40th Anniversary of Gaudium et Spes Side Event Remarks

[1] Archbishop Diarmuid Martin was Secretary of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace from 1994 to 2001. Subsequently he was the Permanent Observer of the Holy See at the United Nations Office at Geneva, as well as to the Specialised Agencies and the World Trade Organization. In 2003 he was appointed Coadjutor Archbishop of Dublin and became Archbishop of Dublin on 26^th April 2004.

Sustainable development is about the relationship that exists between the human person, humankind and the cosmos which is our only home. Sustainable development can only be fully understood within a broad anthropological framework, that is, when it answers questions about who is this human person, who are these human beings which all the recent major United Nations International Conferences on social and environmental questions have recognised should be at the centre of concern in sustainable development.

The anthropological question is central to an understanding of sustainable development. This does not mean that humans can do as they wish with the cosmos. Hopefully the experience of human history since the industrial revolution will have taught us that lesson. We need to address the anthropological question within that broad creative tension which exists between certain human, social and environmental goods. We must always keep in mind the need to establish and maintain a balance between these goods.

My intention is to look at this relationship, this tension, from the point of view of Catholic social reflection, particularly in the light of this year being the fortieth anniversary of the promulgation of the Pastoral Constitution of the Second Vatican Council Gaudium et Spes on the Church in the Modern World.

That document marked a distinctive change in reflection within the Catholic Church. Alone the title the “Church in the Modern World”, rather than the “Church and the Modern World” indicates a desire for a new presence and a new quality of the presence of the Church in contemporary culture. The Council document illustrated the challenge which the profound changes which were taking place in humanity were posing: the contrast between wealth, resources and economic power never before known and the fact that large parts of the earth’s inhabitants were still plagued by hunger, want, ignorance and illiteracy.

The document noted that this challenge brought about a deep uncertainty within the human person about his or her identity and an uncertainty about the direction to give the laws governing society. The situation of the world and its culture has changed in these forty years, but the method of dialogue proposed by Gaudium et Spes maintains its validity and it has inspired the way in which I intend to present my reflections

Let me say, at the outset, that I am not presenting an exclusively religious viewpoint. Religious language contains also much of the wisdom which has been refined through a dialogue on the deeper questions of humankind over the centuries. Religious insight can lead to an understanding of the human condition which can be readily recognised and understood even by the non-believer.

Using religious language in speaking about the human situation is not a question of imposing religious belief on anyone. Neither, however, should discussion of the human condition in a modern pluralist society disenfranchise the believer from bringing his or her specific contribution to social and environmental reflection, springing from a mediation of religious concepts to the challenges of the world in which we live. Pluralist does not mean secularist. Religious reflection has its rightful place in a pluralist world.

Let me give one first example of such fruitful dialogue between religious language and the reflection on the human condition and on the environment in today’s world. The very first religious concept which springs to my mind when I think about the relations between humankind and the environment is that of creation. The term creation defines not so much the mechanics of the origins of the universe (creationism tries to do that), but much more the relationship between humanity, the creator and the rest of creation. If the world is created, the world and all that is in it is not our own private possession. It is gift, which must be used in accordance with certain intrinsic principles which cannot be interpreted just according to our own private whim.

This very concept of the world not being ours is also at the centre of the intuition encapsulated in the term sustainable development. The world is not ours to use just as we please. It is given to us in stewardship, for the present but also for future generations. It is not ours to be used just for our advantage. Creation has its own laws and its own integrity. Human intervention in any part of creation will have its effects, positive or negative, in other parts. Our life-style as individuals and as a human family must be such that we use the things of the cosmos as they should be used, for the benefit of ourselves and for what Pope John Paul II calls the earth’s own requisites.

As a believer, I would say that the goods of creation should be used according to the design of the God who created them. The fundamental inspiration of that design is “gratuitous love”. For the Christian believer God revealed his love above all in the life and the person of Jesus Christ. If God’s design for creation is that it should be an expression of gratuitous love, then the fundamental driving force of life must be love and self-giving rather than a craving for personal power, possession and domination. The dominant thrust of the on-going relationship between people, the human family and the environment must then be about establishing a loving, caring, respectful and harmonious relationship with others and with the rest of creation. There is an inner integrity within creation, an integrity which respects humankind within the cosmos, but which also requires humankind to respect the integrity of the cosmos, to respect the earth’s own requisites.

For the religious believer then sustainable development is fundamentally about the type of relationship which should be established among people and between people and creation. I want to look now at some aspects of that relationship

One principle of Catholic social teaching which is particularly interesting here is called the universal destination of the goods of creation. It is a very simple principle for which Catholic social teaching managed to find a complicated name.

