# Solidarity with the Poor

*Exported from [Holy-Writings.com](https://www.holy-writings.com/) on 2026-06-19 — 1 clipping.*

---

> Source: Bahá'í Library Online (bahai-library.com), curated by Jonah Winters. Used by permission of the curator. Original citation: Gregory Baum, Solidarity with the Poor, Ottawa: International Development Research Centre, 2000, bahai-library.com.
> ──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────
> 
> CHAPTER 2
> 
> Solidarity with
> the Poor
> Gregory Baum
> 
> A ROMAN CATHOLIC IDEA OF DEVELOPMENT
> 
> The idea of development that emerged in the 1950s envisaged the res-
> cue of poor people from their misery through the industrialization of
> their societies. The hope was that the economic system that produced
> the wealth of Western nations could be exported to the developing
> countries and eventually make them wealthy too. W.W. Rostow (1960)
> elaborated this idea in detail in his celebrated work, The Stages of Eco-
> nomic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. This book offered a vision and
> a plan for overcoming poverty in the world, as an alternative superior to
> the Marxist enterprise. Rostow, director of Policy and Planning in the
> us State Department during the Kennedy administration, is said to
> have inspired President J.F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress. The inten-
> tion of this program was to promote the modernization of Latin
> America by supporting industrial development and fostering an entre-
> preneurial culture of self-reliance and competitiveness.
> To render a full account of how the Christian churches have viewed
> the idea of development would demand an entire book. Both the Roman
> Catholic Church and the Geneva-based World Council of Churches have
> produced significant, critical literature on the topic of development.
> What I wish to do in this paper is much more modest. In this section,
> I draw on a number of papal documents to provide a summary of a
> Roman Catholic idea of development; in the second section, I show that
> 
> 
> in recent years the World Bank has come to regard religion as a possible    61
> BAUM
> 
> factor in the promotion of economic development; and in the final sec-
> tion, I argue that the social and economic sciences are never entirely
> value free and that the researcher’s political vision and attitude toward
> religion are likely to influence her or his conclusions.
> 
> Critics of the idea of development
> At first, the Christian churches were ill at ease with the new idea of
> development. They had heard the protests of Christian and non-
> Christian groups in the poorer parts of the world, denouncing the
> aggressive modernization of their regions. I will mention but two of
> their objections. One is from Latin American liberation theology. The
> theologians of this school, in dialogue with political economists, recog-
> 
> 
> 62   nized that the industrialization of the South by Northern capital created
> patterns of dependency that prevented the countries of the South from
> creating their own future in accordance with their own culture. If indus-
> trialization was supported by Northern capital, they argued, it would be
> guided by the North; it would produce goods for export to sell at high
> prices on the world market, not goods needed by the local population;
> it would use sophisticated technologies, not those appropriate to the
> skills of the people; it would exploit the simple workers, paying them
> in accordance with the law of supply and demand. More than that, these
> Christians opposed the globalization of Western culture, with its com-
> petitive spirit, ideals of personal autonomy, unrelenting work ethic, and
> impatience with celebration and contemplation. Liberation theologians
> replaced the notion of “development” (desarrollismo) with the concept of
> “liberation” (Gutierrez 1973). They advocated the creation of a regional,
> low-scale economy, based to a large extent on local resources, relying
> mainly on local skills, and serving, for the most part, the needs of the
> local population. Is there still room in today’s world, they asked, for
> alternatives to Western industrial culture?
> Liberation theology made use of dependency theory to interpret
> the situation of the continents at the periphery of the global capitalist
> system. To many observers this appeared to be an infiltration of Catholic
> theology by Marxist ideas. Not so to Canadian observers. By the 1930s,
> the Canadian liberal economist Harold Innis had already analyzed the
> evolution of Canadian society in terms of the exploitative dynamics
> between the “metropolis” and the “hinterland” (Drache 1995).
> The arguments of liberation theology against Western-style devel-
> opment are mainly economic and cultural. Yet, some communities have
> also had specifically religious reasons to protest the globalization of cap-
> italist culture. In Canada, we are keenly aware of this as First Nations
> defend themselves against private developers and government-
> sponsored development projects by affirming the sacredness of their
> understanding of the land and their relationship to it. They claim that,
> in the first place, natural resources are not commodities, means of
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> creating wealth, or even objects of barter to enrich First Nation
> communities; natural resources, they insist, sustain a specific lifestyle,
> support a local community, and form part of a living entity. For these
> people, land is not real estate to be bought and sold: it is something
> sacred. They venerate it as something that has given them life and con-
> tinues to support and protect them. The land claims of First Nations are
> not based on a Western liberal idea of property: they demand the power
> to protect their land from the invasion of developers and preserve it to
> ensure the continuance of their lifestyle. Yet, they are quite willing to
> share this land with people from the dominant population, as long as
> these people have the same reverence for the natural environment.
> First Nation peoples, whether they are Christians or practice their
> traditional cosmic religion, regard with great suspicion the secular
> 
> 
> approach to life taken for granted in business, government, economics,         63
> and other social sciences. As all these endeavours systematically exclude
> the spiritual dimension of life, native peoples often regard them as a
> form of brainwashing designed to undermine their cultural identity.
> This theme is developed at length by the Ecumenical Association
> of Third World Theologians, which was founded in Tanzania in 1976
> and has been meeting since then at regular intervals. Here, Christian
> theologians from Africa and Asia offer critical reflections on the secu-
> larism of the industrialized world (Fabella 1997). They argue that polit-
> ical science, economics, and other social sciences and development
> projects based on the dominant model presuppose an anthropology — a
> vision of humankind — that severs the human being from the realm of
> the Spirit and contradicts the understanding of human life in African
> and Asian cultures. Some of these theologians are even critical of Latin
> American liberation theology: they feel that in relying primarily on an
> economic critique of the oppressive conditions of their continent, liber-
> ation theology has become excessively influenced by the secularism of
> the oppressors. The position of these theologians is that the Western
> economic empire makes people in Africa and Asia suffer “anthropolog-
> ical oppression,” that is, the people find themselves caught in institu-
> tions and overwhelmed by a set of symbols that rob them of their
> cultural identity and produce religious anguish. If this analysis is cor-
> rect, it may not be surprising that in many parts of the world people
> turn to religious fundamentalism to protect themselves from the inva-
> sion of the Western empire and mind-set.
> It is not surprising that after listening to these and other voices of
> protest, the Christian churches, especially the World Council of
> Churches, made “development” an important issue, calling for a
> response of faith. The major churches, Protestant and Roman Catholic,
> have denounced the purely economic understanding of development
> and the aggressive globalization of the free-market economy. In the pre-
> sent world, marked by soul-destroying and often death-dealing inequal-
> ity, the Christian churches have expressed in public statements their
> BAUM
> 
> solidarity with the poor and their commitment to analyzing their own
> societies and the world system from the perspective of the marginalized
> and excluded. This expression of solidarity has produced a new under-
> standing of the church’s mission to serve God’s reign in the world, to
> bear, in other words, the burden with the victims of society and promote
> love, justice, and peace.
> The literature on the churches and development is extensive.1 As
> I indicated above, I confine myself in this paper to a résumé of the
> Roman Catholic idea of development proposed in two papal encycli-
> cals — Pope Paul vi’s (1967) “Populorum Progressio” and Pope John
> Paul ii’s (1987) “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” (see excerpts of both in Annex 1).
> 
> 
> 64   Paul vi’s “Populorum Progressio”
> In the “Populorum Progressio,” Paul vi showed himself keenly aware of
> the protest against development mounted by Christian and non-
> Christian groups in the poorer parts of the world. As we shall see, he
> pays attention to their economic and religious arguments. As John Paul ii
> (1987, p. 12) later noted, the “Populorum Progressio” emphasized “the
> ethical and cultural character of the problems connected with develop-
> ment” and the legitimacy of the Church’s intervention in the field.
> Paul vi supported the idea that the wealthy nations of the North
> must help the poorer nations of the South overcome the conditions that
> produce misery and suffering. International solidarity is an obligation of
> love and justice. Love of God and neighbour, which is the heart of bib-
> lical faith, implies a commitment to universal solidarity, beginning
> with the poor and oppressed. But even strict justice, required of Chris-
> tians and non-Christians alike, demands that rich people and nations do
> their utmost to help poor people and nations gain access to the wealth
> of the Earth. Because God intended the goods of the Earth for the whole
> of humanity, the current scandalous maldistribution of wealth is an
> offence against justice and a grave sin. Paul vi praised the efforts of
> international organizations, particularly the United Nations, to try to
> restructure the economic order, support development projects in the
> poor countries, and demand the reduction of their public debt.
> Paul vi supported the modern idea of development, but in an
> alternative mode. He appreciated, in particular, the humanistic devel-
> opment theory of Father Louis Lebret (1959). The Pope took with
> utmost seriousness the economic and religious arguments against the
> dominant form of development. He gave an extended critique of liberal
> capitalism and its impacts on the poorer continents. He recognized that
> the plight of many Southern nations is, at least in part, the result of the
> precarious economic conditions created by the colonial powers, such as
> For a useful summary of this literature, see the Dictionary of Mission (Orbis Books
> 1997).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> the concentration of agricultural production on a single crop, which left
> these nations vulnerable when they became independent (Paul vi 1967,
> s. 7). He also recognized the fear that “under the cloak of financial aid
> or technical assistance, there lurk certain manifestations of what has
> come to be called neo-colonialism, in the form of political pressures and
> economic suzerainty aimed at maintaining or acquiring complete dom-
> inance” (Paul vi 1967, s. 52). In more general terms, the Pope lamented
> the emergence of neoliberalism, that is, the globalization, in theory and
> in practice, of the self-regulating market system.
> It is unfortunate that … a system has been constructed which con-
> siders profit as the key motive for economic progress, competition
> as the supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the
> 
> 
> means of production as an absolute right that has no limits and car-               65
> ries no corresponding social obligations. This unchecked liberalism
> leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius xi as producing
> “the international imperialism of money.”2 One cannot condemn
> such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again that the
> economy is at the service of man.
> Paul vi (1967, s. 26)
> Paul vi argued that “if certain landed estates impede the general
> prosperity because they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because
> they bring hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the
> country, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation”
> (Paul vi 1967, s. 24). The Pope also considered it “unacceptable that
> citizens with abundant incomes from the resources and activity of their
> country should transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely
> for their own advantage, without care for the manifest wrong they
> inflict on their country by doing this” (Paul vi 1967, s. 24). In certain
> situations, the Pope continued, injustice cries to heaven:
> When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of
> dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and
> all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and politi-
> cal life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs to
> human dignity, is a grave temptation. … We know, however, that
> a revolutionary uprising — save where there is manifest, long-
> standing tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental
> personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the
> country — produces new injustices, throws more elements out of
> balance and brings on new disasters.
> Paul vi (1967, ss. 30 and 31)
> 
> The reference is to paragraph 109 of Pope Pius xi’s “Quadragesimo anno” (O’Brien
> and Shannon 1992).
> BAUM
> 
> The Pope also asked us to question even the sacred cow of technol-
> ogy, in a passage particularly prescient of today’s issues in development:
> It is not sufficient to promote technology to render the world a
> more humane place in which to live. The mistakes of their
> predecessors should warn those on the road to development of the
> dangers to be avoided in this field. Tomorrow’s technocracy can
> beget evils no less redoubtable that those due to the liberalism of
> yesterday. Economics and technology have no meaning except from
> man whom they should serve.
> Paul vi (1967, s. 34)
> The Pope favoured the reform of these circumstances and dynamics,
> calling for “bold transformations, innovations that go deep” (Paul vi
> 1967, s. 32) and encouraging individual involvement in the necessary
> 
> 
> 66   reforms, each according to his or her resources and capacity for action.
> Yet, after reflecting on the nature of the human vocation and the
> current condition of the world, he came to the conclusion that the
> industrialization of society had become a necessity. According to the
> Christian understanding of the human being, the Pope argued, the
> quest for self-fulfillment is not optional. People must work, and work
> hard, to humanize the conditions of their lives. One sentence of the
> encyclical has a particularly “Western” ring:
> By persistent work and use of his intelligence man gradually wrests
> nature’s secrets from her and finds better application of her riches.
> As his self-mastery increases, he develops a taste for research and
> discovery, an ability to take a calculated risk, boldness in enter-
> prises, generosity in what he does and a sense of responsibility.
> Paul vi (1967, s. 25)
> In this passage, the Pope endorsed modernization. In an earlier passage,
> he supported industrialization. The evils of neoliberal capitalism,
> according to Paul vi, must not be attributed to industrialization as such.
> Industrialization can take place in a mixed economy in which market
> forces — regulated by government, contained by the labour movement,
> and tamed by a culture of solidarity — are made to serve the common
> good of society.
> Paul vi also took seriously the religious arguments against devel-
> opment. He repudiated the generally accepted and purely materialistic
> idea of development current at the time and suggested, instead, what he
> called “integral” development, that is to say, a development that
> improves people’s material conditions in the context of the fuller real-
> ization of humanity in social, political, cultural, and religious terms.
