ABSTRACT

Gaudium et Spes, it has been argued, is a radical and daring document, both for its scope and for significantly departing from the usual custom of addressing only Catholics in Church documents by speaking also to “all persons of good will”. [1]

In its tone it is revolutionary and optimistic about the future, but remains faithful to the principles of social justice enunciated in previous documents and encyclicals. Taken together with Lumen Gentium, it provides a coherent picture of how the Kingdom of God is to be realised in the earthly kingdom in which human beings find themselves. It is a revolutionary document because it articulates what in practical terms it means to be a Christian in the modern world. It elaborates a picture of the preciousness of human life [2] and what this means in terms of the social and political organisation of society. It argues for a communitarian conception of society in which human fulfilment lies in collaborative participation in the creation and development of the common good.

It is an unusually optimistic document, perhaps reflecting the post Second World War period in which it was written, an era when economic growth seemed to be likely to last forever with full employment and working hours shrinking. [3]   It begins by noting the profound and rapid changes that human beings were experiencing and the great growth in the generation of wealth, resources and economic power. Change also was occurring in traditional communities, with more and more societies adopting an industrial model and cities continuing to expand. [4] Populations were expanding too in the long ‘baby boomer’ period following the Second World War. Despite this, it observes that there is still acute poverty and hunger in the world, and that the world is divided into rich and poor. [5] This is not seen as an intractable problem, however, rather one which people of good will are going to be able to solve, given time. There is a sense in the document that the goal beyond history, the coming of the Kingdom, is close at hand and human beings are engaged in the final push to its realisation. [6]

Philosophically, what is of interest in the document is the articulation of an understanding of the nature of what it is to be a human person living in society. It articulates an understanding of the common good, and proposes a social and political order in which, though the individual is central, his or her well being and fulfilment can only be realised through living in community. The needs of the individual are subordinated to the needs of the community, but only because it is only in this way that the needs of the individual are going to be served.

Gaudium et Spes seen from a modern perspective, is powerfully counter-cultural, particularly in its articulation of the role of governments and business in serving ordinary human beings. It provides a strong case against economic rationalism and for a radical redistribution of wealth. In this it is not alone, but is consistent with the Church’s social teaching, about the nature of the common good and how human fulfilment is to be achieved.

There is an extraordinary vitality about the Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World, missing in large measure from later documents and encyclicals. This might be because it is a document locked in its own time, an optimistic moment in the World’s history, when all things appeared to be possible. Later documents emerging out of the oil shock of the 1970s and later periods which saw the erosion of the welfare state and the installation of Thatcherism were faced with more intractable problems. That most of these could be said to be at least partly due to an ignoring of the warnings already sounded by Gaudium et Spes and other documents is a sign of how much it did get right in its analysis of the world situation and what ought to be done to correct it.

It is not possible to do justice to such a theologically and philosophically rich document as this in a few short paragraphs. In this paper I will concentrate on reflecting on the way in which Gaudium et Spes develops a communitarian conception of the person, gives an account of the common good and shows how these imply an economic order in society which is directed towards a fair distribution of material goods. It will also be shown that in keeping with other Catholic Social teaching that it provides a radically different conception of the purposes of commerce to that offered by economic rationalists.

Gaudium et Spes recognises that human beings are made in the image and likeness of God and because of this are the centre of all things on earth. [7]

Human beings are flawed creatures [8] , but are in their innermost being, social creatures, who without the ability to relate to others, cannot live or develop their potential. The progress of the human person and the advance of society itself are mutually dependent. [9] This means that the goal of all social institutions is the human person, because it is through these that each person’s development is nurtured. Social life is not external to the human person, but is an integral part of what it is to be a human being. Human beings realise their full potential as persons through the complex and myriad social relationships in which they are enmeshed.  Of course it is not only these relationships alone that enable people to realise their potential, but also their actions. The myriad social relationships in which persons are involved give rise to duties and obligations and hence to actions of various types and it is through the carrying out of these actions that human persons begin to develop their gifts and talents. From the narrative of our actions, a picture of who we are as persons emerges. What is striking in Gaudium et Spes is the image of human beings linked together and sharing a common destiny. [10]

 COMMUNITARIANISM AND THE COMMON GOOD

As already proposed, human beings are fulfilled as persons through their membership of a community, and theologically, it is in and through Christ that the community reaches its apotheosis. [11] Salvation is not reached alone, but through participation in the community, the people of God who are joined to one another through Christ. There is, then, an understanding that the communitarian character of human beings is developed and consummated in the world of Jesus Christ. As a result, the fate of individuals is tied up with those of their fellow human beings and this interconnectedness means that what we achieve as individuals is meaningless unless it also contributes to the common good. Gaudium et Spes puts this in the following way:“Man's social nature makes it evident that the progress of the human person and the advance of society itself hinge on one another” [12]