It means simply that when God created the goods of this world he created them for the benefit of all. Gaudium et Spes puts it this way: “God intended the earth and all it contains for the use of all persons and all peoples, so that created goods should flow fairly to all, regulated by justice and accompanied by charity”.

The Church has always spoken of respect for private property but it has never elevated private property to the rank of an absolute principle. All possession brings with it social responsibility, a “social mortgage”, which conditions which behaviour is to be judged moral and which immoral. Traditionally this principle was applied to questions of ownership of land and natural resources. It was a principle concerning distributive justice in the traditional sense.

Today one would apply this principle also in a qualitative manner. It is not just about a just distribution of the goods of the earth in a measurable way, but also about the qualitative dimensions of such distribution. We have the responsibility to use the resources of creation, human and environmental, in such a way as to enhance the overall integrity of all of creation. Development is about specific quantifiable goals, but it is above all about producing harmony and integrity. Non one aspect of development should have priority, leaving the other totally aside.

As a passing remark here, you will have noticed that I deliberately avoid using the term “planet” in favour of the term “cosmos”. This is because we need urgently to address the qualitative dimensions of our use of outer space. Our planet has already begun to export beyond its own frontiers and in many ways it has begun to look at those new frontiers as a source of commercial gain and of military superiority. We have not been exporting the best of our planet out into the frontiers of the cosmos. The question of the weapons and weapons systems in outer space is one of the questions which should be given a higher and more visible place on the international agenda. Indeed there is need to give a new impetus to the task of developing a new agenda for disarmament relevant to today’s conditions and to avoid an implosion of the existing structure of disarmament instruments.

To come back to the principle of the universal destination of the goods of creation, in today’s knowledge-based economy this principle must be applied also to the fruits of human genius and to intellectual property. Pope John Paul II has recalled that intellectual property is subject to that same “social mortgage” as any other form of private property.

Intellectual property systems can be an important incentive towards eliciting the creative genius of individuals, but they ought not to be invoked to permit the hoarding of knowledge which is needed today for the survival of persons, in the hope of making more money tomorrow. In many parts of the world, certain pharmaceutical interests were hesitant in their support for the provision of cheap life-saving medicines to respond to pandemics such as HIV/AIDS, tuberculosis and malaria. They felt that such measures would weaken the encouragement to creativity that the intellectual property rights system provides. They seemed to overlook the fact that the real purpose of creativity in medical research is not simply profit, but a fundamental good of the human community, namely better health for all. Here again it is a question of seeing how the resources of creation – in this case, human genius – should best be placed at the service of the integrity of all of creation. Sustainable development will always be marked by this concept of “integral”, never allowing any one element of development to have priority, leaving others totally aside.

Taking this reflection one step further, today we would also have to say that there is an “ecological mortgage” on all private property, physical and intellectual, and thus on all economic development. The way we may use the goods of creation should be conditioned by the effects that our behaviour has on the environment. This is not an optional extra for use on the occasions in which it can suit us. It belongs to an integral understanding of the relationship between the individual person, the human family and the environment which is both our nurture and our home.

The universal destination of the goods of creation must also apply to equitable access to the decision making processes which concern the future. The more imbalances emerge among States in the international system, the more even valid international norms become lopsided in their application, with the result that the family of nations becomes a dysfunctional family. The credibility of the international system in the future will depend on its ability to push through reforms of its own institutions as well as the sense of responsibility which all parties are called to use within those institutions. Development policy must enhance capacity, both the capacity of persons and the capacity of communities and nations. Development will only be sustainable when it generates voice, ownership and relations that are harmonious and responsible.

The anthropological vision of development which I am proposing is not something static or simply an ideological principle. A true anthropological vision is not a magical formula but a tension, a tension between different principles and different fundamental goods. This tension will never be fully resolved. It must be addressed and worked out honestly in the light of experience as we progress.

You will have noticed that I have stressed three principles which must be addressed within the context of such a creative tension:

We have to stress human dignity without falling into individualism, stress the human family without falling into conformity or domination, and stress care for the environment without falling into a narrow environmentalism. We have to find the ways to foster all three in the varied situations in which we work. Let us look now individually at the principles involved in this “tension of three”.

The first of these principles is the dignity of the human person. Every individual is created with unique dignity, created in God’s image, male and female. From this principle of human dignity there flow the concept of the inalienable rights of each person and the recognition of the unique capacities which each person possesses and which development policy must help identify and enhance.

