jn 15:13). Our personal commitment, like Christ's and in union with his, will-not be in vain but certainly fruitful.

49. I have called the current Marian Year in order that the Catholic faithful may look more and more to Mary, who goes before us on the pilgrimage of faith90 and with maternal care intercedes for us before her Son, our Redeemer. I wish to entrust to her and to her intercession this difficult moment of the modern world, and the efforts that are being made and will be made, often with great suffering, in order to contribute to the true development of peoples proposed and proclaimed by my predecessor Paul VI.

In keeping with Christian piety through the ages, we present to the Blessed Virgin difficult individual situations, so that she may place them before her Son, asking that he alleviate and change them. But we also present to her social situations and the international crisis itself, in their worrying aspects of poverty, unemployment, shortage of food, the arms race, contempt for human rights, and situations or dangers of conflict, partial or total. In a filial spirit we wish to place all this before her "eyes of mercy," repeating once more with faith and hope the ancient antiphon: "Holy Mother of God, despise not our petitions in our necessities, but deliver us always from all dangers, O glorious and blessed Virgin."

Mary most holy, our Mother and Queen, is the one who turns to her Son and says: "They have no more wine" (Jn 2:3). She is also the one who praises God the Father, because "he has put down the mighty from their thrones and exalted those of low degree; he has filled the hungry with good things, and the rich he has sent empty away" (Lk 1:52-53). Her maternal concern extends to the personal and social aspects of people's life on earth.91

Before the Most Blessed Trinity, I entrust to Mary all that I have written in this Encyclical, and I invite all to reflect and actively commit themselves to promoting the true development of peoples, as the prayer of the Mass for this intention states so well: "Father, you have given all peoples one common origin, and your will is to gather them as one family in yourself. Fill the hearts of all with the fire of your love, and the desire to ensure justice for all their brothers and sisters. By sharing the good things you give us, may we secure justice and equality for every human being, an end to all division and a human society built on love and peace."92 This, in conclusion, is what I ask in the name of all my brothers and sisters, to whom I send a special blessing as a sign of greeting and good wishes.

Given in Rome, at St. Peter's, on December 30 of the year 1987, the tenth of my Pontificate.



JOHN PAUL II





1. Leo XIII, Encyclical Rerum Novarum (May 15, 1891): Leonis XIII P. M. Acta, XI, Romae 1892, pp. 97-144.

2. Pius XI, Encyclical Quadragesimo Anno (May 15, 1931): AAS 23 (1931), pp. 177-J28; John XXIII, Mater et Magistra (May 15, 1961); AAS 53 (1961), pp. 401-464; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971): AAS 63 (1971), pp. 401- 441; John Paul II, Encyclical Laborem Exercens (September 14, 1981): AAS 73 (1981), pp. 577-647. Also Pius XII delivered a radio message (June 1, 1941) for the fiftieth anniversary of the Encyclical of Leo XIII: AAS 33 (1941), pp. 195-205.

3. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei Verbum, n. 4.

4. Paul VI, Encyclical Populorum Progressio (March 26, 1967): AAS 59 (1967), pp. 257-299.

5. Cf. L'Osservatore Romano, May 25, 1987.

6. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), 72: AAS 79 (1987), p. 586; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971), n. 4: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 403f.

7. Cf. Encyclical Redemptoris Mater (March 25, 1987), n. 3: AAS 79 (1987), pp. 363f.; Homily at the Mass of January 1, 1987: L'Osservatore Romano, January 2, 1987.

8. The Encyclical Populorum Progressio cites the documents of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council nineteen times, and sixteen of the references are to the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes.

9. Gaudium et Spes, n. 1.

10. Ibid., n. 4; cf. Populorum Progressio, n. 13: loc. cit., pp. 263, 264.

11. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 3; Populorum Progressio, n. 13: loc. cit., p. 264.

12. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 63; Populorum Progressio, n. 9: loc. cit., p. 269.

13. Cf Gaudium et Spes. n. 69; Populorum Progressio, n. 22: loc. cit., p. 269.

14. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 57; Populorum Progressio, n. 41: loc. cit., p. 277.

15. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 19; Populorum Progressio, n. 41: loc. cit., pp. 277f.

16. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 86; Populorum Progres
回复 change? 2025-9-27 04:11
17. Cf. Gaudium et Spes, n. 69; Populorum Progressio, nn. 14- 21: loc. cit., pp. 264-268.