, and further on, “….God did not create man for life in isolation, but for the formation of social unity” [13]

. This does not mean that human beings are subordinated as individuals to the community understood as somehow personified itself and as having its own ends to pursue. It is rather, to be understood as existing in order that the individual human person can be fulfilled in and through the development of his or her talents in the service of others, who themselves exist as ends in themselves. The community exists to serve human beings; it is not the case that human beings exist to serve the community. There is, moreover, a recognition in this thought of the interrelationship between human beings. Gaudium et Spes says: “Every day human interdependence grows more tightly drawn and spreads by degrees over the whole world. As a result the common good, that is, the sum of those conditions of social life which allow social groups and their individual members relatively thorough and ready access to their own fulfilment, today takes on an increasingly universal complexion and consequently involves rights and duties with respect to the whole human race. Every social group must take account of the needs and legitimate aspirations of other groups, and even of the general welfare of the entire human family.” [14]

Broadly speaking, the conception of the common good espoused by Gaudium et Spes is consistent with the Aristotelian-Thomistic tradition which argues that the common good consists in the community being able to work together to provide each person with the necessities of life. Aristotle sees the state as a community of equals aiming for the best life possible. [15] Each person has their part to play in the community, so that there is a need for, amongst others, artisans, farmers, soldiers, religious leaders and judges. The notion of the common good, however, differs from that proposed by Plato in the Laws. [16] Plato’s model of the common good gives priority to the state in terms of the control and distribution of wealth and property rather than to the individual. Aristotle, on the other hand, while arguing for a fair and equitable distribution of wealth and property, does not see such an arrangement as particularly workable. For Aristotle it is much better for individuals to have responsibility for the disposal of wealth and of property for individuals are more likely to look after what is their own rather than what is owned in common. [17] There is, however, an understanding that ultimately property and wealth are common goods to be shared.

The concept of the common good is also shared with the great encyclical of Leo XIII, Rerum Novarum, and Pius XI’s Quadragesimo Anno and echoes their radicality. Rerum Novarum claims that the role of the State is the promotion of the common good, and so is at odds with a minimalist social contract view of the role of the State. The end of society is to make human beings better and governments have a responsibility to promote religion and morality, as well as do their utmost to promote the welfare and interests of the poor. Moreover, the State has an equal responsibility to the working class to ensure that they receive their due. Public administration must make sure that it sees to the comfort and welfare all citizens, that is to say, distributive justice must ensure that wealth in the nation is fairly apportioned. [18] Although the encyclical does not favour undue interference by the State in the lives of citizens, it nevertheless rejects the notion of ‘laissez faire’ liberal models of government. States have to interfere where it is necessary to ensure the fair distribution of wealth. In some respects, Rerum Novarum anticipates the ‘principle of subsidiarity’ of Quadragesimo Anno. This principle proposes that wherever possible, people should be allowed to make decisions for themselves without interference from a higher authority. [19]

The view of Gaudium et Spes is also consistent with Mater et Magister, John XXIII’s encyclical on which, arguably, much of the Pastoral Constitution is based. John XXIII holds that the whole reason for the existence of the State is for the realisation of the common good. Its task is to ensure that every human being has sufficient resources for his or her well being. This means that the State has to act to ensure that material goods and services are equitably distributed. More than this, the State has to protect the rights of its citizens and to work actively for an improvement in the material condition of their lives. [20] This theme is elaborated also in Pacem in Terris, which discusses the connection between the common good and political authority. John XXIII postulates that the existence of public authority as means of promoting the common good is a principle of the moral order. [21]

Gaudium et Spes  argues that all the earth and what it contains is intended for all human beings. This means that everything that is created is held in common – there is no absolute sense of ownership of property. Every person has a right to sufficient of the earth’s resources to keep him or herself. Indeed, a person in extreme necessity has the right to take from the riches of others what he himself needs. [22]

