In Australia, during 1962, Thomas Muldoon, Auxiliary Bishop of the Archdiocese of Sydney, addressed the Catholic Bank Officers' Guild of St. Matthew.(1) Labelling prodigious growth of monopolistic capitalism more evil than Communism, Muldoon offered several measures to rectify the situation. Those more pertinent to labor issues included,
Employers engaged in large and medium-sized enterprises should be given opportunities to participate in them financially by shares made available to them, either gratis or at the lowest reasonable cost.
Employees also should be given greater responsibility within the organizations by way of representation on the boards of management. Thus an enterprise becomes a community of persons working in harmony to the profit of all coned and the social order is brought nearer to perfection.
Early in 1970, the Catholic Bishops Conference of India issued a pastoral letter.(2) Quite aware of gigantic problems besetting India and the world, the bishops also were cognizant of deep yearnings and powerful forces as work to right wrongs and inequalities, to establish a just social order and peace. The bishops expressed supreme satisfaction with the All-India seminar conducted earlier. The pastoral assured the clergy, laity, and religious were of the bishops' determination to implement seminar conclusions, in as many areas as possible. The seminar addressed church structures, youth, rites, and labor.
For labor, the bishops setup a commission to deal exclusively with their needs and concerns, according to Pope Paul VI's Development of Peoples.
We are aware of hardships . . . of the working class in agriculture or industry and shall endeavour to work for humanization of their living conditions and upholding of their rights. We also are aware of land reform, unemployment, and underemployment problems, as well as their implications for society. . . . The church must make her social doctrine known to the millions of our citizens and work with them to develop a better social order. We hope to dedicate to this apostolate, through the efforts of the Labor Commission, a larger number of priests, brothers, sisters and lay people.
On October 14, 1971 Teopisto Alberto, the Philippine Episcopal Conference President and Bishop of Caceres, spoke on "The Church and Social Justice" during a meeting of the 1971 Synod of Bishops in Rome.(3) Suggestions were given about Synod agenda items and world expectations from the Synod.
The main emphasis of the Synod ought to be international justice. Main infringements were colonialism expressed in economic, political, and cultural areas of life. While economic growth is explained not mainly by exploitation, colonialism "provided the North American states with low-cost resources, available markets for their manufactures and profitable investment opportunities." Citing Paul VI's Populorum Progressio about the main source of present-day domination as world trade in unregulated markets, which generally favor strong over weak nations, Alberto underlined two aspects of Catholic social teaching. First, the main motive for the right of developing nations to liberation and development is not charity or almsgiving, but justice and solidarity among all peoples. Second, a corollary to the right of development is the right of defense of oneself and nation against domination by appropriate means.
World expectations of the Synod were, not general principles, but specific actions. Namely, what does the church intend to do about justice, including its own. Insisting on a need of the church, before preaching to others, to be sure to appear just in others' eyes, the bishop proposed several questions. One, is church property always administered as "patrimony of the poor" or does accumulation of wealth or identification with the wealthy reduce church credibility in protests against injustice and promotion of justice? Two, is there respect for church employees' rights to fair compensation, working conditions, participation and active voice in affairs concerning employees? Do church members have the right to freedom of speech and thought, as well as the right to some sort of due process when charged with misconduct by church authorities? Alberto thought the world also could expect the church to educate for justice so that people might evaluate critically, be sensitive to injustices, and search for roots of injustice in systems and structures that breed it.
On July 4, 1973 the Philippine Hierarchy issued a pastoral, "On Evangelization and Development."(4) Interest in it was increased, given a declaration of martial law on September 21, 1972, by President Ferdinand Marcos claiming to lead Filipinos into a "New Society." Spiritual institutions have a special mission, said the bishops, "giving to the world and development the spiritual dimension and inspiration, it so badly needs, its soul." In addition to giving an overall view of Filipino realities, the pastoral relied on previous Vatican documents for a proper understanding of development and evangelization.
Among profound changes in the world, two forms of human dignity and freedom were singled out - aspiration to equality and aspiration to participation - which go together. Yet, basic relationships of wealth and world poverty remain unchanged. Thus, 75% of world resources are controlled and consumed by that third of humanity, "who are in the modern technological community where the great majority of Christians live." The bishops listed several reasons for this situation of underdevelopment.
. . . a number of the wealthiest nations appear steadily less committed and inventive in their approach to world development.
. . . development in a full social, cultural and economic sense is much more difficult, in the latter part of the 20th century, to achieve.
