by Jason WildeThis is the second in a series outlining the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. This is the third in a series on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. 1) The Common Good 2) The Universal Destination of Goods 3) Our Common Home In my last post, I wrote a little summary about a Catholic social teaching principle called the Common Good. Now, let's talk about a related principle - the Universal Destination of Goods. For Christmas this past year, we gave our son one of the new Alexa devices. He had been asking for a clock and wanted to have music in his room, and so it made sense in our minds since we could control when he uses it, and it would allow him to know when he could wake up in the morning. Unfortunately, our son is also a hacker in the making. Meaning, that he figured out how to subvert the Alexa controls which I set up, and we often find both boys in their room talking and playing with the digital assistant. It has become a huge distraction and prevents them from both school and chores at all hours of the day. But the final straw came when he figured out how to hack Alexa into some kind of accessibility mode that made her announce all things that happen, at all hours of the night! Now, Alexa is sitting on a dresser in our bedroom. The gift that we had given in good faith to our son, with the expectation that he would responsibly use and benefit from it, was being used selfishly to disrupt our normal routines. In many ways, this is an analogy for the many gifts that God has given us - gifts which are necessary for our own life and dignity, but which can also be used selfishly and sinfully for our own purposes as if we claim that they only belong to us. The Church explains this using a term called the "Universal Destination of Goods." In a literal definition, this means that the goods (and services) that any person may produce or own has a universal destination - that they belong to the entire human race. The Catechism explains that "in the beginning God entrusted the earth and its resources to the common stewardship of mankind to take care of them, master them by labor, and enjoy their fruits. The goods of creation are destined for the whole human race" (CCC 2402, bold added). From this simple concept flows all kinds of natural thoughts into economic theories and practices, and the Church also provides guidance in this area. Ironically enough, it is from this concept of universal ownership that the Catechism defines the right to private property - that this right "is legitimate for guaranteeing the freedom and dignity of persons and for helping each of them to meet his basic needs and the needs of those in his charge" (ibid). But, for every right, there is a responsibility and a danger in idolatry of that right. Very specifically, in the use of the term 'private property', the Catechism follows by stating that "The universal destination of goods remains primordial" (CCC 2403), meaning that even the claim to ownership should be subject to the use by all humankind. "In his use of things man should regard the external goods he legitimately owns not merely as exclusive to himself but common to others also...with the task of making it fruitful and communicating its benefits to others" (CCC 2404). (Our son had failed in this task!) Many would like to focus the above teachings to denounce the evils of socialism, communism, or any other totalitarian political or economic model, which the Church does specifically reject. However, in the very same breath, "She has likewise refused to accept, in the practice of "capitalism," individualism and the absolute primacy of the law of the marketplace over human labor" (CCC 2425), going on to explain that allowing marketplace law to rule fails social justice - or failing to allow goods to benefit those in most need. A great example of this failure is in the now popular tendency for airlines, theaters, and even traffic control companies to allow prioritized access to those who are willing to pay more. These services frequently provide pure profit in the pockets of the company, and in the majority of cases, they do not in any way benefit those in most need - only those who can afford to pay more. This is a marketplace response and it does not serve the Universal Destination of Goods. A contrasting example is found in Mediterranean countries, where one may find a large crowd of people waiting to take the same bus, and yet the crowd universally allows an old man with a walking cane to be given first boarding privileges without question. (The same actually happened to us on a very crowded Beijing subway when people saw us holding two toddlers!) This is an important lesson for all of us who live in a very bipolarized 'us vs. them' society: To make any purely economic system into an ideal model is dangerous. In Mere Christianity, C.S. Lewis wrote that "The devil always sends errors into the world in pairs--pairs of opposites. And he always encourages us to spend a lot of time thinking which is the worse. You see why, of course? He relies on your extra dislike of the one error to draw you gradually into the opposite one.” This is why arguments about the merits and pitfalls of economic systems are so ripe for the spread of evil. It is far too easy to get wrapped up in disdain of a particular economics and money that we become blind to the evils of the opposite, forgetting that the Church teaches that any economic system that extends beyond facilitation of the Universal Destination of Goods is likely infringing on the rights of people. Any evil which may be perpetrated by communism may just as easily be spread by capitalism. One cannot say that communism promotes atheism without also acknowledging that "every practice that reduces persons to nothing