This morning I managed the first three paragraphs of Chapter 1, as I waited for my breakfast during a break on my way to Maryvale.
The first is that the whole Church, in all her being and acting — when she proclaims, when she celebrates, when she performs works of charity — is engaged in promoting integral human development. She has a public role over and above her charitable and educational activities: all the energy she brings to the advancement of humanity and of universal fraternity is manifested when she is able to operate in a climate of freedom. In not a few cases, that freedom is impeded by prohibitions and persecutions, or it is limited when the Church's public presence is reduced to her charitable activities alone. The second truth is that authentic human development concerns the whole of the person in every single dimension. Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space. Enclosed within history, it runs the risk of being reduced to the mere accumulation of wealth; humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of higher goods, at the service of the great and disinterested initiatives called forth by universal charity.You come to a paragraph like this and then stop, as you think through its implications. It is doubly interesting to see these two truths being attributed to the teaching of Paul VI, in the light of the Second Vatican Council. And it immediately continues to discuss the inadequacy of trusting only in institutions to achieve the authentic development of mankind. Again, a rich line of thought revealed deftly in a few sentences.
And I just loved n.12, which develops the idea that the Church's social teaching expressed in the teaching of Paul VI is to be read in a "hermeneutic of continuity", and ends with the sentence:
For these reasons, Populorum Progressio, situated within the great current of Tradition, can still speak to us today.
3 comments:
'Without the perspective of eternal life, human progress in this world is denied breathing-space. Enclosed within history, it runs the risk of being reduced to the mere accumulation of wealth; humanity thus loses the courage to be at the service of higher goods, at the service of the great and disinterested initiatives called forth by universal charity.'
This seems like a bit of a sweeping statement. I think it would be possible to serve humanity, 'to be at the service of great and disinterested initiatives' without the perspective of eternal life.
Thank you, Francis, for the comment.
If, just if, humanity is intrinsically "religious", that is, called to a destiny that transcends the material world... just if this is the case, then an authentic development of and charity towards mankind must take this into account or remain incomplete.
Pope Benedict affirms this religious character of the human race from within the (doctrinal) context of Catholic faith. But it has equally been the subject of study from the point of view of phenomenological study of religion, and mankind's practice of religion.
What I find interesting to think about is this question: how far does the non-believer (ie someone who does not believe in any one of the religious faiths in the world) come to terms with the idea of religion viewed as a phenomenon in the world, a phenomenon of temporal longevity and spatially and culturally widespread? And, in so far as they do, how does it impact on the nature of their activity for justice and charity in the world? Does it change the nature of what they do, even though externally it might appear to be the same?
I think that humanity is ‘religious’ in the sense that throughout time and across cultures humans have given worship to some sort of God. I am no expert in world religions, but am under the impression that most of them involve not only a creator (or creators) but some sense of an after life. This for me is one of the two ultimate sources of man’s ‘need’ for religion: (i) a predisposition towards teleological explanations of phenomena and (ii) the unwillingness to believe that after death there is nothing. Oblivion.
So, where people do believe this in God I suspect it is true to say that it would include a belief in the essential need for charity towards Mankind.
As for how far the non-believer comes to terms with the fact that religion thrives, well that depends on the non-believer. Some don’t come to terms with religion at all and rail against it. These have been more vocal recently. Others, like myself, have a pretty relaxed attitude.
How does the way they come to terms with it impact on the nature of their charitable actions? Well I’m not entirely sure what you mean. If a militant atheist who hates religion and all it stands for performs a charitable act and somebody who is an atheist but is friendly towards religions performs the same charitable act, I’m not sure that their different attitudes towards religion changes the ‘nature’ of each agent’s act at all.
For that matter, this seems to be giving religion a privileged position from which charitable acts are considered/measured against. But the source of the good act doesn’t come from the religion but is something that the religion works towards, just as the atheist may work towards it. So instead of/as well as considering how (whether?) the nature of a charitable act performed by an atheist is affected by their attitude to religion, perhaps we should be asking how (whether?) the nature of a charitable act is affected by the agent’s motivation for performing the act: an expression of religious nature or some other motivation, for example a sense of common humanity.
Post a Comment