. . . three quarters of the world's supplies are consumed by the already rich . . . high consumption means high wastes. . . . What would happen to planet earth, if three quarters of all the people in developing countries sought the same levels of income?
In the Philippines conditions mirror those of the Third World in general. A small minority receives the largest share of the income, concentrating holdings in agricultural property and industrial production facilities, "while the masses have a minimal income and constantly are in danger of unemployment." To support the bishops' conclusions, many examples and statistics were given on income, education, employment, and housing. It was admitted there was economic progress, but periodically it was appropriated by a very small proportion of the population.
Credit was given a decree making the whole nation a "Land Reform Area." For, such a bold land reform law fulfilled an ideal of Pius XI's Quadragesimo Anno, John XXIII's Mater et Magistra, as well as the statement in Vatican II's Gaudium et Spes, "Indeed, insufficiently cultivated estates should be distributed to those who can make these lands fruitful." Yet, the real scandal of poverty in the nation was the flaunting of wealth by extravagant parties, outlandish fashions, and useless trips abroad. A spiritual as well as material poverty! Here, "the objective poverty of absolute difference in income levels translates into subjective poverty . . . the relative gap between the haves and the have-nots."
Credit was given initial or partial efforts overhauling a regressive tax system. Yet, there had to be more revisions and zealous implementation "without discrimination and . . . appearance of favoritism or harassment."
The impact of worldwide changes on the church was striking. In the past, the church worked "in a sacralized temporal environment." In the present, secularization evolved "before her, around her, within her." The church had neither the right to condemn, nor power to stop the process in toto, since
. . . it contains aspects, both positive (liberation from attitudes and practices which smack of magic) and negative (danger of the disappearance of an authentic spiritualization).
The Philippine church began in 1521, was acknowledged by 84 per cent of the population in 1973, permeated the people's culture, established pastoral structures, and recruited apostolic personnel. Yet, evangelization was characterized as mediocre, precarious, and superficial; commitment as instinctual, institutional, and social; practice as formalistic, pietistic, and ritualistic. There was no awareness of the communal, eccesial, and personal
dimensions of church. Hence, many among the youth and intellectuals sensed a distance and disharmony of the church from Gospel roots and Filipino reality. Others saw the church as an obstructive force in efforts to construct a more just society.
The bishops admitted many still nurture defensive positions, silent escapes, and paternalistic attitudes. Hence, many philanthropic initiatives, fundraising campaigns, social programs, and charitable organizations! Such are definitely good, but not good enough! They do not tackle the root causes of national illness and poverty. The basic root of the evils was called "internal colonialism" and the church participated in it. Indeed, even the Philippine revolution and war for independence from Spain did not provoke "structural changes in this general situation outside the general policy of separation of Church and State." Now, the church must locate itself at the center not the periphery, as sacrament of redemption imbedded within human flesh not as alien behind institutional walls. Now, the church must admit a solidarity and responsibility in the past, but apply to present national conditions, in a Gospel context, Evangelization and Development.
The hierarchy discussed both in the context of an article by Cardinal Pignedoli, Omnis Terra (April 1970) v. 28, n. 2, "Preaching of the Gospel to the Underdeveloped World." He asserted development and evangelization,
. . . should not be considered as if they were separate . . . as if mutually exclusive. They are not opposed to each other, but are complementary. To try to oppose religious values to earthly values is to show one understands neither God nor God. God wishes to save the whole man, with both temporal needs of his body and eternal aspirations of his soul. But it is his eternal destiny which has the priority; it conditions his earthly existence and gives it its meaning. Eternal values provide the only real safeguard for earthly values. . . .
Missionaries always well understood this harmony between the two values and have acted upon it. . . . The history of Propaganda Fide is rich in directives and initiatives of a social nature. "Pure evangelization," in disembodied form, has never existed. Theorists of development as aspects of evangelization are in danger of inventing what having given us a deeper realization of the need for social cooperation . . . as a duty, not merely in charity, but in justice.
Thus, the bishops, in the context of Pignedoli's remarks, stressed the church's prophetic task of stirring the public conscience, especially of decision makers. The mission to preach the Gospel message was a call for all to turn from sin to a Father's love, universal solidarity, and pressing demand for justice in the world.
Yet, in keeping with traditional and Vatican II teaching the bishops defined "evangelization" as,
. . . the strictly religious activity of preaching God's kingdom, the Gospel as revelation of the plan of salvation in Christ, through the action of the Holy Spirit's activity that has the ministry of the church as its instrument, building up of the church as its aim, and God's glory as its final end.