> Economic development must go hand in hand with the intensification
> of social solidarity, political freedom and responsibility, access to educa-
> tion, cultural continuity, and the search for greater religious depth:
> If further development calls for work of more and more technicians,
> even more necessary is the deep thought and reflection of wise men
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> [and women] in search of a new humanism which will enable mod-
> ern [persons] to find [themselves] anew by embracing the higher
> values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation.
> Paul vi (1967, s. 20)
> 
> A purely secular culture has no access to this new humanism.
> According to Paul vi, it is only by calling on the hidden divine powers,
> graciously and undeservedly made available to us, that humans can
> make progress on the road of love, justice, and peace in today’s complex
> global society. Christian faith, hope, and love are not meant as an entry
> into personal piety; rather, they constitute a world-transforming power
> that dwells in people’s hearts and summons forth a transpersonal piety
> of solidarity3 and concern for others.
> 
> 
> The “Populorum Progressio,” it seems to me, is a document that
> supports development, but from a particular perspective. First, it
> affirms the need for worldwide industrialization; second, it endorses the
> idea that the North must assist the development of the South, albeit in
> an alternative fashion; and third, it understands the presence of God in
> human life as a means to rescue us from personal and social sin and to
> empower us for the sanctification of human history.
> The passage of time has shown us that many questions remain.
> First, can the resources of the Earth afford industrialization on a global
> scale? Are all subsistence economies destined to disappear? Second,
> should the somewhat paternalistic idea that the rich North must help
> the poor South be replaced by a more cooperative model that recognizes
> the distinct contributions of both partners to mutually beneficial inter-
> action? The 1971 World Synod of Bishops moved beyond Paul vi’s
> analysis when it insisted that Southern nations receiving help from the
> North should remain the principal architects of their development and
> the guardians of their culture (sbsga 1971). And third, is the humanis-
> tic theology of Paul vi, which I fully and joyfully endorse, shared by all
> people who believe in God? Members of other religions may have dif-
> ferent ideas. Many Christians may interpret God as other than the
> redeemer and transformer of human history — that is, acting in the here
> and now — but look on God as the saviour rescuing them from history
> and offering them a refuge in the sacred temple (in the afterlife).
> 
> Pope John Paul ii explained the term solidarity in “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis”: “polit-
> ical leaders, and citizens of rich countries considered as individuals, especially if they are
> Christians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of each one’s responsibility,
> to take into consideration, in personal decisions and decisions of government, this relation-
> ship of universality, this interdependence which exists between their conduct and the
> poverty and underdevelopment of so many millions of people” (John Paul ii 1987, s. 9,
> emphasis in the original).
> BAUM
> 
> John Paul ii’s “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis”
> To commemorate the 20th anniversary of the “Populorum Progressio,”
> Pope John Paul ii (1987) composed the encyclical “Sollicitudo Rei
> Socialis.” He reexamined the question of development in the light of
> more recent events and, through theological reflections on present-day
> culture, demonstrated the need for a more nuanced concept of develop-
> ment. John Paul ii agreed with the positions adopted by his predecessor
> in the “Populorum Progressio,” namely, the need for industrialization,
> the deleterious material and cultural consequences of neoliberalism, and
> the need for international solidarity to promote the integral develop-
> ment of developing countries. John Paul ii grieved with his predecessor
> over the misery, oppression, and marginalization imposed on masses of
> people in the South. He lamented that despite major political and eco-
> 
> nomic efforts made in the North and the South, several indicators of
> basic needs revealed that the global situation was getting worse and that
> the social and economic inequalities between rich and poor countries
> and between rich and poor people in each country were increasing.
> In this paper, I mention only one issue introduced by John Paul ii’s
> encyclical, namely, the cultural causes that, in conjunction with eco-
> nomic and political ones, are responsible for the increasing misery in the
> world. John Paul ii mentioned in particular the economistic under-
> standing of human beings; and the belief, sustained and guided by sci-
> ence, in humanity’s orientation toward limitless progress. The Pope
> reminded his readers that both liberals and Marxists share these two
> convictions, even if they interpret them differently. He pointed an
> accusing finger at contemporary Western culture and suggested that to
> account for the “underdevelopment” of the South, we have to examine
> the “superdevelopment” of the North; in other words, to understand the
> troubling situation of the poor, we must examine the trouble-creating
> situation of the rich:
> A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should serve
> to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of underdevelop-
> ment, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up against a form
> of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible, because like the former it
> is contrary to what is good and to true happiness. This superdevel-
> opment, which consists in an excessive availability of every kind of
> material goods for the benefit of certain social groups, easily makes
> people slaves of “possession” and of immediate gratification, with
> no other horizon than the multiplication or continual replacement
> of the things already owned with others still better. This is the so-
> called civilization of “consumption” or “consumerism” … .
> John Paul ii (1987, s. 28, emphasis in the original)
> John Paul ii analyzed “consumerism” from an ethical and theolog-
> ical perspective. He argued that the urgent task of helping developing
> countries overcome the conditions of hunger and misery demands a
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> moral conversion of wealthy countries and people everywhere. British
> sociologist John Hargreaves, in his book Sport, Power and Culture, offered
> a detailed analysis of consumerist, capitalist culture:
> It is the way discourses and practices are articulated around features
> of a consumer culture, and the way this whole complex is orches-
> trated by certain key themes, that gives [contemporary capitalism]
> its coherence and power. The orchestrating themes of this culture
> are directed at selling a specifically modern, secular version of the
> good life. The dominant discourse/practice is of youth, beauty,
> romance, sexual attraction, energy, fitness, health, movement,
> excitement, adventure, freedom, exotica, luxury, enjoyment, enter-
> tainment, fun. Above all, it is a culture that esteems “self-expression.”
> A truly astonishing variety of goods and services — from washing
> powder, cars and foreign holidays, to cosmetics, fashion-wear, eat-
> 
> ing and aerobics — circulate on this basis: and concomitantly,
> major segments of social life are organized around this consumer
> culture.
> Hargreaves (1975, p. 131)
> According to John Paul ii, the North needs to transform its culture,
> reject the consumerist mentality, and reenter the spiritual life.
> The new idea that John Paul ii added to Paul vi’s idea of develop-
> ment was that the goal of a world of justice and peace that meets the
> basic needs of all people is wholly unrealistic unless rich nations are
> willing to undergo a spiritual conversion. This is a bold assertion. Most
> of the development literature, including reports by the United Nations
> and the World Bank,4 deal with the situation of the poor. If the Pope
> was correct, then what we need is research on the rich: their power,
> ideals, culture, and worldview and the impact of their institutions on
> the world at large.5
> 
> A personal spirituality
> Before turning to the other questions I want to address, I will make a
> few remarks on where I stand as a Catholic theologian and what inspires
> me in my work of exploring the meaning and power of the Gospel in
> today’s world. One important influence on my life has been the concept
> of an “option for the poor,” first articulated in Latin American liberation
> theology and then endorsed in papal and episcopal documents. This
> option involves two commitments: to look at society from the
> Most recently, the “World Development Report 2000/01: Poverty and Develop-
> ment” (to be published by the World Bank in September 2000).
> Susan George, Associate Director of the Transnational Institute in Amsterdam and
> a well-known critic of economic globalization, said, “Let the poor study themselves. They
> already know what is wrong with their lives and if you truly want to help them, the best
> you can do is give them an idea of how the oppressors are working now and can be
> expected to work in the future” (George 1976, p. 289).
> BAUM
> 
> perspective of its victims; and to publicly manifest solidarity with their
> struggle for justice. Whereas the implications of this option are secular,
> its inner spirit is religious and grounded in the Bible. Its roots are par-
> ticularly evident in the Exodus story (the rescue of the people of Israel
> from pharaonic oppression), the divine demand of social justice
> announced by the Hebrew prophets, and the provocative preaching of
> Jesus Christ that led to his condemnation as a troublemaker and to his
> death on the Roman cross.
> The option for the poor has released a new inwardness in the
> Christian churches, marked by a certain spiritual anguish; that is, (1) we
> are deeply troubled by the suffering of others, especially those who are
> oppressed (the majority of humankind); (2) we grieve over the Church’s
> 
> 
> 70   past and present complicity with empire, colonialism, and other forms
> of domination; and (3) we willingly expose ourselves to the painful and
> unanswerable question of how we can reconcile our faith in a loving and
> omnipotent God with the evil we see in the world. This new spiritual-
> ity, which has its own “dark night of the soul,” is not devoid of hope and
> the energy to act. In situations of grave injustice, Christian love trans-
> forms itself into a yearning for justice and an impulse to act to lift the
> heavy burdens from the shoulders of the oppressed.
> What amazes many Christians, like me, is that in our association
> with secular men and women committed to justice we often discover
> that they also have a “spirituality.” By this I mean an inwardness of
> compassion, urgency, and hope that inspires them and guides their lives,
> even though they never talk about it. Perhaps they never talk about this
> motivation because traditional spiritual language appears otherworldly
> to them and they do not possess an alternative discourse to describe such
> feelings. I often feel closer to such inwardly blessed secular people than
> I do to those members of my own church who are insensitive to the
> divine summons for justice. I do not speak of God to these secular asso-
> ciates of mine. It does not occur to me to desire their “conversion”; on
> the contrary, I marvel at their spiritual experience of standing aloof from
> the dominant culture, feeling compassion for the unjustly treated, and
> being empowered to act on their behalf. I detect there a moment of tran-
> scendence. As a Catholic in the theological tradition of St Augustine
> (354–430 ad), I am greatly impressed — as he was — by the sinful
> dimension of society’s dominant structures and, at the same time, the
> gratuity or “grace” of people’s capacity to love, do justice, and make
> peace. Just as I respect their “secular spirituality” and have no intention
> to “convert” my friends, I hope that they also respect — in their social-
> scientific research and their support for public policies — the “other-
> ness” in the mind-set of religious people.
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> THE WORLD BANK’S NEW INTEREST IN RELIGION
> 
> Structural-adjustment policies
> imposed by the World Bank
> After World War ii, the Bretton Woods Agreement created the World
> Bank and the International Monetary Fund (imf) to monitor the world
> economy, loan money to poor countries in urgent need, and prevent
> financial collapse on a universal scale. At the time, the British partici-
> pants were unhappy that (on the insistence of the Americans) the
> Bretton Woods institutions would be guided by a liberal economic
> philosophy that conceived the free market as the engine moving history
> forward toward universal well-being. When, in the early 1980s, Prime
> Minister Thatcher of the United Kingdom and President Reagan of the
> 
> United States implemented neoliberal economic policies in their coun-
> tries, the Bretton Woods institutions were confirmed in their neoliber-
> alism and pursued it with even greater vigour.
> The neoliberal policies had devastating effects on many of the
> developing countries of the South. To promote free trade and the free
> reign of market forces, the World Bank and the imf imposed the so-
> called structural-adjustment policies (saps) on these countries. These
> countries were to get no further loans unless they
> 
> 
porations;
> Opened their borders to free trade and the entry of foreign cor-
> 
> 
 Deregulated their national economies;
> 
 Privatized publicly owned enterprises;
> 
and Reduced   government spending by cutting social programs
> laying off government employees; and
> 
> 
 Shifted production from the local market to the export market.
> The saps increased hunger and misery in many countries. Instead
> of growing their own food and producing the goods they needed, peo-
> ple were obliged to produce for export and thus increase their depen-
> dency on the centre of world power. In the eyes of the World Bank and
> the imf, this bitter medicine was needed to contain what they judged to
> be irresponsible governments, discipline what they thought to be lazy
> populations, and convince people that in the long run the self-regulating
> market system would be the wealth-creating engine of world development.
> Neoliberalism has become the new orthodoxy. In response to crit-
> ics, the World Bank and the imf claim that they have no alternative.
> Yet, others have offered alternatives. A well-known example is the 1989
> report of the Economic Commission for Africa entitled African Alterna-
> tive Framework to Structural Adjustment Programmes for Socio-Economic
> Recovery and Transformation (eca 1989). Pressure from the World Bank
> BAUM
> 
> seems to have been a strong contributing factor in the stagnation of this
> report (Mihevc n.d.).
> The industrialized countries of the North, I note, have increas-
> ingly applied the saps to their own economies, and this has brought
> about a major shift in the distribution of power and wealth. There are
> signs that we are entering a new phase of human history. Central con-
> trolling power has moved to international financial institutions and
> transnational corporations (tncs), which are accountable to neither the
> public nor any supervisory agency. National governments have lost the
> capacity to promote the well-being of their people and protect them
> from the tncs that enter their countries, destabilize their local
> economies, and invest local profits in other countries (Martin and
> Schumann 1997). As a policy and ideology, neoliberalism has widened
> 
> 
> 72   the gap between rich and poor in the industrialized countries; it has
> produced a growing sector of chronically unemployed people and
> promoted a culture of competitive individualism devoid of both social
> solidarity and self-restraint. Only minority movements of spirited
> people resist this culture. One such movement among the churches is
> the world-wide ecumenical Jubilee 2000 Initiative,6 which addresses
> itself to the Northern nations, the World Bank, and the imf. Based on
> the Jubilee texts of Leviticus (25:13–24), in which God commands the
> Israelites to redistribute wealth, release slaves, and cancel debts at reg-
> ular intervals, this initiative demands the cancelation of the heavy debt
> load that currently burdens developing countries. Accompanying this
> ecumenical initiative is a major educational effort to raise the awareness
> of church-going Christians.