Although this point is made powerfully by Gaudium et Spes, it appears in just as strong language in Aquinas, who quotes St. Basil: “If you acknowledge them [your temporal goods] as coming from God is He unjust because He apportions them unequally? Why are you rich while another is poor, unless it be that you may have the merit of a good stewardship, and he the reward of patience? It is the hungry man’s bread that you withhold, the naked man’s cloak that you have stored away, the shoe of the barefoot that you have left to rot, the money of the needy that you have buried underground: and so you injure as many as you might help.” [23] Aquinas condemns the rich man for thinking things belong to him, because their source ultimately is God. [24] The Pastoral Constitution puts it in the following words:  “The Fathers and Doctors of the Church held this opinion, teaching that men are obliged to come to the relief of the poor and to do so not merely out of their superfluous goods.(10) If one is in extreme necessity, he has the right to procure for himself what he needs out of the riches of others.(11) Since there are so many people prostrate with hunger in the world, this sacred council urges all, both individuals and governments, to remember the aphorism of the Fathers, "Feed the man dying of hunger, because if you have not fed him, you have killed him,"(12) and really to share and employ their earthly goods, according to the ability of each, especially by supporting individuals or peoples with the aid by which they may be able to help and develop themselves.” [25]

The concept of the common good and of a natural moral order which obliges us to act towards one another with charity is a constant theme in Gaudium et Spes. Moreover, it is not to be exercised in only specific areas, but in every area of life. We have an obligation to give help to the old, sick and abandoned, the hungry, and significantly in view of Australia’s present attitude towards them, refugees. [26] We also have obligations to actively oppose whatever is directed against life and the flourishing of the human person. The obvious examples here are such crimes such as murder and genocide, as well as abortion and euthanasia, and those things which insult human dignity, such as, slavery, subhuman living conditions, and arbitrary imprisonment. Included also are less obvious modes of oppression, which resonate more strongly today, namely, working conditions in which human persons are treated as mere tools for profit, rather than free and responsible persons. These, says Gaudium et Spes, are infamies indeed, for they poison human society. Surprisingly, it also asserts that such infamies do more harm to those who practise them than those who suffer from the injury. [27]

This is an interesting thought, for while we are generally prepared to recognise that evil actions harm the perpetrator because they diminish his or her own humanity, we emphasise, rightly, the injustice suffered by the victim and seek to redress it. To suggest that the perpetrator suffers greater injury somehow seems to be overstating the case. A murder victim, for example, has lost his life, while a murderer has not. It would be too much of a digression to follow this thought through, but it is suggestive of a theme consistently propounded throughout the document, namely our interrelatedness as human beings and of the contribution each and every human being makes to the common good. Hence, every evil action erodes the common good and affronts human diginity. In so doing, its effect reaches much further than just the act itself and the victim of it. There is no individualistic morality, everyone has to contribute to the common good and this will be in myriad small ways. [28]

Several important themes emerge out of the discussion of the common good which frame much of the discussion of socio-economic problems which Gaudium et Spes addresses. There is, firstly, the idea that every person is entitled to the common good in which we all share and to which we all contribute in different ways. Secondly, there is the claim that we are all, creatures made in the image and likeness of God and sharers, through Christ, in His Divine Life, responsible for one another. This means that we have a responsibility for looking after each other. Thirdly, there is the thought that the sharing of our common goods should be directed towards helping others to develop themselves. Finally, there is the view that it is consistent with human dignity that each person be encouraged to take responsibility for him or herself. There is, of course, a further question to be asked in relation to this final point about the shape that these responsibilities and obligations ought to take. [29]

In asserting that gradually the human family is recognizing that it comprises a single world community and is making itself so, Gaudium et Spes is far too hopeful. [30]

The idea that we are moving to a global community, though often touted as a reality, is further from realization now than in the sixties. Globalisation, which is a feature of the early twenty-first century, has not been an engine for greater world unity, rather, it has exacerbated the division between the rich nations and the poor nations. This is recognized in John Paul II’s encyclical Sollicitudo Rei Socialis where he explicitly criticises the complicity of both Eastern and Western ideologies for maintaining for their own strategic ends the division of the world into rich and poor nations. [31]

While it is recognised that human beings are more precious for themselves than for what they do or what they have, work and economic activity are important for human growth and wellbeing, For this reason, the growth of the earthly kingdom can contribute to the growth of Christ’s kingdom. In all instances, however, the accumulation of wealth, of increased economic development, are subordinate to the growth of personal relationships, justice and of human fulfilment. [32] Gaudium et Spes can be criticised for misjudging the extent of human progress and economic development and supposing that there is a kind of linear, Hegelian movement towards fulfilment, but in its application of the notion of the common good to economic activity it provides us with a powerful rejoinder to economic rationalism. It is in the fourth chapter of the first section that a consideration of the role of the Church in the modern world is undertaken.