18. Cf. the Ins**tio of the Encyclical Populorum Progressio: loc. cit., p. 257.

19. The Encyclical Rerum Novarum of Leo XIII has as its principal subject "the condition of the workers" Leonis XIII P. M. Acta, XI, Romae 1892, p. 97.

20. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), n. 72: AAS 79 (1987), p. 586; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971); n. 4: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 403f.

21. Cf. Encyclical Mater et Magistra (May 15, 1961): AAS 53 (1961), p. 440.

22. Gaudium et Spes, n. 63.

23. Cf. Encyclical Populorum Progressio, n. 3: loc. cit., p. 258: cf. also ibid., n. 9: loc. cit., p. 261.

24. Cf. ibid., n. 3: loc. cit., p. 258.

25. Ibid., n. 48: loc. cit., p. 281.

26. Cf. ibid., n. 14: loc. cit., p. 264: "Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth. In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is, it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole man."

27. Ibid., n. 87: loc. cit., p. 299.

28. Cf. ibid., n. 53: loc. cit., p. 283.

29. Cf. ibid., n. 76: loc. cit., p. 295.

30. The decades referred to are the years 1960-1970 and 1970-1980, the present decade is the third (1980-1990).

31. The expression "Fourth World" is used not just occasionally for the so-called less advanced countries, but also and especially for the bands of great or extreme poverty in countries of medium and high income.

32. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 1.

33. Encyclical Populorum Progressio, n. 33: loc. cit., p. 273.

34. It should be noted that the Holy See associated itself with the celebration of this International Year with a special Document issued by the Pontifical Commission Iustitia et Pax entitled: "What Have You Done to Your Homeless Brother?" The Church and the Housing Problem (December 27, 1987).

35 Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971), nn. 8-9: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 406-408.

36. A recent United Nations publication entitled World Economic Survey 1987 provides the most recent data (cf. pp. 8-9). The percentage of unemployed in the developed countries with a market economy jumped from 3% of the work force in 1970 to 8% in 1986. It now amounts to 29 million people.

37. Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (September 14, 1981), n. 18: AAS 73 (1981), pp. 624-625.

38. At the Service of the Human Community: An Ethical Approach to the International Debt Question (December 27, 1986).

39. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 54: loc. cit., pp. 283f.: "Developing countries will thus no longer risk being overwhelmed by debts whose repayment swallows up the greater part of their gains. Rates of interest and time for repayment of the loan could be so arranged as not to be too great a burden on either party, taking into account free gifts, interest-free or low-interest loans, and the time needed for liquidating the debts."

40. Cf. "Presentation" of the document At the Service of the Human Community: An Ethical Approach to the International Debt Question (December 27, 1986).

41. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 53; loc. cit., p. 283.

42. At the Service of the Human Community: An Ethical Approach to the International Debt Question (December 27, 986), III, 2, 1.

43. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, nn. 20-21: loc. cit., pp. 267f.

44. Address at Drogheda, Ireland (September 29, 1979), n. 5: AAS 71 (1979), II, p. 1079.

45. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 37: loc. cit., pp. 275f.

46. Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiaris Consortio (November 22, 1981), especially in n. 30: AAS 74 (1982), pp. 115-117.

47. Cf. Human Rights: Collection of International Instruments, United Nations, New York, 1983; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (March 4, 1979), n. 17: AAS 71 (1979), p. 296.

48. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 78; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 76: loc. cit., pp. 294f.: "To wage war on misery and to struggle against injustice is to promote, along with improved conditions, the human and spiritual progress of all men, and therefore the common good of humanity...peace is something that is built up day after day, in the pursuit of an order intended by God, which implies a more perfect form of justice among men."

49. Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Familiarls Consortio (November 22, 1981), n. 6: AAS 74 (1982), p. 88: "...history is not simply a fixed progression toward what is better, but rather an event of freedom, and even a struggle between freedoms...."

50. For this reason the word "development" was used in the Encyclical rather than the word "progress," but with an attempt to give the word "development" its fullest meaning.

51. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 19: loc. cit., pp. 266f.: "Increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations or of individuals. All growth is ambivalent.... The exclusive pursuit of possessions thus becomes an obstacle to individual fulfillment and to man's true greatness...both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the most evident form of moral underdevelopment"; cf. also Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971), n. 9: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 407f.

52. Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 35: Paul VI, Address to the Diplomatic Corps (January 7, 1965): AAS 57 (1965), p. 232.

53. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, nn. 20-21: loc. cit., pp. 267f.