> 
> Mounting criticism of the World Bank
> We saw in the first part of this paper that the major Christian churches
> on all continents have condemned neoliberal philosophy and demanded
> political and economic policies based on international solidarity and a
> desire for social justice. A growing number of nongovernmental organi-
> zations (ngos) active in the South have also formulated criticisms of the
> World Bank and the saps. This wave of complaints climaxed in 1994,
> the 50th anniversary of the Bank’s foundation, when, under the slogan
> “50 Years Is Enough,” the ngos succeeded in organizing a major cam-
> paign critical of the Bank. This campaign informed the public of the
> destructive, undemocratic, and unaccountable policies adopted by the
> 
> The Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative published a 30-page brochure, entitled
> “A New Beginning: A Call for Jubilee,” about this initiative. It is available from the
> Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative, po Box 772, Station F, Toronto, on, Canada
> M4Y 2N6. More information on the Jubilee 2000 Debt Campaign can also be found on
> the Canadian Ecumenical Jubilee Initiative homepage (www.web.net/~jubilee/debt.htm).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> Bank and called for fundamental reforms of this institution. The cam-
> paign received massive support. In fact, the leaders of the G7 countries
> put reform of the World Bank on the agenda of their 1995 meeting in
> Halifax.
> In 1994, under its new president, James Wolfensohn, the World
> Bank decided to listen to these complaints, enter into dialogue with the
> ngos, and modify some of its policies. The Bank canceled its involve-
> ment in a controversial project in India — the Narmada Dam. It admit-
> ted that in many countries foreign debt was a serious problem and
> prepared measures to alleviate it; it strengthened its commitment to
> reduce poverty in the world; and, most significantly, it began to hold
> meetings with the ngos. The World Bank admitted ngos to the 1995
> assembly of the Bank and imf and created a joint World Bank–ngo
> 
> 
> committee to review the saps.                                                 73
> Great controversy roars around the significance of the changes
> introduced by the World Bank. Some commentators think that the
> Bank has adopted a new orientation more beneficial to developing coun-
> tries, whereas others argue that these changes are largely window dress-
> ing and do not weaken the Bank’s commitment to the saps or the
> neoliberal logic behind them. Today, the World Bank is deeply com-
> mitted to “world governance.” Good governance has also become a
> concern of the United Nations (1995). Governance, I note, is not the
> equivalent of government. Governance refers, rather, to the interaction of
> several factors — including government and markets — in creating and
> sustaining order and peace in society, especially given the social and cul-
> tural consequences of globalization. Apart from governments and
> markets, the concept of civil society encompasses other governance-
> producing factors. Civil society includes professional associations,
> labour unions, religious institutions, schools and universities, nonprofit
> organizations, citizens’ movements, cultural centres, and — especially
> in the South — foreign ngos.
> The protest movement leading up to the World Bank’s 50th birth-
> day may not have been the only reason for the Bank’s new concern for
> global governance. The Bank shares the fear of all well-informed
> citizens that the globalization of the economy and the breakdown of
> subsistence economies, cultural cohesion, and social integration in many
> developing countries are producing conditions of grinding misery and
> social chaos that may easily explode in violence. An explosion of vio-
> lence in developing countries would cause great human suffering,
> threaten investment and private property, inhibit production and deliv-
> ery of goods, and thus impede the expansion of the free-market econ-
> omy. For all of these reasons (humanitarian and economic), the World
> Bank has decided to encourage and support good governance, that is,
> the ordering and pacifying of society under conditions of poverty and
> dislocation.
> BAUM
> 
> In the name of good governance, the World Bank now actively
> intervenes in the affairs of developing countries on several levels:
> 
> 
 It puts new emphasis on role of the state;
> 
ngosIt and
> seeks cooperation with, and offers financial support for,
> other organizations of civil society; and
> 
> 
spirituality.
> It recognizes and encourages a role for religion, ethics, and
> 
> The World Bank’s dialogue with religion
> Good governance includes support for an ethical culture that promotes
> 
> 
> 74   social well-being. Inwardness or spirituality has social consequences.
> The world religions form patterned communities that sustain people in
> difficult times, strengthen them in their communal efforts, and create
> close bonds of friendship, cooperation, and mutual aid. For these rea-
> sons, religious communities, as part of civil society, play an important
> role in ensuring good governance. It is not surprising that the World
> Bank, faithful to its new, post-1994 image, has begun to show concern
> for spirituality and religion. It has sponsored several international con-
> ferences on these issues in the hope that a better understanding of the
> Bank’s aims will allow religious leaders and teachers of spirituality to
> make a more focused contribution to humanity’s well-being. At the
> same time, the World Bank is willing to learn from the wisdom of the
> world religions.
> I wish to comment on two such international conferences: the first,
> the 1995 Conference on Ethics and Spiritual Values, held in Washington,
> dc, focused on sustainable development; the second, the 1998 Confer-
> ence on World Faiths and Development, held at Lambeth Palace in
> London, United Kingdom, focused on cooperation between religions
> and the World Bank.
> At the opening of the 1995 Conference on Ethics and Spiritual
> Values, James Wolfensohn gave the keynote address, “New Partner-
> ships,” in which he made the following statement:
> Development is not just a matter of looking at increases in gross
> domestic product (gdp) par capita. In Africa I saw successful devel-
> opment in villages where people were pulling themselves out of
> deep poverty. Development is visible in people who, within the
> structure of their familial or tribal system, possess a sense of
> grandeur, a sense of optimism, a sense of hope; who talk with
> excitement in their eyes about their children’s future. These people,
> living on next to nothing, feel a sense of progress that is more than
> economic. It encompasses recognition of roots and their spiritual
> and cultural values, which we [the World Bank] need to nurture
> and encourage. These values are what we should be developing … .
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> The [World Bank’s] central mission is to meld economic assistance
> with spiritual, ethical and moral development.
> It is not easy to explain to most people why I would leave a
> successful business practice to come and try to make the world a
> better place. … I came [here] because of a background that had, I
> believe, within my own Jewish religion some sense of ethical, spir-
> itual and moral values that I have attempted to live by and that
> guide me.
> Wolfensohn (1996, p. 1)
> The conference proceedings, published by the World Bank, gave
> the names of the 34 men and women it had invited to address the topic.
> All the speakers agreed that ethics and spiritual values must be taken
> into account in formulating economic policy, especially that related to
> sustainable development. Most of them lamented the indifference of
> 
> economics to ethical considerations, but, with one exception, all failed
> to articulate a critique of the World Bank’s economic policies. Only
> Denis Goulet, a well-known, critical development economist, said in
> plain language that economic globalization (as promoted by the World
> Bank) undermined local economies and dissolved traditional values and
> that environmentally sustainable development was therefore impossible
> under the conditions created by these neoliberal policies (Serageldin and
> Barrett 1996).
> The Conference on World Faiths and Development, 18–19 February
> 1998, was hosted by George Carey, Archbishop of Canterbury, and
> James Wolfensohn, President of the World Bank, and held at Lambeth
> Palace, London. Participants were leaders from nine world religions
> (Baha’i Faith, Buddhism, Christianity, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism,
> Judaism, Sikhism, and Taoism) and included the main traditions within
> these religions.
> The conference at Lambeth Palace was preceded by a roundtable
> conference, A Christian Response to the International Debt Crisis, on
> 16–17 May 1996, organized by the Anglican Community Office at the
> United Nations. This earlier conference set forth the biblical and Chris-
> tian foundations for ethical norms relevant to the economy. It assigned
> special significance to the Jubilee year. As stated in the conference doc-
> uments, the immediate purpose of the roundtable conference was “to
> express uncompromising concern with the human impact of imf and
> World Bank policies” and to explore with the participants “possible
> lines of practical action which might help alleviate negative effects of
> [imf and World Bank] policy on the poor and vulnerable.”7 The confer-
> ence participants produced a series of policy measures that they urged
> the Bretton Woods institutions to take into account.8
> See www.aco.org/united-nations/debtconf.html.
> A 13-page statement of these recommendations (acoun 1996), plus the conference
> program, can be obtained from the Rt Rev. James Ottley, Anglican Observer at the
> United Nations, 815 Second Avenue, New York, ny 10017, usa (e-mail:
> anglican_un_office@ecunet.org).
> BAUM
> 
> In response to the roundtable conference, James Wolfensohn
> agreed to cohost, with the Archbishop of Canterbury, the 1998 Confer-
> ence on World Faiths and Development. Here leaders of the world reli-
> gions were engaged in sustained conversation with staff members of the
> World Bank. At the end of the conference, the two co-chairs made a
> joint statement summing up in 11 points the agreements that had been
> reached. I offer a brief summary:9
> 1.     The religious leaders and the leading staff of the World Bank are
> at one in their deep moral concern for the future of human well-
> being and dignity.
> 2.     Human development must have regard for spiritual, ethical, envi-
> ronmental, cultural, and social considerations.
> 
> 
> 3.     Human well-being includes spiritual and cultural expansion and
> rescue from suffering that is due to poverty.
> 4.     It is important to listen to all the actors involved in development,
> including especially the local community.
> 5.     The World Bank and the major religious communities agree on
> the need to continue the dialogue.
> 6.     The religious communities will be allowed to influence the think-
> ing of the World Bank.
> 7.     Several joint working groups will be established.
> 8.     The World Bank staff want more education regarding the world’s
> religions, and the religious communities want more education
> regarding international development.
> 9.     The religious communities have already contributed much to
> development projects: they will continue to do so, with the back-
> ing of the World Bank.
> 10. A light and flexible steering group will monitor progress in this
> area.
> 11. Governments and international agencies will be exhorted to join the
> search for better understanding between religion and development.
> It is difficult to know how to interpret this joint statement. It is
> unlikely that the churches have modified the position they have adopted
> and defended over the years. Nor has the World Bank moved away from
> its policy of imposing saps on developing countries or from its neolib-
> eral approach. Critics claim that by engaging in this dialogue, the Bank
> The documentation can be obtained from the Press Office, Lambeth Palace, London,
> uk, SE1 7JU. It is also available on the Internet (www.worldbank.org/html/extdr/
> faithsdialogue).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> wants to persuade the world religions to contribute to the cause of good
> governance and help stabilize society under the conditions of disinte-
> gration produced by the saps. These critics think the World Bank wants
> religion to save society for the globalization of the free market. In my
> opinion, it is too early to judge the significance of this dialogue.
> 
> THE SUBJECTIVE DIMENSION OF
> SOCIAL-SCIENCE RESEARCH
> 
> In this section, I touch on a topic that has been an interest of mine ever
> since I studied sociology. I have always been impressed by the social the-
> orists who challenged the claim to objectivity, or value neutrality, made
> 
> by the social sciences. These critical theorists had great respect for the
> objective methodology of these sciences, that is, the so-called scientific
> method: relying on empirical research, testing hypotheses, and produc-
> ing a set of arguments that can be verified by other researchers. Yet, the
> critical theorists insisted that in social-science research there is
> inevitably a subjective dimension that depends on the social location,
> talents, and options of the researcher. I note that this claim is quite dif-
> ferent from certain postmodern trends in sociology that deconstruct the
> objective methodology altogether. As the social sciences are never fully
> objective, or value free, the critical theorists argue that it would be more
> scientific if the social scientists articulated the implicit values operative
> in their research and offered a rational critique of them, not, indeed, “to
> prove” them but to defend their coherence and clarify their social
> implications.
> In the following pages, I comment on two issues in relation to
> social-scientific research: its implicit sociopolitical perspectives and its
> dominant secularism. These are issues of concern to the Christian
> churches because Christianity — as well as all other religions — is
> linked to a particular ethic and the churches must respond to the cur-
> rent situation and its irrationalities in terms of this ethic. To do this,
> they must enter into dialogue with political scientists, economists, and
> other social scientists. Which of the many diverse currents in these
> sciences should the churches trust? To give a brief answer to this ques-
> tion, I say that the churches find social, political, and economic analy-
> ses trustworthy if the evaluative presuppositions operative within these
> analyses have an affinity with their own sets of values (Baum 1998).
> 
> The sociopolitical perspective
> That the social location of social scientists and their political options
> affect their analyses of society was an insight that was first articulated
> by Marx and then explored and developed in the sociology of
> BAUM
> 
> knowledge. I became acquainted with the sociology of knowledge
> through two German authors of the 1920s: Max Scheler (1980 [1924]),
> a conservative social thinker, and Karl Mannheim (1936 [1928]), a lib-
> eral sociologist. Today’s students of sociology are introduced to this crit-
> ical approach — admittedly a minority trend in sociology — through
> the work of Jürgen Habermas (1971 [1968]), who has systematically
> explored the relations between knowledge and social interest.