An important consideration, however, is how far such activism is to extend, for this is far from clear. Certainly many nineteenth and twentieth century Christian reformers have taken it to extend very far indeed. Nevertheless, in some respects, particularly in Australia, there is a question here of how far in the years following Vatican II the Church has lacked the courage of its convictions, particularly in its failure to galvanise action against the steady erosion of the daily wages and living conditions of workers, as well as public morality. Perhaps the message of Gaudium et Spes was misunderstood in Australia: in the engagement with the modern world, some took it to mean that the Church was to become indistinguishable from the modern world, adopting its secular outlook, rather than remaining true to its own convictions. [37] There is, then, the question of how far the Church’s mission has been compromised by the readiness to adapt to the modern world.

The idea that the world is becoming more unified and that we are witnessing the birth of a new humanism, in which persons are defined in relation their obligations and responsibilities to their fellow brothers and sisters [39] seems to have been more an expression of hope than an accurate analysis of the world situation. Arguably, the tendency towards mass culture is a result of the proliferation of mass American culture throughout the world, rather than a genuine growth of mutual understanding of a common humanity. A different tone is apparent in both Evangelium Vitae and Veritatis Splendor, where it is clear that amongst the major problems of the the modern world is the “culture of death” and the lack of concern for truth. In Evangelium Vitae, for example, the opening paragraphs affirm the importance of a respect for life from its very beginning. While it may be true that we have witnessed the birth of a new humanism, it is one without any sense of the sacred or any place for God. Evangelium Vitae agrees with this assessment, saying, “ a new cultural climate is developing and taking hold, which gives crimes against life a new and--if possible--even more sinister character, giving rise to further grave concern: broad sectors of public opinion justify certain crimes against life in the name of the rights of individual freedom, and on this basis they claim not only exemption from punishment but even authorization by the State, so that these things can be done with total freedom and indeed with the free assistance of health-care systems.” [40] In Veritatis Splendor, John Paul II warns of modern currents of thought which discount the value of truth and so advocate moral relativism. “ At the root of these presuppositions [anthropological and ethical] is the more or less obvious influence of currents of thought which end by detaching human freedom from its essential and constitutive relationship to truth.” [41] These passages indicate a very different and more sober assessment of the condition of the human person in the modern world to that expressed in Gaudium et Spes.

In its discussion of socio-economic life, Gaudium et Spes argues, consistently with its views on the nature of common good, that the dignity of the human person, along with the welfare of society should be the source, centre and purpose of all socio-economic activity. [42] This is in stark contrast to libertarian views such as those of Friedman, who contends that the purpose of business is to make profits for the shareholders and nothing more. [43] While it is recognised that at the time there were two different kinds of economies operating in the world – the capitalist and communist – the salient point that Gaudium et Spes makes is that too great a concentration on economic matters leads people to lose sight of the purpose of the economy, which is to serve human needs. “Many people, especially in economically advanced areas, seem, as it were, to be ruled by economics, so that almost their entire personal and social life is permeated with a certain economic way of thinking. Such is true both of nations that favor a collective economy and of others.” [44] Writing at a time when the long postwar boom was still to end, there is an optimism about the possibility of diminishing social inequality through economic growth – a possibility dashed just a short decade later with the coming of the oil crisis of the seventies as well as in the eighties the extremism of Thatcherism and Reaganomics.

Flowing out of a richly informed Christian theology, Gaudium et Spes expresses its solidarity with the poor and underprivileged. In this, it follows in the footsteps of other important church documents, particularly the encyclicals, starting with Rerum Novarum. Looking back forty years it is evident that it was too hopeful about human progress and seriously misread the economic climate which came to prevail a few years after it was written. Despite this, it is the principles which it enunciated about the nature of human beings and their relationship to each other and to their common humanity that lend to it its power and vitality. Economic activity has as its point and purpose the fulfilment of human beings and so the furtherance of the common good. The question with which we are left is what, if anything, can be done to implement the principles which Gaudium et Spes and Catholic Social Teaching in general enunciate in a world dominated by a cult of individualism and economic rationalism.

[10] As God did not create man for life in isolation, but for the formation of social unity, so also “it has pleased God to make men holy and save them not merely as individuals, without bond or link between them, but by making them into a single people, a people which acknowledges Him in truth and serves Him in holiness.”, GS, #32

[11] Gaudium et Spes says: “......Christ the Lord. Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and His love, fully reveals man to man himself and makes his supreme calling clear.”  GS #22

[38] Different styles of life and multiple scales of values arise from the diverse manner of using things, of laboring, of expressing oneself, of practicing religion, of forming customs, of establishing laws and juridic institutions of cultivating the sciences, the arts and beauty. Thus the customs handed down to it form the patrimony proper to each human community. GS, #53