Within such a vision, for example, the person living in poverty will be looked on not as a statistic but as a brother or sister, having the same dignity as anyone else, having the same fundamental rights and with his or her own unique capacities. The greatest resource of the proverbial “rocket scientist”, or of the leading economist, or of the inventor or of the entrepreneur is his or her own creativity and ability for innovation. The greatest resource of the poor person is exactly the same. People living in poverty show immense creativity and ingenuity simply through surviving. They want to be able to place their human talents at the service of their own future and that of their families. They want above all voice.

Having voice requires working to eliminate structures of dominance and establishing systems of participation. It requires attention to the social infrastructures which enhance participation. It requires special attention to the situation of women. It means moving towards functioning democratic political institutions. It means fostering broad economic opportunity and ensuring decent work for all. Access to decent work is perhaps the most effective instrument in the fight against poverty.

A vision of development focussed on voice means fostering a healthy, informed and critical yet constructive civil society. It means the fostering of free and responsible media. It involves the fostering of human rights organizations and of broad-based education in the area of human rights. It involves respect for traditional knowledge and local understanding of the environment.

Poverty and disadvantage are human, social and economic problems but they are also central questions for politics. Gaudium et Spes dedicated a special section to the “Life of the political community”. Too often the disadvantaged have been looked on primarily as the constituents of civil society, of the Churches or of community or voluntary organizations. The fight against poverty and disadvantage today must become an integral part of political programmes on a national and international level.

This leads me almost naturally into the second principle in this “tension of three” which I have outlined. That second principle is that: when God created humanity he created it as a family. From this flow the principles of common responsibility, of solidarity and of familial relationship of love that should be the true trademark of relationships between peoples. This is the fundamental principle which should guide the process of globalization. Globalization will be worthy of its name only if it enhances the unity of the human family. Any form of globalization which breeds exclusion, marginalization and crass inequality does not have the right to call itself global. Globalization has to be made the synonym of inclusive.

In international relations rules are important, nowhere more today, perhaps, than in trade relations. Negotiations about the rules of international trade are particularly complex, because of the fact that national economic interest is vital to poor and rich countries alike, and because the driving force of economic progress is very often private interest. The same basic principle should apply to trade rules as to other rules: rules are there to defend the more vulnerable and to restrain any tendency towards arrogance on the part of these who are more powerful. In the current negotiations on trade rules this not always the case, even where theoretically the rules are the same for all. In the free-for-all of bilateral or regional international trade relations, the imbalance may be even greater.

The concepts of fundamental human dignity and the unity of the human family inspire another concept of religious origin which is very much applicable to international relations today: a preferential option for the poor. The fundamental option for the poor is a principle which is in its origins directed towards guiding the behaviour of the Christian believer. It is a form of special love towards the brother or sister who is marginalised and who must be restored to a situation in which he or she can realise fully innate human potential. It is about the special responsibility of the entire community to address the issues of poverty in such a way that all are enabled to realise their potential.

The Millennium Development Goals are a modern-day application of a “preferential option for the poor”, assumed by the international community in the fight against poverty. That commitment must be backed up also by the commitments assumed by governments on financing for development. Governments must be reminded again and again that failure to deliver on such commitments while continuing to provide lip service to them constitutes a “preferential betrayal of the poor”.

We need to refine a realistic political and economic option for the poor which will ensure that the needs of the poor are addressed directly and with urgency and are not left simply to the possible trickle down of overall wealth. It is true, that today, just as in the biblical parable of Dives and Lazarus, the poor would often be happy with just the crumbs that fall from the rich man’s table. But this is not enough and it would not be sustainable development.

So many even well-intentioned international campaigns fail because we do not ensure that they are adequately focused on the specific needs and situations of the poorest or because we fail to provide the type of investment which would enable the poor to enter into the virtuous circle where benefit resides. Debt relief or better trade terms can bring enormous benefits to the poorest countries, but will only do so when they are accompanied by a series of pro-poor investments in formation, capacity-building and infrastructures. This involves, of course, not just designing policies which favour the poor but also eliminating distortions which exclude the poorest countries, especially as regards trade in agriculture and textiles.

A reflection on the fact that humanity constitutes one single human family is one that recent genetic research has shown to be true. The battle against racism, racial discrimination and intolerance must go on in a concrete and focused manner. Humankind constitutes one family. Racism is an invention of ideology rather than of biology. Unfortunately, that does not mean that the menace of racism is something consigned to the past.

In this context, we need to approach the question of migration policy with a clear head. Intelligent migration policies can benefit both the sending and receiving country, as well as the persons involved and their families. Overall, emigrants contribute greatly to the nations to which they emigrate and where they themselves flourish. Remittances are an important dimension of the international economy. Migration will inevitably become one of the typical dimensions of a globalized economy. Better that we work together now to ensure that migration can become a form of integration among peoples than allow unenlightened immigration policies to foster new forms of criminality and intolerance and even to be utilized to hack away at such important juridical institutions as asylum and refugee status.