> This paper is not the place to develop this critical theory in any
> detail. Simply put, we bring to our scientific study of social phenomena
> a perspective that expresses the relationship we have with our own soci-
> ety. This is part of the subjective dimension operative in social-science
> research. The critical approach is also very persuasive to the ordinary cit-
> izen because it explains why research institutes and think tanks —
> 
> 
> 78   which all apply the scientific method faithfully — arrive at such diverse
> conclusions. Critical theory explains why a simple appeal to the social
> sciences cannot resolve the important social debates. Let me give a con-
> crete example of this dilemma, drawn from an ecclesiastical document.
> When the American Catholic bishops were preparing the 1986
> pastoral letter, “Economic Justice for All,” they sought an answer to the
> question of why unemployment and poverty were growing, why the gap
> between rich and poor was widening, and why ever larger sectors of the
> population were being marginalized and excluded from participation.
> In their first draft of the pastoral letter (acb 1986), the bishops told us
> that the social and economic scientists they consulted were divided on
> these issues. Some of these scientists argued that major changes had
> taken place in the structure of capital and the orientation of the econ-
> omy; for this reason, repairing the damage and overcoming present
> injustices would demand major structural changes. Other scientists dis-
> agreed with this. They argued, instead, that the current economic
> decline was not dramatic, that it indicated no significant break with the
> past, and that it was simply the result of unwise policies adopted by
> governments and certain industries. Adopting appropriate measures
> could therefore incrementally overcome these issues.
> In this first draft, the bishops mentioned another question that
> remained unresolved by the scientists they had consulted. The bishops
> wanted to know whether the economic collapse and the widespread
> misery in the South were produced by developments in these countries
> (to which American society was simply an onlooker) or whether these
> conditions were in some way related to the growing wealth and power
> of American society. Here, again, the scientists were unable to resolve
> the question, even though they all followed an objective method and
> provided demonstrations based on empirical research.10
> For the two passages in the first draft of the pastoral letter, see acb (1984, pp. 342
> and 370).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> Because the scientists failed to arrive at an agreement, the American
> bishops decided not to raise critical questions regarding liberal or
> neoliberal capitalism in the final version of their pastoral letter. How-
> ever, not all national bishops’ conferences have been as reticent. The
> Latin American bishops who met at Medellín in 1968 were keenly
> aware that economists and other social scientists are guided by a social
> perspective: they may operate out of an implicit identification with the
> established order or they may read the social reality from the perspec-
> tive of society’s victims, that is, the poor, the oppressed, and the mar-
> ginalized. The Latin American bishops were not surprised that scientists
> disagreed in their analyses of society, and the bishops decided, for theo-
> logical reasons, to trust those scientists who opted for the perspective of
> the poor (lab 1968).
> 
> 
> The Latin American bishops called this perspective the option for        79
> the poor. They believed that, in fidelity to Jesus, Christians want to
> commit themselves to this perspective. Thanks to liberation theology
> and the leadership of the Latin American bishops, the option for the
> poor has become an important principle of interpretation guiding spir-
> ituality and social ethics in both Catholic and Protestant churches. The
> Canadian Catholic bishops, in particular, have produced a series of pas-
> toral statements on social and economic ethics, based on the perspective
> of society’s victims. This has created a certain affinity between Christian
> thought and critical theory.
> I conclude from these reflections that because all social-scientific
> research operates with a conscious or unconscious value-based orienta-
> tion, “engaged research” — that is, research guided by a social-justice
> commitment — is not only perfectly scientific but also more transpar-
> ent, because it willingly articulates its implicit presuppositions.
> 
> Questioning the dominant secularism
> of social science
> Another implicit presupposition of the social sciences, closely related to
> the topic of this paper, concerns their relation to the spiritual order. The
> majority of social scientists recognize that, in the past, religion played
> an important role in society, either as a principle of order (creating “a
> sacred canopy”) or as a source of motivation (generating a common
> ethos). But most social scientists have reduced religion to its social func-
> tion: the study of religion does not provide them with empirical argu-
> ments for a transcendent spiritual order. Most sociologists, moreover,
> are convinced that in modern society, which is marked by industrializa-
> tion, scientific rationality, and cultural pluralism, religion no longer ful-
> fills any important social function. Religion no longer unites the social
> order or provides a universally accepted set of values. As the existence of
> a divine order cannot be scientifically demonstrated, many sociologists
> argue that religion is becoming increasingly unbelievable. Religion,
> BAUM
> 
> they think, survives only as the purely personal conviction of certain
> groups of people, as a sentiment and a commitment to an imaginary
> universe. Religion remains wholly extrinsic to the constitution of soci-
> ety. The only true reality, “the really real,” is here in the visible universe
> and human history, without any relationship to an invisible order. The
> traditional notion of transcendence has lost its meaning. Spirituality is
> at best the private interest of the few.
> This secular outlook has been adopted by vast numbers of people
> in present-day society, and this secularism is predominant in the guild
> of political scientists, economists, and other social scientists. These sci-
> entists, we note, do not regard this secular outlook as the creation of a
> particular culture, that is to say, modern, Western, industrial culture:
> rather, they see this outlook as revealing the truth about the world and
> 
> 
> 80   hence as a perspective applicable to the understanding of all other cul-
> tures. Secularism here makes its own culture-transcending claim.
> The early literature on development, starting with The Stages of
> Economic Growth, by W.W. Rostow (1960), regarded the religions of peo-
> ples in the South as an obstacle to economic development, because these
> religions often trusted the rhythm of nature, fostered social identifica-
> tion with family and community, and failed to promote a culture
> oriented toward personal achievement and social mobility. Seen from
> this perspective, development had to be accompanied by a secularization
> of culture, that is to say, by an exclusion of religious values from public
> policies and the organization of production and distribution.
> On a previous page, I mentioned that critical voices in Asia and
> Africa, as well as among native peoples of the Americas, have decried
> the secular presupposition implicit in economic and other social
> sciences and in the development projects sponsored by the industrial-
> ized West. They regard secularization as a construct of Western empire,
> aimed at undermining the identity of non-Western peoples. This out-
> look finds a parallel in work such as Orientalism, by Edward Said (1978),
> which demonstrated how the West’s claim to cultural superiority has
> shaped the Western perception of Islamic–Arab civilization. Other
> authors have shown that the same is true of the Western perception of
> India and other Asian civilizations (see Lopez 1995). The contemporary
> Christian theology of African theologians is critical of the secular atti-
> tude of Western missionaries who looked on African belief in the
> presence of spirits as a superstition to be discarded, even though the
> Near Eastern world — in which Jesus himself lived — fully shared this
> belief.
> According to Peter Berger (1966), sociologists who study religious
> phenomena must adopt what he called “methodological atheism.” The
> sociologist must examine these phenomena with the presupposition
> that they have material and cultural causes within history. For Berger
> (who presents himself as a believing Christian), science must adopt the
> perspective of Western secularism. In response, Robert Bellah, one of
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> Berger’s colleagues, argued instead that to appreciate religious phenom-
> ena and avoid their systematic distortion, sociologists must opt for
> “symbolic realism” (Bellah 1970, pp. 220–221). What does Bellah
> mean by this? The sociologist, he argued, must be open to the possibil-
> ity that the religious symbols that define the identity of a human
> community have a transcendent referent; and that the sociologist’s own
> secular presupposition is a Western cultural product rather than a uni-
> versal truth. Bellah argued that without such an openness to, and empa-
> thy with, religious phenomena, sociologists are unable to appreciate the
> creativity of religion, its resourcefulness in helping people cope with
> their hardship, and its self-transforming power in new historical
> situations.
> The question I cannot avoid asking is whether the attitude of the
> 
> 
> social-science researcher toward the existence of a transcendent order           81
> influences his or her analysis and conclusion. It seems to me that a social
> scientist committed to a secular outlook would be insensitive to the cre-
> ative powers of religion, unless he or she reached out for a special open-
> ness. By this I do not mean, of course, that social scientists should all be
> theists or believers of some sort. Not belief, but empathy, is required.
> Max Weber insisted that sociologists stretch their imagination and learn
> to think themselves into the mind-set of religious people. He wanted
> students of sociology to read the great novels of world literature to dis-
> cover that their own symbolic understanding of the universe was just
> one among many others. Weber also recognized that science, or formal
> rationality as he called it, does not reply to the riddle of the universe.
> Science was not a philosophy that replied to the great human questions:
> What is the meaning of it all? Where do we come from and where do
> we go? Weber regarded himself as a nonbeliever, but he was modest
> about it. He did not erect his unbelief into a metaphysics. He was not
> committed to secularism as a definitive interpretation of the universe.
> In his study of religion, he was open to the new and unexpected; he
> recognized the historical weight of religious convictions. If there is any
> truth in the above reflections, then development research should acquire
> a special sensitivity to the spiritual dimension of people’s self-constitution
> and to the ways the secular presuppositions of contemporary Western
> culture threaten their identity.
> Appreciating the creativity of religion has been a characteristic of
> the alternative development theories produced by researchers and social
> thinkers since the 1950s. The paradigms proposed by Louis-Joseph
> Lebret (1959) (and see Malley 1968) in France and Denis Goulet (1971)
> in the United States, based on practical experience and theoretical con-
> siderations, have always demanded that a certain cultural and religious
> continuity be a dimension of integral development. This is why they
> insisted that the local community must be recognized as a partner in
> any development project, be listened to by the so-called technical
> experts, and be allowed to exercise co-responsibility fully. Although
> BAUM
> 
> Western science plays an important role in such a project, the symbolic
> meaning and creative energy to make the project work must come from
> the culture and the religion of the local community. Any new attitudes
> or practices must find roots in the dynamic elements of the community’s
> own tradition. As much as people are changed by participating in a
> development project, they want to retain their identity or, more pre-
> cisely, they want to remain faithful to the past while reconstituting their
> identity under new conditions.
> When we examined the concept of development proposed by the
> popes, we found that they recognized several dimensions of this process,
> including a religious one. Yet, they did not sufficiently emphasize, I
> then suggested, that to assure such an integral development, the local
> 
> 
> 82   community must be recognized as a partner in the full sense. Develop-
> ment is not a process devised by Western scientists and executed by
> Western-trained men and women of the South. Co-responsibility means
> that both parties — the Western specialists and the local community —
> make an original contribution. This point, as we saw, was made by the
> 1971 World Synod of Bishops. A truly creative aspect of integral devel-
> opment is the summoning forth of meaning and wisdom derived from
> the cultural and religious tradition.
> 
> ANNEX 1: EXCERPTS FROM PAPAL ENCYCLICALS AND
> STATEMENTS BY THE WORLD SYNOD OF BISHOPS
> CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT
> 
> Excerpts from “Populorum Progressio” 11
> Encyclical letter of His Holiness Pope Paul vi, promulgated on
> 26 March 1967
> 7. … It must certainly be recognized that colonizing powers have
> often furthered their own interests, power or glory, and that their
> departure has sometimes left a precarious economy, bound up for
> instance with the production of one kind of crop whose market
> prices are subject to sudden and considerable variation. Yet while
> recognizing the damage done by a certain type of colonialism and
> its consequences, one must at the same time acknowledge the qual-
> ities and achievement of colonizers who brought their science and
> technical knowledge and left beneficial results of their presence in
> so many underprivileged regions. The structures established by
> them persist, however incomplete they may be; they diminished
> 
> Original footnotes omitted. Emphasis added by the author (bold).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> ignorance and sickness, brought the benefits of communications
> and improved living conditions.
> 8. Yet once this is admitted, it remains only too true that the resul-
> tant situation is manifestly inadequate for facing the hard reality of
> modern economics. Left to itself it works rather to widen the dif-
> ferences in the world’s levels of life, not to diminish them: rich
> peoples enjoy rapid growth whereas the poor develop slowly. The
> imbalance is on the increase: some produce a surplus of foodstuffs,
> others cruelly lack them and see their exports made uncertain.
> …
> 14. Development cannot be limited to mere economic growth.
> In order to be authentic, it must be complete: integral, that is,
> it has to promote the good of every man and of the whole
> 
> 
> man. As an eminent specialist has very rightly and emphatically           83
> declared: “We do not believe in separating the economic from the
> human, nor development from the civilizations in which it exists.
> What we hold important is man, each man and each group of men,
> and we even include the whole of humanity.”
> 15. In the design of God, every man is called upon to develop and
> fulfill himself, for every life is a vocation. At birth, everyone is
> granted, in germ, a set of aptitudes and qualities for him to bring
> to fruition. Their coming to maturity, which will be the result of
> education received from the environment and personal efforts, will
> allow each man to direct himself toward the destiny intended for
> him by his Creator. Endowed with intelligence and freedom, he is
> responsible for his fulfillment as he is for his salvation. He is aided,
> or sometimes impeded, by those who educate him and those with
> whom he lives, but each one remains, whatever be these influences
> affecting him, the principal agent of his own success or failure. By
> the unaided effort of his own intelligence and his will, each man can
> grow in humanity, can enhance his personal worth, can become
> more a person.