54. C f. Encyclical Letter Laborem Exercens (September 14, 1981), n. 4: AAS 73 (1981), pp. 584f., Paul VI Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 15: loc. cit., p. 265.

55. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 42: loc. cit., p. 278.

56. Cf. Praeconium Paschale, Missale Romanum, ed. typ. altera, 1975, p. 272: "O certe necessarium Adae peccatum, quod Christi morte deletum est! O felix culpa, quae talem ac tantum meruit habere Redemptorem!"

57. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 1.

58. Cf. for example, St. Basil the Great, Regulae Fusius Tractatae, Interrogatio XXXVII, nn. 1-2: PG 31, 1009-1012 Theodoret of Cyr, De Providentia, Oratio VII: PG 83, 665-686; St. Augustine, De Civitate Dei, XIX, n. 17: CCL 48 683-685.

59. Cf. for example, St. John Chrysostom, In Evang. S. Matthaei, Hom. 50, 3-4: PG 58, 508-510, St. Ambrose De Officiis Ministrorum, lib. II, XXVIII, 136-140: PL 16 139-141; St. Possidius, Vita S. Augustini Episcopi, XXIV: PL 32, 53f.

60. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 23: loc. cit., p. 268: "If someone who has the riches of this world sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?"(1 Jn 3:17) It is well known how strong were the words used by the Fathers of the Church to describe the proper attitude of persons who possess any thing toward persons in need." In the previous number, the Pope had cited n. 69 of the Pastoral Constitution, Gaudium et Spes, of the Second Vatican Ecumenical Council.

61. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 47: "...a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man."

62. Cf. ibid., n. 47: "It is a question, rather, of building a world where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality, can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by other men..."; cf. also Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 29. Such fundamental equality is one of the basic reasons why the Church has always been opposed to every form of racism.

63. Cf. Homily at Val Visdende (July 12, 1987), n. 5: L'Osservatore Romano, July 13-14, 1987; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971), n. 21: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 416f.

64. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 25.

65. Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984), n. 16: "Whenever the Church speaks of situations of sin, or when she condemns as social sins certain situations or the collective behavior of certain social groups, big or small, or even of whole nations and blocs of nations, she knows and she proclaims that such cases of social sin are the result of the accumulation and concentration of many personal sins. It is a case of the very personal sins of those who cause or support evil or who exploit it; of those who are in a position to avoid, eliminate or at least limit certain social evils but who fail to do so out of laziness, fear or the conspiracy of silence, through secret complicity or indifference; of those who take refuge in the supposed impossibility of changing the world, and also of those who sidestep the effort and sacrifice required, producing specious reasons of a higher order. The real responsibility, then, lies with individuals. A situation - or likewise an institution, a structure, society itself - is not in itself the subject of moral acts. Hence a situation cannot in itself be good or bad": AAS 77 (1985), p. 217.

66. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 42: loc. cit., p. 278.

67. Cf. Liturgia Horarum, Feria III hebdomadae IIIae Temporis per annum, Preces ad Vesperas.

68. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 87: loc. cit., p. 299.

69. Cf. ibid., n. 13; loc. cit., pp. 263f., 296f.

70. Cf. ibid., n. 13: loc. cit., p. 263.

71. Cf. Address at the Opening of the Third General Conference of the Latin-American Bishops (January 28, 1979): AAS 71 (1979), pp. 189-196.

72. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), n. 72: AAS 79 (1987), p. 586; Paul VI, Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 971), n. 4: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 403f.

73. Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, Part II, Ch. V, Section 2: "Building Up the International Community," nn. 83-90.

74. Cf. John XXIII, Encyclical Letter Mater et Magistra (May 15, 1961): AAS 53 (1961), p. 440; Encyclical Letter Pacem in Terris (April 11, 1963), Part IV: AAS 55 (1963), pp. 291-296; Paul VI Apostolic Letter Octogesima Adveniens (May 14, 1971), nn 2-4: AAS 63 (1971), pp. 402-404.

75. Cf. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, nn. 3, 9: loc. cit., pp. 258, 261.

76. Ibid., n. 3: loc. cit., p. 258.

77. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 47: loc. cit., p. 280; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), n. 68: AAS 79 (1987), pp. 583f.

78. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 69; Paul VI, Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 22: loc. cit., p. 268; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), n. 90: AAS 79 (1987), p. 594; St. Thomas Aquinas, Summa Theol. IIa IIae, q. 66, art. 2.