Migrants are people and have rights. They are people with families and an international order which justly holds the family in high esteem cannot be insensitive to the family dimensions of migration policy.

Realizing concretely the principle of the unity of the human family requires that we have structures, that we have an architecture which ensures harmonious relations between different actors. Such an architecture must be based on ensuring the rule of law and good governance on a national and an international level.

Many poorer countries look on the term “good governance” as a new and additional form of conditionality which the developed countries wish to impose on them. We should all remember however that, wherever the rule of law is not respected, it is almost always the poor who pay the highest price. The poor pay the price of corruption. The poor are the primary victims of violence. The poor pay the price of inefficiency in public services, especially education and health care. The rich will always find the way to create private schools and clinics. In a corrupt system, the poor will never be able to pay for the defence of their rights, while the wealthy will easily be able exploit their position to attain what is not their right.

War and conflict are among the great causes of poverty and the breakdown of those structures which the poor need in order to be able to charge their own future. When wars and conflicts take place among the poor they very quickly become “forgotten conflicts”. The whole heart of Africa lives in a situation of precariousness, which is so often simply ignored. Conflict is not just a political or disarmament issue: it is a human, social, developmental and environmental tragedy. I am sure that if the parents of the countries of central Africa were allowed to ask us in the developed world to do just one thing to help their development they would answer: stop the conflict, stop aiding and abetting the conflict, stop the flow of arms into the conflict.

Conflict blocks the possibility of development. It has catastrophic environmental consequences. We need new forms of international cooperation to prevent conflict. We need a stronger emphasis on international humanitarian law and perhaps a new chapter on responsibility towards the environment to be added to humanitarian law and the laws of war.

This brings me now to the third and final principle in that “tension of three” about which I have been speaking: protection of the environment. The human family was given the cosmos and creation as its home. Humankind was entrusted with the mission of maintaining the original harmony which God gave his creation, in which the various elements were individually created and each was seen as good.

Progress is not inevitably linked with environmental degradation. Many of the most successful policies of environmental protection and regeneration have taken place in highly developed countries. It requires vision, sound policies and the willingness to challenge those powerful interests who are slow to change, but who will change when they see that public opinion and consumer pressure are not on their side. But environmentally friendly policies may not necessarily be inexpensive and will require an equitable distribution of the share of such costs, so that all of society can benefit.

Some express concern that the Church’s response to the environmental challenge is too anthropocentric and places the human person in a position of dominance, rather than of true stewardship. The Encyclical Centesimus Annus (#37) is however also very critical of human behaviour and its consequences for the environment. It stresses that at the root of the senseless destruction of the natural environment lies an anthropological error, in which humans believe that they can make arbitrary use of the earth, as though – as I have quoted earlier - the earth itself did not have its own requisites and a prior God-given purpose.

Once again here the challenge is to ensure that we cope with that tension which exists between the three fundamental principles I laid out, in such a way that no one is subordinated to the other.

I have attempted in these reflections to show that the a dialogue between religious concepts and reflection on the human condition can result in identifying basic insights and a framework within which believers and non-believers alike can work. I see above all that placing such an unlikely concept as “gratuitous love” or “gratuitous self-giving” at the centre of our reflection on sustainable development can be a powerful instrument for us in helping to design a radically different architecture of international relations, in the face of the current utilitarian, liberal economic and political models.

There will never be sustainable development without sustained economic growth. But economic growth alone will not ensure sustainable development. Sustainable development requires that it be set within a wider ethical framework, which in its turn will evolve into a juridical framework, which will ensure that the fundamental goods and goals of the community of nations are harmonised in such a way that the good of both humankind and of creation are optimised.

A religious understanding of an anthropology of sustainable development will contain one element which it is difficult for secular national and international structures to incorporate. It is something very characteristic of the anthropology of Gaudium et Spes: the effects of sin on the human project. But anyone who has first hand experience of the horrors of war or genocide, of the extent to which human greed can go in criminality and in human trafficking as well as in economic and environmental exploitation, cannot doubt the presence of evil in the world. The challenge of good and evil, as well as the possibility of redemption, are essential dimensions of a religious understanding of the mystery of the human person. Here religious leadership has a special role to play in appealing to conscience and in the formation of conscience to ensure that the theme of this year's World Day of Peace, proclaimed by Pope John Paul II, can be realised, a challenge which belongs to all: Do not be overcome by evil but overcome evil with good.