> 16. However, this self-fulfillment is not something optional. Just as
> the whole of creation is ordained to its Creator, so spiritual beings
> should of their own accord orientate their lives to God, the first truth
> and the supreme good. Thus it is that human fulfillment constitutes,
> as it were, a summary of our duties. But there is much more: this
> harmonious enrichment of nature by personal and responsible effort
> is ordered to a further perfection. By reason of his union with Christ,
> the source of life, man attains to new fulfillment of himself, to a
> transcendent humanism which gives him his greatest possible per-
> fection: this is the highest goal of personal development.
> 17. But each man is a member of society. He is part of the whole of
> mankind. It is not just certain individuals, but all men who are
> called to this fullness of development. Civilizations are born,
> develop and die. But humanity is advancing along the path of his-
> tory like the waves of a rising tide encroaching gradually on the
> BAUM
> 
> shore. We have inherited from past generations, and we have bene-
> fited from the work of our contemporaries: for this reason we have
> obligations towards all, and we cannot refuse to interest ourselves in
> those who will come after us to enlarge the human family. The
> reality of human solidarity, which is a benefit for us, also imposes a
> duty.
> 18. This personal and communal development would be threatened
> if the true scale of values were undermined. The desire for necessi-
> ties is legitimate, and work undertaken to obtain them is a duty: “If
> any man will not work, neither let him eat.” But the acquiring of
> temporal goods can lead to greed, to the insatiable desire for more,
> and can make increased power a tempting objective. Individuals,
> families and nations can be overcome by avarice, be they poor or
> rich, and all can fall victim to a stifling materialism.
> 
> 
> 19. Increased possession is not the ultimate goal of nations nor
> of individuals. All growth is ambivalent. It is essential if man
> is to develop as a man, but in a way it imprisons man if he con-
> siders it the supreme good, and it restricts his vision. Then we
> see hearts harden and minds close, and men no longer gather
> together in friendship but out of self-interest, which soon leads to
> oppositions and disunity. The exclusive pursuit of possessions thus
> become an obstacle to individual fulfillment and to man’s true
> greatness. Both for nations and for individual men, avarice is the
> most evident form of moral underdevelopment.
> 20. If further development calls for the work of more and more
> technicians, even more necessary is the deep thought and reflection
> of wise men in search of a new humanism which will enable mod-
> ern man to find himself anew by embracing the higher values of
> love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation. This is what will
> permit the fullness of authentic development, a development which
> is for each and all the transition from less human conditions to those
> which are more human.
> 21. Less human conditions: the lack of material necessities for
> those who are without the minimum essential for life, the moral
> deficiencies of those who are mutilated by selfishness. Less human
> conditions: oppressive social structures, whether due to the abuses
> of ownership or to the abuses of power, to the exploitation of work-
> ers or to unjust transactions. Conditions that are more human:
> the passage from misery towards the possession of necessities, vic-
> tory over social scourges, the growth of knowledge, the acquisition
> of culture. Additional conditions that are more human: increased
> esteem for the dignity of others, the turning toward the spirit of
> poverty, cooperation for the common good, the will and desire for
> peace. Conditions that are still more human: the acknowledgment
> by man of supreme values, and of God their source and their final-
> ity. Conditions that, finally and above all, are more human: faith, a
> gift of God accepted by the good will of man, and unity in the
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> charity of Christ, Who calls us all to share as sons in the life of the
> living God, the Father of all men.
> …
> 24. If certain landed estates impede the general prosperity because
> they are extensive, unused or poorly used, or because they bring
> hardship to peoples or are detrimental to the interests of the coun-
> try, the common good sometimes demands their expropriation.
> While giving a clear statement on this, the Council recalled no less
> clearly that the available revenue is not to be used in accordance
> with mere whim, and that no place must be given to selfish specu-
> lation. Consequently it is unacceptable that citizens with abundant
> incomes from the resources and activity of their country should
> transfer a considerable part of this income abroad purely for their
> 
> 
> own advantage, without care for the manifest wrong they inflict on          85
> their country by doing this.
> 25. The introduction of industry is a necessity for economic growth
> and human progress; it is also a sign of development and con-
> tributes to it. By persistent work and use of his intelligence man
> gradually wrests nature’s secrets from her and finds a better appli-
> cation for her riches. As his self-mastery increases, he develops a
> taste for research and discovery, an ability to take a calculated risk,
> boldness in enterprises, generosity in what he does and a sense of
> responsibility.
> 26. But it is unfortunate that on these new conditions of soci-
> ety a system has been constructed which considers profit as
> the key motive for economic progress, competition as the
> supreme law of economics, and private ownership of the
> means of production as an absolute right that has no limits
> and carries no corresponding social obligation. This unchecked
> liberalism leads to dictatorship rightly denounced by Pius xi as
> producing “the international imperialism of money.” One cannot
> condemn such abuses too strongly by solemnly recalling once again
> that the economy is at the service of man. But if it is true that a type
> of capitalism has been the source of excessive suffering, injustices
> and fratricidal conflicts whose effects still persist, it would also be
> wrong to attribute to industrialization itself evils that belong to the
> woeful system which accompanied it. On the contrary one must rec-
> ognize in all justice the irreplaceable contribution made by the
> organization of labor and of industry to what development has
> accomplished.
> …
> 30. There are certainly situations whose injustice cries to heaven.
> When whole populations destitute of necessities live in a state of
> dependence barring them from all initiative and responsibility, and
> all opportunity to advance culturally and share in social and
> BAUM
> 
> political life, recourse to violence, as a means to right these wrongs
> to human dignity, is a grave temptation.
> 31. We know, however, that a revolutionary uprising — save where
> there is manifest, long-standing tyranny which would do great
> damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the
> common good of the country — produces new injustices, throws
> more elements out of balance and brings on new disasters. A real
> evil should not be fought against at the cost of greater misery.
> 32. We want to be clearly understood: the present situation must be
> faced with courage and the injustices linked with it must be fought
> against and overcome. Development demands bold transformations,
> innovations that go deep. Urgent reforms should be undertaken
> without delay. It is for each one to take his share in them with gen-
> 
> 
> 86          erosity, particularly those whose education, position and opportuni-
> ties afford them wide scope for action. May they show an example,
> and give of their own possessions as several of Our brothers in the
> episcopacy have done. In so doing they will live up to men’s expec-
> tations and be faithful to the Spirit of God, since it is “the ferment
> of the Gospel which has aroused and continues to arouse in man’s
> heart the irresistible requirements of his dignity.”
> 33. Individual initiative alone and the mere free play of com-
> petition could never assure successful development. One must
> avoid the risk of increasing still more the wealth of the rich and the
> dominion of the strong, whilst leaving the poor in their misery and
> adding to the servitude of the oppressed. Hence programs are nec-
> essary in order “to encourage, stimulate, coordinate, supplement
> and integrate” the activity of individuals and of intermediary bod-
> ies. It pertains to the public authorities to choose, even to lay down
> the objectives to be pursued, the ends to be achieved, and the means
> for attaining these, and it is for them to stimulate all the forces
> engaged in this common activity. But let them take care to associ-
> ate private initiative and intermediary bodies with this work. They
> will thus avoid the danger of complete collectivization or of arbi-
> trary planning, which, by denying liberty, would prevent the exer-
> cise of the fundamental rights of the human person.
> 34. This is true since every program, made to increase production,
> has, in the last analysis, no other raison d’être than the service of
> man. Such programs should reduce inequalities, fight discrimina-
> tions, free man from various types of servitude and enable him to be
> the instrument of his own material betterment, of his moral
> progress and of his spiritual growth. To speak of development, is
> in effect to show as much concern for social progress as for
> economic growth. It is not sufficient to increase overall wealth
> for it to be distributed equitably. It is not sufficient to pro-
> mote technology to render the world a more humane place in
> which to live. The mistakes of their predecessors should warn
> those on the road to development of the dangers to be avoided in
> this field. Tomorrow’s technocracy can beget evils no less
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> redoubtable than those due to the liberalism of yesterday. Eco-
> nomics and technology have no meaning except from man
> whom they should serve. And man is only truly man in as far as,
> master of his own acts and judge of their worth, he is author of his
> own advancement, in keeping with the nature which was given to
> him by his Creator and whose possibilities and exigencies he him-
> self freely assumes.
> …
> 40. In addition to professional organizations, there are also institu-
> tions which are at work. Their role is no less important for the suc-
> cess of development. “The future of the world stands in peril,” the
> Council gravely affirms, “unless wiser men are forthcoming.” And
> it adds: “many nations, poorer in economic goods, are quite rich in
> 
> 
> wisdom and able to offer noteworthy advantages to others.” Rich or         87
> poor, each country possesses a civilization handed down by their
> ancestors: institutions called for by life in this world, and higher
> manifestations of the life of the spirit, manifestations of an artistic,
> intellectual and religious character. When the latter possess true
> human values, it would be grave error to sacrifice them to the for-
> mer. A people that would act in this way would thereby lose the
> best of its patrimony; in order to live, it would be sacrificing its rea-
> sons for living. Christ’s teaching also applies to people: “What does
> it profit a man to gain the whole world if he suffers the loss of his
> soul.”
> 41. Less well-off peoples can never be sufficiently on their
> guard against this temptation which comes to them from
> wealthy nations. For these nations all too often set an example
> of success in a highly technical and culturally developed civi-
> lization; they also provide the model for a way of acting that is
> principally aimed at the conquest of material prosperity. Not
> that material prosperity of itself precludes the activity of the human
> spirit. On the contrary, the human spirit, “increasingly free of its
> bondage to creatures, can be more easily drawn to the worship and
> contemplation of the Creator.” However, “modern civilization itself
> often complicates the approach to God, not for any essential reason,
> but because it is excessively engrossed in earthly affairs.” Develop-
> ing nations must know how to discriminate among those things
> that are held out to them; they must be able to assess critically, and
> eliminate those deceptive goods which would only bring about a
> lowering of the human ideal, and to accept those values that are
> sound and beneficial, in order to develop them alongside their own,
> in accordance with their own genius.
> 42. What must be aimed at is complete humanism. And what is
> that if not the fully-rounded development of the whole man and of
> all men? A humanism closed in on itself, and not open to the val-
> ues of the spirit and to God Who is their source, could achieve
> apparent success. True, man can organize the world apart from
> God, but “without God man can organize it in the end only to
> BAUM
> 
> man’s detriment. An isolated humanism is an inhuman
> humanism.” There is no true humanism but that which is open to
> the Absolute and is conscious of a vocation which gives human life
> its true meaning. Far from being the ultimate measure of all things,
> man can only realize himself by reaching beyond himself. As Pascal
> has said so well: “Man infinitely surpasses man.”
> …
> 47. But neither all this nor the private and public funds that have
> been invested, nor the gifts and loans that have been made, can suf-
> fice. It is not just a matter of eliminating hunger, nor even of reduc-
> ing poverty. The struggle against destitution, though urgent and
> necessary, is not enough. It is a question, rather, of building a world
> where every man, no matter what his race, religion or nationality,
> can live a fully human life, freed from servitude imposed on him by
> 
> other men or by natural forces over which he has not sufficient con-
> trol; a world where freedom is not an empty word and where the
> poor man Lazarus can sit down at the same table with the rich man.
> This demands great generosity, much sacrifice and unceasing effort
> on the part of the rich man. Let each one examine his conscience, a
> conscience that conveys a new message for our times. Is he prepared
> to support out of his own pocket works and undertakings organized
> in favor of the most destitute? Is he ready to pay higher taxes so that
> the public authorities can intensify their efforts in favor of develop-
> ment? Is he ready to pay a higher price for imported goods so that
> the producer may be more justly rewarded? Or to leave his country,
> if necessary and if he is young, in order to assist in this development
> of the young nations?
> 48. The same duty of solidarity that rests on individuals exists
> also for nations: “Advanced nations have a very heavy obligation
> to help the developing peoples.” It is necessary to put this teaching
> of the Council into effect. Although it is normal that a nation
> should be the first to benefit from the gifts that Providence has
> bestowed on it as the fruit of the labors of its people, still no coun-
> try can claim on that account to keep its wealth for itself alone.
> Every nation must produce more and better quality goods to give
> to all its inhabitants a truly human standard of living, and also to
> contribute to the common development of the human race. Given
> the increasing needs of the under-developed countries, it should be
> considered quite normal for an advanced country to devote a part of
> its production to meet their needs, and to train teachers, engineers,
> technicians and scholars prepared to put their knowledge and their
> skill at the disposal of less fortunate peoples.
> …
> 52. There is certainly no need to do away with bilateral and multi-
> lateral agreements: they allow ties of dependence and feelings of
> bitterness, left over from the era of colonialism, to yield place to the
> happier relationship of friendship, based on a footing of constitu-
> tional and political equality. However, if they were to be fitted into
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> the framework of worldwide collaboration, they would be beyond
> all suspicion, and as a result there would be less distrust on the part
> of the receiving nations. These would have less cause for fearing
> that, under the cloak of financial aid or technical assistance, there
> lurk certain manifestations of what has come to be called neo-
> colonialism, in the form of political pressures and economic
> suzerainty aimed at maintaining or acquiring complete dominance.