more than a means of profit...contributes to the spread of atheism" (CCC 2424). Stating that communism prevents private ownership is just as valid as saying that capitalism "keep(s) most men without capital" (G.K. Chesterton, The Outline of Sanity). Defining communism as state imperialism has to be balanced with the idea that "The practical tendency of all trade and business to-day is towards big commercial combinations, often more imperial, more impersonal, more international than many a communist commonwealth" (ibid). Claiming that government welfare does not constitute charity is as vain as one who gives to a charity with the incentive of a tax deduction. But there is an "atheism" that is closer at hand and more dangerous to our church. It is the atheism of capitalism, in which material possessions are set up as idols and take God's place.... And here is the real danger to us living in a world where capitalism is the norm. It is easy to say that we have checks and boundaries in place, but in reality, it is all around us, affecting everything from how we buy groceries to how we think about relationships. We must be especially on guard against this particular evil more so than its opposite. We must become aware of how the Universal Destination of Goods is failed by a system that, in definition, objectifies and puts a price on everything, leading me to attachment to what is 'mine'. In another very interesting use of symmetry, we should note that all of this is defined in the Catechism under the 7th Commandment (You shall not steal), and it is also here that Christian charity is defined. This is because the private ownership and use of goods is always subject to "reserving the better part for guests, for the sick and the poor" (CCC 2405). "Not to enable the poor to share in our goods is to steal from them and deprive them of life. The goods we possess are not ours, but theirs.” (St. John Chrysostom, quoted by CCC 2446) I find this symmetry very important because of the common habit to second-guess the person in need. If a man asks me for a dollar, I tell myself that there is a better, more efficient use of my dollar (this is again our normative economic thinking). Do I immediately judge him to determine if he is going to use it to buy alcohol, or do I give knowing that "a glass of wine is his only happiness in life!” (Pope Francis)? Not reserving the better part for the poor is stealing from him in the same way as someone who robs from a convenience store is stealing from the owner. The bread of charity is life itself for the needy; All economic activity, whether on the individual level, the corporate level, or by governments should therefore be directed such that it ensures unconditional social justice (c.f. CCC 2426), with specific preference given to the poor of the world. In the simplest explanation, any concept of economics or currency should not be used for any reason other than to ensure the Universal Destination of Goods. But more importantly for our society who has a tendency to demonize economic models which we do not agree with or which are maybe not as beneficial for our own life, we must ensure that attachment to the opposing economics does not blind us to the needs of the poor and to the ways in which we steal from them. My child, do not mock the life of the poor;
0 Comments
by Jason WildeThis is the first in a series on the principles of Catholic Social Teaching. 1) The Common Good 2) The Universal Destination of Goods 3) Our Common Home Check back for links to future posts. The 35 MPH speed limit on this arterial road near our house is rarely obeyed. To be honest, it does seem ridiculously slow, and police officers are known to regularly ticket drivers on this section, bounded on both sides by higher speed zones. That said, this road is hindered by lack of turning lanes in places which force drivers to frequently slow down and stop while waiting for clearance to turn. In addition, the road is frequently crossed by pedestrians and cyclists - it intersects a major greenbelt and is within a few blocks of a Catholic school. While it may seem to be a speed trap, there are clearly reasons why a faster speed would be dangerous for both drivers and pedestrians. In many ways, this roadway is an example of a 'common good', the first principle of Catholic Social Teaching, and the 35 MPH speed limit is one of the restrictions in place that ensures this common good is accessible to all those who are in need of it. The Catechism describes the common good as "the sum total of social conditions which allow people, either as groups or as individuals, to reach their fulfillment more fully and more easily" (CCC 1906). Of course, this common good goes far beyond a single roadway, but each piece of the common good must also be treated in a way that is shared consistently. The Catechism goes on to explain that "The common good concerns the life of all. It calls for prudence from each" (ibid), meaning that in order to ensure that it continues to promote respect for the person, social well-being and development, and security of society and its members, we must all exercise prudence in our own personal actions in order to "make accessible to each what is needed to lead a truly human life: food, clothing, health, work, education and culture, suitable information, the right to establish a family, and so on" (CCC 1908). The roadway, a single piece of our society, is used by thousands of people each day in order to have access to many of these critical rights, and as such, we must recognize and obey the "role of the state to defend and promote the common good" (CCC 1910) - i.e. laws, restrictions, and expectations in place regarding fair use of the road, including speed restrictions. As a passing through motorist, it is far too easy to make a personal judgement about this posted law and exercise personal freedom against it, or to say that the roadway was built for use by motorists, like me, who never have to turn left to reach my neighborhood, and so pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists who need to turn left shouldn't expect to inhibit the free flow of all other users. But right-of-way or preference for a common good is not defined in such as way. Isaiah provides us with imagery of this concept:
The Church has always promoted the preferential option for the poor, the neglected, and those who do not necessarily deserve (in a worldly sense) the common good of all society. Isaiah makes this very clear in this exhortation which does not exclude anyone, and specifically includes those who cannot pay for what society would say must be earned. The Book of Acts gives a brief image of the first Christian Church ensuring the common good: "All who believed were together and had all things in common; they would sell their property and possessions and divide them among all according to each one’s need." (Acts 2:44-45) But Matthew gives us the most direct and fundamental example of the common good, as administered by Jesus Himself: When it was evening, the disciples approached him and said, 'This is a deserted place and it is already late; dismiss the crowds so that they can go to the villages and buy food for themselves.' This is an important example, and in many ways it defines our Christian understand of the common good in a more communal way than ever understood before. While Isaiah invited everyone to come to God - "Heed me, and you shall eat well, you shall delight in rich fare" (Is 55:2b) - Jesus not only confirms that we cannot impose restrictions "so that they can go...buy food for themselves", but says "give them some food yourselves", making it clear that WE are called by Him to fulfill the needs promised to those who cannot afford them. We must give up something in order to fulfill His promise to those who are least worthy. The Catechism gives concrete examples of this in calling us to "alleviate the miseries of refugees dispersed throughout the world, and assist migrants and their families" (CCC 1911), both of which require sacrifice on our part to ensure they are fulfilled.
This sacrifice may take many different forms, depending on the particular component of the common good. In many cases, it requires a financial sacrifice from everyone, either in the form of taxes or non-compulsory donations. This is a way for us to ensure that the common good is not literally stolen from those who need it most. Pope Saint John Paul II affirmed this when he said that "God gave the earth to the whole human race for the sustenance of all its members, without excluding or favouring anyone" (Centesimus Annus). This does not replace in any way the concept of private property, for "the Church does indeed defend the legitimate right to private property, but she also teaches no less clearly that there is always a social mortgage on all private property, in order that goods may serve the general purpose that God gave them” (Address to Indigenous and Rural People, 1979). In other ways, such as with the roadway, our individual sacrifice takes the form of restricting or limiting a personal action or freedom that may inhibit or endanger other's access to the common good. This goes well beyond speed limits and includes licensing, adequate understanding, and obedience to all traffic laws and requirements in order to use a motor vehicle, all designed not just to protect self, but to also protect the lives of others, ensuring that all people can access and utilize the roadway in the way that they need it without endangering their lives. Ensuring access to one piece of the common good also ensures that the universal common good is granted to all of society. Seat belt and child seat laws can therefore be included because while our example limited the scope to just a single roadway, it also limits medical emergencies, ensuring the common good of hospital and medical care to those who need it most. Similarly, we should all take care to not take unnecessary risks for selfish purposes that might result in the need for emergency and medical attention which might be deprived from another person - and this applies to our entire life, not just while sitting behind the wheel of a vehicle. This is why it is so important to think of ourselves and our own personal decisions as subject to the common good. Every decision and every action we take can affect in some way this common good, and this is especially true in times such as now when resources are limited and people are suffering. Even though I may feel that some law is unjust or that I can handle the repercussions of not following it, I may be harming someone else, either directly or indirectly by spreading sickness, preventing safe access to necessities for those who are at risk, or using medical resources that are becoming more scarce each day. The dignity and life of each person is defined with the common good as a requirement, and so we must take care to uphold and protect it in order to love our neighbor as ourselves. Take some time to read from Isaiah 55 and Matthew 14 in light of the common good and how we can ensure that ALL have access to it - and in cases where this is not true, that we are the ones who sacrifice in order to fulfill the promise of God to His people. |
On a MissionTwo passionate parents and their four children are excited to bring His Word to everyone in need while living a life of Gospel poverty as missionaries. They invite you to join them on a journey to encounter our global neighbors that Jesus commands us to love through works of charity and service. Archives
April 2021
Categories
All
|