Their definition of "development," like Populorum Progressio's, stressed the integral development of the entire human person. It included socio-economic factors but was even called by some "auto-creation." It assumed a mystique, by which the bishops meant,
. . . a vision and goal beyond man directed his searching, beyond individuals to the limits of mankind, beyond the visible to be invisible, beyond time to the hope of eternity.
Similarly, for the bishops, "work undertaken toward integral development is a genuine way of evangelization." Development is social, individual, material and spiritual--a logical consequence of Christian faith, demanding a "radical option" for people's spiritual freedom. Citing a University of Notre Dame Professor, Denis Goulet, the bishops defined development as,
. . . a series of changes, well or poorly coordinated, abrupt or gradual, from a phase of life perceived by a population and all its components as being less human to a phase perceived as more human.
Acknowledging the church shares responsibility for social justice, the bishops mentioned its specific and proper role: "giving witness to the world of a need for love and justice contained in the Gospel message." For these bishops too evangelization and development should be inseparable, compenetrating, symbiotic, and united. Asserting that the principle and safeguard is the richness of humanity, they quoted their 1970 document, "The Visit," Christianity and democracy have a basic principle in common: respect for the dignity and value of the human person, respect of those means that man requires to make himself fully human.
To facilitate this mutual respect and effort, the bishops noted qualities in Filipino people and culture. A noted author, H. de la Costa, expressed these qualities in five very pregnant terms.
. . . pagsasarili . . . a will to secure for every Filipino the means to develop himself as a responsible human being; pakikisama a willingness to share with each other burdens and rewards of living together; pagakakaisa building an articulate national community by forms of social organization understood by the people; pakikipagkapwa-tao human solidarity understood as dedication to the development of one's own nation that will enable it to participate on free and equal terms in the total development of mankind; pagkabayani a readiness to put the common good of the nation above private interests . . . of one's own personal group or class.
All were called to imbue such basic attitudes with the Christian spirit. To the extent Christians by word and sacrament evangelize, they reveal "the deepest, the ultimate meaning of development . . . a dynamism which is no longer a merely human thing." Thus, the church,
. . . must support as best she can the struggle against ignorance, hunger, disease and social insecurity . . . take up the defense of the poor and the weak against every form of social injustice.
So too, those engaged in practical aspects of evangelization should realize their efforts are helped by activities concerned with temporal and human development of the peoples being evangelized. Such evangelizers must not lose heart and fear being drowned or submerged in a great technical or human enterprise. Rather, evangelization provides for development its very soul and life-giving force. Development is not merely an object lesson; it is living and eloquent witness of the Lordship of Christ over the world. Furthermore,
This witnessing should be acknowledged as a work of evangelization in its strict sense, as an explicitly religious act. This witness . . . requires also a proclamation of the genuine word of salvation. . . . Wherever personal preaching is not possible . . . development, inspired by this spirit, retains truly evangelizing significance. . . .
Debate between evangelization and development will be . . . a question of method. . . . The answer can not be the same for all cases but must depend on particular circumstances, faithful to apostolic spirit and needs of different situations, always with a view to the efficacy and sanctity of the work. The church however must make her contribution to development . . . in a spirit of service and not of paternalism. . . . It is in light of this principle that we must decide as to the opportunities of establishing and retaining certain institutions and as to the desirability of involvement in ways and structures that are not those of the church itself: we are here to serve.
Applying these notions from the universal church to the Philippines, the bishops urged that every effort at evangelization take into account the real needs and aspirations of the people. Not threatening aspects of changing society nor suffering humanity, rather the Gospel and God himself, "which obliges the Christian to participate in the work of development." The bishops regretted that, for many Christians in the Philippines, development and structural change were not connected to the faith and sacraments, injustices and ignorance were not sins ordinarily acknowledged, poverty and violence were not related to salvation.
After citing documents of the 1971 Synod of Bishops and CELAM, the Philippine bishops insisted that development be conditioned by the people's characteristics and needs, no unique model of development exists, nothing can replace the initiatives of the people, and Marxism is only partially right in saying "better men will come only from a better structure." Indeed, humanism without God is incomplete and in the end inhuman.
The bishops concluded by approval of whatever was good. Thus, land reform, peace, good order, more equitable distribution of wealth--all were deemed worthwhile and looking toward development. Nevertheless, there was a call to truth, freedom, dignity, justice, and charity.