> …
> 57. Of course, highly industrialized nations export for the most part
> manufactured goods, while countries with less developed economies
> have only food, fibers and other raw materials to sell. As a result of
> technical progress the value of manufactured goods is rapidly
> increasing and they can always find an adequate market. On the
> 
> 
> other hand, raw materials produced by under-developed countries            89
> are subject to wide and sudden fluctuations in price, a state of affairs
> far removed from the progressively increasing value of industrial
> products. As a result, nations whose industrialization is limited are
> faced with serious difficulties when they have to rely on their
> exports to balance their economy and to carry out their plans for
> development. The poor nations remain ever poor while the rich ones
> become still richer.
> 58. In other words, the rule of free trade, taken by itself, is no
> longer able to govern international relations. Its advantages are
> certainly evident when the parties involved are not affected by any
> excessive inequalities of economic power: it is an incentive to
> progress and a reward for effort. That is why industrially developed
> countries see in it a law of justice. But the situation is no longer the
> same when economic conditions differ too widely from country to
> country: prices which are “freely” set in the market can produce
> unfair results. One must recognize that it is the fundamental prin-
> ciple of liberalism, as the rule for commercial exchange, which is
> questioned here.
> 59. The teaching of Leo xiii in Rerum Novarum is always valid: if
> the positions of the contracting parties are too unequal, the consent
> of the parties does not suffice to guarantee the justice of their con-
> tract, and the rule of free agreement remains subservient to the
> demands of the natural law. What was true of the just wage for the
> individual is also true of international contracts: an economy of
> exchange can no longer be based solely on the law of free com-
> petition, a law which, in its turn, too often creates an eco-
> nomic dictatorship. Freedom of trade is fair only if it is subject
> to the demands of social justice.
> …
> 71. We are happy that experts are being sent in larger and larger
> numbers on development missions by institutions, whether inter-
> national or bilateral, or by private organizations: “they ought not
> conduct themselves in a lordly fashion, but as helpers and
> BAUM
> 
> co-workers.” A people quickly perceives whether those who
> come to help them do so with or without affection, whether
> they come merely to apply their techniques or to recognize in
> man his full value.
> Their message is in danger of being rejected if it is not presented
> in the context of brotherly love.
> 72. Hence, necessary technical competence must be accompanied
> by authentic signs of disinterested love. Freed of all nationalistic
> pride and of every appearance of racism, experts should learn how to
> work in close collaboration with all. They realize that their com-
> petence does not confer on them a superiority in every field.
> The civilization which formed them contains, without doubt,
> elements of universal humanism, but it is not the only civi-
> 
> 
> 90          lization nor does it enjoy a monopoly of valuable elements.
> Moreover it cannot be imported without undergoing adapta-
> tions. The men on these missions will be intent on discovering,
> along with its history, the component elements of the cultural
> riches of the country receiving them. Mutual understanding will be
> established which will enrich both cultures.
> …
> 76. Excessive economic, social and cultural inequalities among peo-
> ples arouse tensions and conflicts, and are a danger to peace. As We
> said to the Fathers of the Council when We returned from Our jour-
> ney of peace to the United Nations: “The condition of the peoples
> in process of development ought to be the object of our considera-
> tion; or better: our charity for the poor in the world — and there
> are multitudes of them — must become more considerate, more
> active, more generous.” To wage war on misery and to struggle
> against injustice is to promote, along with improved conditions,
> the human and spiritual progress of all men, and therefore the com-
> mon good of humanity. Peace cannot be limited to a mere
> absence of war, the result of an ever precarious balance of
> forces. No, peace is something that is built up day after day, in
> the pursuit of an order intended by God, which implies a
> more perfect form of justice among men.
> 
> Excerpts from “Sollicitudo Rei Socialis” 12
> Encyclical letter of the Supreme Pontiff John Paul ii, promulgated in
> 1987 on the 20th anniversary of “Populorum Progressio”
> 9. … Unfortunately, from the economic point of view, the develop-
> ing countries are much more numerous than the developed ones;
> the multitudes of human beings who lack the goods and services
> Original footnotes omitted. Emphasis in the original (italics) and added by the
> author (bold).
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> offered by development are much more numerous than those who pos-
> sess them.
> We are therefore faced with a serious problem of unequal distrib-
> ution of the means of subsistence originally meant for everybody,
> and thus also an unequal distribution of the benefits deriving from
> them. And this happens not through the fault of the needy people,
> and even less through a sort of inevitability dependent on natural
> conditions or circumstances as a whole.
> The Encyclical of Paul vi, in declaring that the social question
> has acquired worldwide dimensions, first of all points out a moral
> fact, one which has its foundation in an objective analysis of reality.
> In the words of the Encyclical itself, “each one must be conscious”
> of this fact, precisely because it directly concerns the conscience,
> which is the source of moral decisions.
> 
> 
> In this framework, the originality of the Encyclical consists not
> so much in the affirmation, historical in character, of the universal-
> ity of the social question, but rather in the moral evaluation of this
> reality. Therefore political leaders, and citizens of rich coun-
> tries considered as individuals, especially if they are Chris-
> tians, have the moral obligation, according to the degree of
> each one’s responsibility, to take into consideration, in personal
> decisions and decisions of government, this relationship of
> universality, this interdependence which exists between their
> conduct and the poverty and underdevelopment of so many
> millions of people. Pope Paul’s Encyclical translates more suc-
> cinctly the moral obligation as the “duty of solidarity”; and this
> affirmation, even though many situations have changed in the
> world, has the same force and validity today as when it was written.
> On the other hand, without departing from the lines of this
> moral vision, the originality of the Encyclical also consists in the
> basic insight that the very concept of development, if considered in
> the perspective of universal interdependence, changes notably. True
> development cannot consist in the simple accumulation of
> wealth and in the greater availability of goods and services, if
> this is gained at the expense of the development of the masses,
> and without due consideration for the social, cultural and
> spiritual dimensions of the human being.
> …
> 15. … We should add here that in today’s world there are many
> other forms of poverty. For are there not certain privations or depriva-
> tions which deserve this name? The denial or the limitation of
> human rights as for example the right to religious freedom, the
> right to share in the building of society, the freedom to organize and
> to form unions, or to take initiatives in economic matters — do
> these not impoverish the human person as much as, if not more
> than, the deprivation of material goods? And is development which
> BAUM
> 
> does not take into account the full affirmation of these rights really
> development on the human level?
> In brief, modern underdevelopment is not only economic but
> also cultural, political and simply human, as was indicated twenty
> years ago by the Encyclical Populorum Progressio. Hence at this
> point we have to ask ourselves if the sad reality of today might
> not be, at least in part, the result of a too narrow idea of devel-
> opment, that is, a mainly economic one.
> 16. It should be noted that in spite of the praiseworthy efforts made
> in the last two decades by the more developed or developing nations
> and the International Organizations to find a way out of the situa-
> tion, or at least to remedy some of its symptoms, the conditions
> have become notably worse.
> Responsibility for this deterioration is due to various causes.
> 
> Notable among them are undoubtedly grave instances of omissions
> on the part of the developing nations themselves, and especially on
> the part of those holding economic and political power. Nor can we
> pretend not to see the responsibility of the developed nations,
> which have not always, at least in due measure, felt the duty to help
> countries separated from the affluent world to which they them-
> selves belong.
> Moreover, one must denounce the existence of economic,
> financial and social mechanisms which, although they are
> manipulated by people, often function almost automatically,
> thus accentuating the situation of wealth for some and
> poverty for the rest. These mechanisms, which are manoeu-
> vred directly or indirectly by the more developed countries, by
> their very functioning favor the interests of the people manip-
> ulating them. But in the end they suffocate or condition the
> economies of the less developed countries. Later on these mecha-
> nisms will have to be subjected to a careful analysis under the
> ethical–moral aspect.
> Populorum Progressio already foresaw the possibility that under
> such systems the wealth of the rich would increase and the poverty
> of the poor would remain. A proof of this forecast has been the
> appearance of the so-called Fourth World.
> …
> 28. At the same time, however, the “economic” concept itself, linked
> to the word development, has entered into crisis. In fact there is a
> better understanding today that the mere accumulation of goods and
> services, even for the benefit of the majority, is not enough for the
> realization of human happiness. Nor, in consequence, does the avail-
> ability of the many real benefits provided in recent times by science
> and technology, including the computer sciences, bring freedom
> from every form of slavery. On the contrary, the experience of
> recent years shows that unless all the considerable body of
> resources and potential at man’s disposal is guided by a moral
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> understanding and by an orientation towards the true good of
> the human race, it easily turns against man to oppress him.
> A disconcerting conclusion about the most recent period should
> serve to enlighten us: side-by-side with the miseries of under-
> development, themselves unacceptable, we find ourselves up
> against a form of superdevelopment, equally inadmissible,
> because like the former it is contrary to what is good and to
> true happiness. This superdevelopment, which consists in an
> excessive availability of every kind of material goods for the. bene-
> fit of certain social groups, easily makes people slaves of “posses-
> sion” and of immediate gratification, with no other horizon than the
> multiplication or continual replacement of the things already
> owned with others still better. This is the so-called civilization of
> “consumption” or “consumerism,” which involves so much “throwing-
> 
> 
> away” and “waste.” An object already owned but now superseded by            93
> something better is discarded, with no thought of its possible last-
> ing value in itself, nor of some other human being who is poorer.
> All of us experience firsthand the sad effects of this blind sub-
> mission to pure consumerism: in the first place a crass materialism,
> and at the same time a radical dissatisfaction, because one quickly
> learns unless one is shielded from the flood of publicity and the
> ceaseless and tempting offers of products that the more one
> possesses the more one wants, while deeper aspirations remain
> unsatisfied and perhaps even stifled.
> The Encyclical of Pope Paul vi pointed out the difference, so
> often emphasized today, between “having” and “being,” which had
> been expressed earlier in precise words by the Second Vatican Coun-
> cil. To “have” objects and goods does not in itself perfect the human
> subject, unless it contributes to the maturing and enrichment of
> that subject’s “being,” that is to say unless it contributes to the real-
> ization of the human vocation as such.
> Of course, the difference between “being” and “having,” the
> danger inherent in a mere multiplication or replacement of things
> possessed compared to the value of “being,” need not turn into a
> contradiction. One of the greatest injustices in the contemporary
> world consists precisely in this: that the ones who possess much are
> relatively few and those who possess almost nothing are many. It is
> the injustice of the poor distribution of the goods and services orig-
> inally intended for all.
> This then is the picture: there are some people — the few
> who possess much — who do not really succeed in “being”
> because, through a reversal of the hierarchy of values, they are
> hindered by the cult of “having”; and there are others — the
> many who have little or nothing — who do not succeed in
> realizing their basic human vocation because they are
> deprived of essential goods.
> The evil does not consist in “having” as such, but in possess-
> ing without regard for the quality and the ordered hierarchy of
> the goods one has. Quality and hierarchy arise from the
> BAUM
> 
> subordination of goods and their availability to man’s “being”
> and his true vocation.
> This shows that although development has a necessary economic
> dimension, since it must supply the greatest possible number of the
> world’s inhabitants with an availability of goods essential for them
> “to be,” it is not limited to that dimension. If it is limited to this,
> then it turns against those whom it is meant to benefit.
> The characteristics of full development, one which is “more
> human” and able to sustain itself at the level of the true vocation of
> men and women without denying economic requirements, were
> described by Paul vi.
> 29. Development which is not only economic must be measured
> and oriented according to the reality and vocation of man seen in
> 
> 
> 94          his totality, namely, according to his interior dimension. There is no
> doubt that he needs created goods and the products of industry,
> which is constantly being enriched by scientific and technological
> progress. And the ever greater availability of material goods not
> only meets needs but also opens new horizons. The danger of the
> misuse of material goods and the appearance of artificial needs
> should in no way hinder the regard we have for the new goods and
> resources placed at our disposal and the use we make of them. On
> the contrary, we must see them as a gift from God and as a response
> to the human vocation, which is fully realized in Christ.
> …
> 32. … Collaboration in the development of the whole person and of
> every human being is in fact a duty of all towards all, and must be
> shared by the four parts of the world: East and West, North and
> South; or, as we say today, by the different “worlds.” If, on the con-
> trary, people try to achieve it in only one part, or in only one world,
> they do so at the expense of the others; and, precisely because the
> others are ignored, their own development becomes exaggerated
> and misdirected.
> Peoples or nations too have a right to their own full devel-
> opment, which while including as already said the economic
> and social aspects should also include individual cultural
> identity and openness to the transcendent. Not even the need
> for development can be used as an excuse for imposing on
> others one’s own way of life or own religious belief.
> 33. Nor would a type of development which did not respect and
> promote human rights — personal and social, economic and politi-
> cal, including the rights of nations and of peoples — be really worthy of
> man.
> Today, perhaps more than in the past, the intrinsic contradiction of
> a development limited only to its economic element is seen more
> clearly. Such development easily subjects the human person and his
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> deepest needs to the demands of economic planning and selfish
> profit.
> The intrinsic connection between authentic development and
> respect for human rights once again reveals the moral character of
> development: the true elevation of man, in conformity with the
> natural and historical vocation of each individual, is not attained
> only by exploiting the abundance of goods and services, or by hav-
> ing available perfect infrastructures.