79. Cf. Address at the Opening of the Third General Conference of the Latin-American Bishops (January 28, 1979): AAS 71 (1979), pp. 189-196; Ad Limina Address to a group of Polish Bishops, (December 17, 1987), n. 6: L'Osservatore Romano, December 18, 1987.

80. Because the Lord wished to identify himself with them (Mt 25:31-46) and takes special care of them (cf. Ps 12[11]:6; Lk 1:52f.).

81. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 55: loc. cit., p. 284: "These are the men and women that need to be helped, that need to be convinced to take into their own hands their development, gradually acquiring the means"; cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 86.

82. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 35: loc. cit., p. 274: "Basic education is the first objective of a plan of development."

83. Cf. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Certain Aspects of the "Theology of Liberation" Libertatis Nuntius (August 6, 1984), Introduction: AAS 76 (1984), pp. 876f.

84. Cf. Apostolic Exhortation Reconciliatio et Paenitentia (December 2, 1984), n. 16: AAS 77 (1985), pp. 213-217; Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986, nn. 38, 42: AAS 79 (1987), pp. 569, 571.

85. Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, Instruction on Christian Freedom and Liberation, Libertatis Conscientia (March 22, 1986), n. 24: AAS 79 (1987), p. 564.

86. Cf. Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, Gaudium et Spes, n. 22; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptor Hominis (March 4, 1979), n. 8: AAS 71 (1979), p. 272.

87. Encyclical Letter Populorum Progressio, n. 5: loc. cit., p. 259: "We believe that all men of good will, together with our Catholic sons and daughters and our Christian brethren, can and should agree on this program"; cf. also nn. 81-83, 87: loc. cit., pp. 296-298, 299.

88. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Declaration on the Relationship of the Church to Non-Christian Religions, Nostra Aetate, n. 4.

89. Gaudium et Spes, n. 39.

90. Cf. Second Vatican Ecumenical Council, Dogmatic Constitution on the Church, Lumen Gentium, n. 58; John Paul II, Encyclical Letter Redemptoris Mater (March 25, 1987) nn. 5-6: AAS 79 (1987), pp. 365-367.

91. Cf. Paul VI, Apostolic Exhortation Marialis Cultus (February 2, 1974), n. 37: AAS 66 (1974), pp. 148f.; John Paul II, Homily at the Shrine of Our Lady of Zapopan, Mexico (January 30, 1979), n. 4: AAS 71 (1979), p. 230.

92. Collect of the Mass "For the Development of Peoples": Missale Romanum, ed. typ. altera, 1975, p. 820.
回复 浮平 2025-9-27 21:32
1)特朗普在联合国的讲话主要批评了某些政策,强调国家利益,传统能源,边界安全,移民问题,是政策立场的表述,并未使用“邪恶”“心怀恶意”“控制机构”等措辞。

2)该频道将政策讨论极端解读,宗教化叙事。特别是这段带有阴谋论的联想:【特朗普点名联合国环境计划至关重要,因为当你回顾其起源时,你会看到它毫不掩饰的邪恶。联合国环境计划最初由加拿大人莫里斯·斯特朗(Maurice Frederick Strong,犹太人,其表姐是曾熟悉的美国左翼记者安娜·路易斯·斯特朗,葬于八宝山革命公墓)领导,他是绿色议程、世界经济论坛和人口控制优生运动交汇的关键人物。】

3)大外宣专门找这些极端政治评论,是否因为对上述这段话的敏感?

4)特朗普讲话中确实对贸易和环境有批评内容:【贸易面临的挑战与气候问题如出一辙。那些遵守规则的国家,其所有工厂都被掠夺殆尽。这实在令人痛心。它们已被摧毁——被那些违反规则的国家摧毁。正因为如此,美国如今对其他国家征收关税。】

价值模糊,信息堆砌,逻辑薄弱,神经敏感容易造成判断偏差。

facelist doodle 涂鸦板

您需要登录后才可以评论 登录 | 注册

关于本站 | 隐私政策 | 免责条款 | 版权声明 | 联络我们 | 刊登广告 | 转手机版 | APP下载

Copyright © 2001-2025 海外华人中文门户:倍可亲 (http://www.backchina.com) All Rights Reserved.

程序系统基于 Discuz! X3.1 商业版 优化 Discuz! © 2001-2013 Comsenz Inc. 更新:GMT+8, 2025-9-27 21:47

倍可亲服务器位于美国圣何塞、西雅图和达拉斯顶级数据中心,为更好服务全球网友特统一使用京港台时间

返回顶部