> When individuals and communities do not see a rigorous
> respect for the moral, cultural and spiritual requirements, based on
> the dignity of the person and on the proper identity of each com-
> munity, beginning with the family and religious societies, then all
> the rest — availability of goods, abundance of technical resources
> applied to daily life, a certain level of material well-being — will
> 
> 
> prove unsatisfying and in the end contemptible. The Lord clearly
> says this in the Gospel, when he calls the attention of all to the true
> hierarchy of values: “For what will it profit a man, if he gains the
> whole world and forfeits his life?” (Mt 16:26).
> True development, in keeping with the specific needs of the
> human being man or woman, child, adult or old person implies,
> especially for those who actively share in this process and are
> responsible for it, a lively awareness of the value of the rights of all
> and of each person. It likewise implies a lively awareness of the need
> to respect the right of every individual to the full use of the bene-
> fits offered by science and technology.
> On the internal level of every nation, respect for all rights takes
> on great importance, especially: the right to life at every stage of its
> existence; the rights of the family, as the basic social community, or
> “cell of society”; justice in employment relationships; the rights
> inherent in the life of the political community as such; the rights
> based on the transcendent vocation of the human being, beginning
> with the right of freedom to profess and practice one’s own religious
> belief.
> …
> In order to be genuine, development must be achieved within the
> framework of solidarity and freedom, without ever sacrificing either of
> them under whatever pretext. The moral character of development
> and its necessary promotion are emphasized when the most rigorous
> respect is given to all the demands deriving from the order of truth
> and good proper to the human person. Furthermore the Christian
> who is taught to see that man is the image of God, called to share
> in the truth and the good which is God himself, does not understand
> a commitment to development and its application which excludes
> regard and respect for the unique dignity of this “image.” In other
> words, true development must be based on the love of God and neigh-
> bor, and must help to promote the relationships between individuals
> BAUM
> 
> and society. This is the “civilization of love” of which Paul vi often
> spoke.
> 34. Nor can the moral character of development exclude respect for
> the beings which constitute the natural world, which the ancient
> Greeks — alluding precisely to the order which distinguishes it —
> called the “cosmos.” Such realities also demand respect, by virtue of
> a threefold consideration which it is useful to reflect upon carefully.
> The first consideration is the appropriateness of acquiring
> a growing awareness of the fact that one cannot use with
> impunity the different categories of beings, whether living or
> inanimate — animals, plants, the natural elements — simply
> as one wishes, according to one’s own economic needs. On the
> contrary, one must take into account the nature of each being and of its
> mutual connection in an ordered system, which is precisely the
> 
> 
> 96          “cosmos.”
> The second consideration is based on the realization which
> is perhaps more urgent that natural resources are limited;
> some are not, as it is said, renewable. Using them as if they were
> inexhaustible, with absolute dominion, seriously endangers their
> availability not only for the present generation but above all for
> generations to come.
> The third consideration refers directly to the consequences of a cer-
> tain type of development on the quality of life in the industrialized
> zones. We all know that the direct or indirect result of indus-
> trialization is, ever more frequently, the pollution of the envi-
> ronment, with serious consequences for the health of the
> population.
> Once again it is evident that development, the planning which
> governs it, and the way in which resources are used must include
> respect for moral demands. One of the latter undoubtedly imposes
> limits on the use of the natural world. The dominion granted to
> man by the Creator is not an absolute power, nor can one speak of a
> freedom to “use and misuse,” or to dispose of things as one pleases.
> The limitation imposed from the beginning by the Creator himself
> and expressed symbolically by the prohibition not to “eat of the
> fruit of the tree” (cf. Gen 2:16–17) shows clearly enough that, when
> it comes to the natural world, we are subject not only to biological
> laws but also to moral ones, which cannot be violated with
> impunity.
> …
> 37. This general analysis, which is religious in nature, can be sup-
> plemented by a number of particular considerations to demonstrate that
> among the actions and attitudes opposed to the will of God, the
> good of neighbor and the “structures” created by them, two are very
> typical: on the one hand, the all-consuming desire for profit, and
> on the other, the thirst for power, with the intention of imposing
> one’s will upon others. In order to characterize better each of these
> attitudes, one can add the expression: “at any price.” In other words,
> we are faced with the absolutizing of human attitudes with all its
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> possible consequences. Since these attitudes can exist independently
> of each other, they can be separated; however in today’s world both
> are indissolubly united, with one or the other predominating.
> Obviously, not only individuals fall victim to this double atti-
> tude of sin; nations and blocs can do so too. And this favors even
> more the introduction of the “structures of sin” of which I have spo-
> ken. If certain forms of modern “imperialism” were consid-
> ered in the light of these moral criteria, we would see that
> hidden behind certain decisions, apparently inspired only by
> economics or politics, are real forms of idolatry: of money,
> ideology, class, technology.
> I have wished to introduce this type of analysis above all in order
> to point out the true nature of the evil which faces us with respect
> to the development of peoples: it is a question of a moral evil, the
> fruit of many sins which lead to “structures of sin.” To diagnose the
> 
> 
> evil in this way is to identify precisely, on the level of human con-
> duct, the path to be followed in order to overcome it.
> 38. … In the context of these reflections the decision to set out or
> to continue the journey involves, above all, a moral value which men
> and women of faith recognize as a demand of God’s will, the only
> true foundation of an absolutely binding ethic.
> One would hope that also men and women without an explicit
> faith would be convinced that the obstacles to integral development
> are not only economic but rest on more profound attitudes which
> human beings can make into absolute values. Thus one would
> hope that all those who, to some degree or other, are respon-
> sible for ensuring a “more human life” for their fellow human
> beings, whether or not they are inspired by a religious faith,
> will become fully aware of the urgent need to change the spir-
> itual attitudes which define each individual’s relationship
> with self, with neighbor, with even the remotest human com-
> munities, and with nature itself; and all of this in view of
> higher values such as the common good or, to quote the felicitous
> expression of the Encyclical Populorum Progressio, the full devel-
> opment “of the whole individual and of all people.”
> …
> It is above all a question of interdependence, sensed as a system deter-
> mining relationships in the contemporary world, in its economic,
> cultural, political and religious elements, and accepted as a moral
> category. When interdependence becomes recognized in this way, the
> correlative response as a moral and social attitude, as a “virtue,” is
> solidarity. This then is not a feeling of vague compassion or shallow
> distress at the misfortunes of so many people, both near and far. On
> the contrary, it is a firm and persevering determination to commit one-
> self to the common good; that is to say to the good of all and of each
> individual, because we are all really responsible for all. This deter-
> mination is based on the solid conviction that what is hindering full
> development is that desire for profit and that thirst for power
> already mentioned. These attitudes and “structures of sin” are only
> BAUM
> 
> conquered — presupposing the help of divine grace — by a diamet-
> rically opposed attitude: a commitment to the good of one’s neighbor
> with the readiness, in the Gospel sense, to “lose oneself” for the sake
> of the other instead of exploiting him, and to “serve him” instead of
> oppressing him for one’s own advantage (cf. Mt 10:40–42; 20:25;
> Mk 10:42–45; Lk 22:25–27).
> 39. The exercise of solidarity within each society is valid when its
> members recognize one another as persons. Those who are more
> influential, because they have a greater share of goods and common
> services, should feel responsible for the weaker and be ready to share
> with them all they possess. Those who are weaker, for their part, in
> the same spirit of solidarity, should not adopt a purely passive
> attitude or one that is destructive of the social fabric, but, while
> claiming their legitimate rights, should do what they can for the
> 
> 
> 98          good of all. The intermediate groups, in their turn, should not self-
> ishly insist on their particular interests, but respect the interests of
> others.
> Positive signs in the contemporary world are the growing
> awareness of the solidarity of the poor among themselves,
> their efforts to support one another, and their public demonstra-
> tions on the social scene which, without recourse to violence,
> present their own needs and rights in the face of the ineffi-
> ciency or corruption of the public authorities. By virtue of her
> own evangelical duty the Church feels called to take her stand
> beside the poor, to discern the justice of their requests, and to help
> satisfy them, without losing sight of the good of groups in the con-
> text of the common good.
> The same criterion is applied by analogy in international rela-
> tionships. Interdependence must be transformed into solidar-
> ity, based upon the principle that the goods of creation are
> meant for all. That which human industry produces through the
> processing of raw materials, with the contribution of work, must
> serve equally for the good of all.
> Surmounting every type of imperialism and determination to pre-
> serve their own hegemony, the stronger and richer nations must have
> a sense of moral responsibility for the other nations, so that a real
> international system may be established which will rest on the foun-
> dation of the equality of all peoples and on the necessary respect for
> their legitimate differences. The economically weaker countries, or
> those still at subsistence level, must be enabled, with the assistance
> of other peoples and of the international community, to make a con-
> tribution of their own to the common good with their treasures of
> humanity and culture, which otherwise would be lost for ever.
> Solidarity helps us to see the “other” — whether a person, people or
> nation — not just as some kind of instrument, with a work capac-
> ity and physical strength to be exploited at low cost and then dis-
> carded when no longer useful, but as our “neighbor,” a “helper” (cf.
> Gen 2:18–20), to be made a sharer, on a par with ourselves, in the
> banquet of life to which all are equally invited by God. Hence the
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> importance of reawakening the religious awareness of individuals and
> peoples.
> Thus the exploitation, oppression and annihilation of others are
> excluded. These facts, in the present division of the world into
> opposing blocs, combine to produce the danger of war and an exces-
> sive preoccupation with personal security, often to the detriment of
> the autonomy, freedom of decision, and even the territorial integrity
> of the weaker nations situated within the so-called “areas of influ-
> ence” or “safety belts.”
> …
> In this way, the solidarity which we propose is the path to
> peace and at the same time to development. For world peace is
> inconceivable unless the world’s leaders come to recognize that
> 
> 
> interdependence in itself demands the abandonment of the politics of      99
> blocs, the sacrifice of all forms of economic, military or political
> imperialism, and the transformation of mutual distrust into collab-
> oration. This is precisely the act proper to solidarity among individu-
> als and nations.
> The motto of the pontificate of my esteemed predecessor Pius
> xii was Opus iustitiae pax, peace as the fruit of justice. Today one
> could say, with the same exactness and the same power of biblical
> inspiration (cf. Is 32:17; Jas 3:18): Opus solidaritatis pax, peace as
> the fruit of solidarity.
> The goal of peace, so desired by everyone, will certainly be
> achieved through the putting into effect of social and international
> justice, but also through the practice of the virtues which favor
> togetherness, and which teach us to live in unity, so as to build in
> unity, by giving and receiving, a new society and a better world.
> …
> 42. Today more than in the past, the Church’s social doctrine must
> be open to an international outlook, in line with the Second Vatican
> Council, the most recent Encyclicals, and particularly in line with
> the Encyclical which we are commemorating. It will not be super-
> fluous therefore to reexamine and further clarify in this light the
> characteristic themes and guidelines dealt with by the Magisterium
> in recent years.
> Here I would like to indicate one of them: the option or love of
> preference for the poor. This is an option, or a special form of pri-
> macy in the exercise of Christian charity, to which the whole tradi-
> tion of the Church bears witness. It affects the life of each Christian
> inasmuch as he or she seeks to imitate the life of Christ, but it
> applies equally to our social responsibilities and hence to our manner
> of living, and to the logical decisions to be made concerning the
> ownership and use of goods.
> Today, furthermore, given the worldwide dimension which the
> social question has assumed, this love of the preference for the poor,
> and the decisions which it inspires in us, cannot but embrace the
> immense multitudes of the hungry, the needy, the homeless, those
> BAUM
> 
> without medical care and, above all, those without hope of a better
> future. It is impossible not to take account of the existence of these
> realities. To ignore them would mean becoming like the “rich man”
> who pretended not to know the beggar Lazarus lying at his gate (cf.
> Lk 16:19-31). …
> 43. The motivating concern for the poor — who are, in the very
> meaningful term, “the Lord’s poor” — must be translated at all lev-
> els into concrete actions, until it decisively attains a series of neces-
> sary reforms. Each local situation will show what reforms are most
> urgent and how they can be achieved. But those demanded by the
> situation of international imbalance, as already described, must not
> be forgotten.
> In this respect I wish to mention specifically: the reform of the
> international trade system, which is mortgaged to protection-
> 
> 
> 100          ism and increasing bilateralism; the reform of the world mone-
> tary and financial system, today recognized as inadequate; the
> question of technological exchanges and their proper use; the
> need for a review of the structure of the existing International
> Organizations, in the framework of an international juridical
> order.
> The international trade system today frequently discriminates
> against the products of the young industries of the developing
> countries and discourages the producers of raw materials. There
> exists, too, a kind of international division of labor, whereby the low-
> cost products of certain countries which lack effective labor laws or
> which are too weak to apply them are sold in other parts of the
> world at considerable profit for the companies engaged in this form
> of production, which knows no frontiers.
> The world monetary and financial system is marked by an excessive
> fluctuation of exchange rates and interest rates, to the detriment of
> the balance of payments and the debt situation of the poorer
> countries.
> Forms of technology and their transfer constitute today one of the
> major problems of international exchange and of the grave damage
> deriving therefrom. There are quite frequent cases of developing
> countries being denied needed forms of technology or sent useless
> ones.
> In the opinion of many, the International Organizations seem to be
> at a stage of their existence when their operating methods, operat-
> ing costs and effectiveness need careful review and possible correc-
> tion. Obviously, such a delicate process cannot be put into effect
> without the collaboration of all. This presupposes the overcoming
> of political rivalries and the renouncing of all desire to manipulate
> these Organizations, which exist solely for the common good.
> …
> 44. Development demands above all a spirit of initiative on
> the part of the countries which need it. Each of them must act
> in accordance with its own responsibilities, not expecting everything
> from the more favored countries, and acting in collaboration with
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> others in the same situation. Each must discover and use to the best
> advantage its own area of freedom. Each must make itself capable of
> initiatives responding to its own needs as a society. Each must like-
> wise realize its true needs as well as the rights and duties which
> oblige it to respond to them. The development of peoples begins
> and is most appropriately accomplished in the dedication of each
> people to its own development, in collaboration with others.
> …
> In order to take this path, the nations themselves will have to identify
> their own priorities and clearly recognize their own needs, according
> to the particular conditions of their people, their geographical set-
> tling and their cultural traditions.
> 
> 
> …                                                                          101
> 45. … An essential condition for global solidarity is autonomy and
> free self-determination, also within associations such as those indi-
> cated. But at the same time solidarity demands a readiness to accept
> the sacrifices necessary for the good of the whole world community.
> 46. Peoples and individuals aspire to be free: their search for full
> development signals their desire to overcome the many obstacles
> preventing them from enjoying a “more human life.”
> Recently, in the period following the publication of the Encycli-
> cal Populorum Progressio, a new way of confronting the problems
> of poverty and underdevelopment has spread in some areas of the
> world, especially in Latin America. This approach makes liberation
> the fundamental category and the first principle of action. The pos-
> itive values, as well as the deviations and risks of deviation, which
> are damaging to the faith and are connected with this form of the-
> ological reflection and method, have been appropriately pointed out
> by the Church’s Magisterium.
> It is fitting to add that the aspiration to freedom from all forms
> of slavery affecting the individual and society is something noble and
> legitimate. This in fact is the purpose of development, or rather lib-
> eration and development, taking into account the intimate connec-
> tion between the two.
> Development which is merely economic is incapable of
> setting man free; on the contrary, it will end by enslaving him
> further. Development that does not include the cultural, tran-
> scendent and religious dimensions of man and society, to the
> extent that it does not recognize the existence of such dimen-
> sions and does not endeavor to direct its goals and priorities
> towards the same, is even less conducive to authentic libera-
> tion. Human beings are totally free only when they are
> completely themselves, in the fullness of their rights and
> duties. The same can be said about society as a whole.
> BAUM
> 
> Excerpt from “Justitia in Mundo”
> World Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly, 30 November 1971
> 71. (8) In order that the right to development may be fulfilled by
> action:
> (a) people should not be hindered from attaining development in
> accordance with their own culture;
> (b) through mutual cooperation, all peoples should be able to
> become the principal architects of their own economic and social
> development;
> (c) every people, as active and responsible members of human soci-
> ety, should be able to cooperate for the attainment of the common
> good on an equal footing with other peoples.
> 
> 
> REFERENCES
> 
> acb (American Catholic Bishops). 1984. Pastoral letter: economic justice for all.
> Origins: National Catholic Documentary Service, 14(1884), 338–383.
> acoun (Anglican Community Office at the United Nations). 1996. A Christ-
> ian response to the international debt crisis. Conference programme and
> recommendations of the Round Table Conference, May 16–17, 1996.
> acoun, New York, ny, usa. 13 pp.
> Baum, G. 1998. Sciences sociales et option pour les pauvres. Relations, Mar,
> pp. 46–49.
> Bellah, R. 1970. Beyond belief. Harper and Row, New York, ny, usa. 298 pp.
> Berger, P. 1966. The sacred canopy: elements of a sociological theory of religion.
> Doubleday, Garden City, ny, usa. 230 pp.
> Drache, D. 1995. Celebrating Innis: the man, the legacy, our future. In D.
> Drache, ed., Harold Innis: staples, markets and cultural change.
> McGill–Queen’s University Press, Montréal, pq, Canada. pp. xiii–liii.
> eca (Economic Commission for Africa). 1989. African alternative framework to
> structural adjustment programmes for socio-economic recovery and trans-
> formation. eca, Addis Ababa. un Ref. No. e/eca/cm.15/6/Rev.3.
> Fabella, V. 1997. Ecumenical Association of Third World Theologians
> (eatwot). In Dictionary of mission. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp.
> 117–120.
> George, S. 1976. How the other half dies: the real reasons for world hunger.
> Penguin Books, New York, ny, usa. 352 pp.
> Goulet, D. 1971. The cruel choice: a new concept in the theory of development.
> Athenaeum, New York, ny, usa. 362 pp.
> Gutierrez, G. 1973. A theology of liberation. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
> 323 pp.
> Habermas, J. 1971 [1968]. Knowledge and human interest. Beacon Press,
> Boston, ma, usa. 256 pp.
> Hargreaves, J. 1975. Sport, power and culture. St Martin’s Press, New York, ny,
> usa. 258 pp.
> John Paul ii. 1987. Sollicitudo rei socialis. Libreria Editrice Vaticana, Vatican
> City, Italy. 102 pp.
> SOLIDARITY WITH THE POOR
> 
> lab (Latin American Bishops). 1968. Medellin documents: justice, peace, fam-
> ily and demography, poverty of the Church. In Gremillion, J., presenter,
> The gospel of peace and justice. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
> pp. 445–476.
> Lebret, L.-J. 1959. Pour une civilisation solidaire. Les Éditions Ouvrières, Paris,
> France. 141 pp.
> Lopez, D. 1995. Curators of Buddha: the study of Buddhisms under colonial-
> ism. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, il, usa. 298 pp.
> Malley, F. 1968. Le Père Lebret : l’économie au service des hommes. Les Éditions
> du Cerf, Paris, France. 254 pp.
> Mannheim, K. 1936 [1928]. Ideology and utopia. Harcourt, Brace and Co.,
> New York, ny, usa. 319 pp.
> Martin, H.-P.; Schumann, H. 1997. The global trap: globalization and the
> assault on democracy and prosperity. Black Rose, Montréal, pq, Canada.
> 269 pp.
> 
> 
> Mihevc, J. n.d. The market tells them so: the World Bank and economic fun-
> damentalism in Africa. Zed Books, London, uk. 320 pp.
> O’Brien, D.; Shannon, T., ed. 1992. Catholic social thought: the documentary
> heritage. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. 668 pp.
> Orbis Books. 1997. Dictionary of mission. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa.
> 518 pp.
> Paul vi. 1967. Populorum progressio: on the development of peoples. In
> Gremillion, J., presenter, The gospel of peace and justice. Orbis Books,
> Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp. 387–415. Internet: listserv.american.edu/
> catholic/church/papal/paul.vi/p6popp.txt
> Rostow, W.W. 1960. The stages of economic growth: a non-communist mani-
> festo. University Press, Cambridge, uk. 178 pp.
> Said, E. 1978. Orientalism. Pantheon Books, New York, ny, usa. 368 pp.
> sbsga (Synod of Bishops, Second General Assembly). 1971. Justitia in mundo:
> justice in the world. In Gremillion, J., presenter, The gospel of peace and
> justice. Orbis Books, Maryknoll, ny, usa. pp. 513–529.
> Scheler, M. 1980 [1924]. Problems of the sociology of knowledge. Routledge
> and Kegan Paul, London, uk. 239 pp.
> Serageldin, I.; Barrett, R., ed. 1996. Ethics and spiritual values: promoting
> environmentally sustainable development. International Bank for Recon-
> struction and Development–World Bank, Washington, dc, usa. Environ-
> mentally Sustainable Development Proceedings Series, No. 12. 54 pp.
> United Nations. 1995. Our global neighborhood. Oxford University Press,
> New York, ny, usa. 410 pp.
> Wolfensohn, J. 1996. New partnerships. In Serageldin, I.; Barrett, R., ed.,
> Ethics and spiritual values: promoting environmentally sustainable devel-
> opment. International Bank for Reconstruction and Development–World
> Bank, Washington, dc, usa. Environmentally Sustainable Development
> Proceedings Series, No. 12. p. 1.
> APPENDIX 1
> 
> Contributing
> Authors
> 
> Farzam Arbab
> Farzam Arbab’s doctorate in theoretical particle physics led him to
> Colombia to work with the University Development Program of the
> Rockefeller Foundation to strengthen the Department of Physics at the
> Universidad del Valle. While there he began to study the relationship
> between science, technology, and educational policy and their effects on
> development, which led him and a group of colleagues to form the Fun-
> dación para la Aplicación y Enseñanza de las Ciencias (Foundation for
> the Application and Teaching of Science). This organization still func-
> tions as a successful development program in Colombia and has earned
> an international reputation for its application of spiritual principles in
> education and development. In 1993, Dr Arbab was elected to the inter-
> national governing body of the Bahá’í Faith, on which he currently
> serves.
> Azizan Baharuddin
> Dr Baharuddin’s degrees in biology and the history and philosophy of
> science allowed her to pursue her interest in the relationship between
> Islam and science. Her research interests and teaching areas include the
> history and philosophy of science; science and religion; ethics, environ-
> mental ethics, and bioethics; gender studies and human development;
> and futures studies. She has written various publications on the issues of
> science and faith and ethics and the environment. Dr Baharuddin is an
> associate professor in the Department of Science and Technology Stud-
> 
> 
> ies at the University of Malaya.                                             247
> APPENDIX   1
> 
> Gregory Baum
> With degrees in mathematics, sociology, and Catholic theology,
> Dr Baum has for 40 years been a professor of theology and religious
> studies. He currently teaches religious studies at McGill University in
> Montréal, Quebec. He has written more than 20 books on ethics and
> economics, solidarity, and various approaches to social justice within the
> Christian churches. He is a member of the Karl Polanyi Institute at
> Concordia University and was a member of a research team on environ-
> mental ethics at Université du Québec à Montréal. He is also an officer
> of the Order of Canada.
> Pierre Beemans
> Pierre Beemans has degrees in education and philosophy and has worked
> in the field of international development for more than 30 years, includ-
> 
> ing living and working for extensive periods in Latin America and
> Africa. He has held both field and management positions with cuso and
> the Canadian International Development Agency and was for 3 years a
> policy adviser in the Privy Council Office of the Government of Canada.
> Since 1992, he has been Vice-President, Corporate Services Branch, of
> the International Development Research Centre.
> Sharon Harper
> Her degrees in journalism, law, and theology led Sharon Harper to seek
> a position that would allow her to explore the scriptures and practice of
> the world’s religions and their manifestations, roles, and effects in the
> public sphere. After graduating from Harvard Divinity School, she
> became the project officer for the International Development Research
> Centre’s Science, Religion, and Development project. She is a lawyer
> and legal researcher with experience in human-rights and discrimina-
> tion issues, both domestic and international; an experienced writer and
> editor; and a program manager who is knowledgeable about mediation
> and arbitration techniques, issues of gender and research for develop-
> ment, and feminist ethics and epistemologies.
> Promilla Kapur
> With degrees in psychology and sociology, Dr Kapur has worked as a
> researcher, teacher of sociology, and counselor–therapist for more than
> 30 years. She specializes in the sociology of women, family, and mar-
> riage and has done extensive empirical research on women, adolescents
> and girl children, working women, family violence, and sex workers.
> She has published extensively in these areas, with books in English,
> Hindi, and Japanese. She has been a student of Indian culture, Hinduism,
> interfaith dialogue, and integrated human development. Since 1984 she
> has been the director of the Integrated Human Development Services
> Foundation, a charitable organization providing counseling and crisis
> intervention based on the principle of whole health, which includes
> human and spiritual values. She has been honoured by the British
> CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS
> 
> International Biographical Centre, the American Biographical Institute,
> and the All India Conference of Intellectuals.
> William Ryan, S.J.
> Dr Ryan entered the Jesuit Order in 1944 and was ordained into the
> priesthood in 1957. He has an ma in labour relations and a PhD in eco-
> nomics from Harvard University and has been very active in Canada and
> the United States thinking, writing, and organizing around social-
> justice, ethics, and economic issues. He was the founding director of the
> Center of Concern (Washington, dc) and has been a senior research fel-
> low at the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security and
> held the chair in Social Faith and Justice at St Paul University in
> Ottawa. He is the director of the Jesuit Project on Ethics in Politics in
> Ottawa and was recently appointed coordinator of the Jesuit Centre for
> 
> Social Faith and Justice. Dr Ryan is the author of many articles and lec-
> tures on multinational corporations and the new international economic
> order, the poor, the relationships between faith and social justice and
> between faith and culture, and the role of religious people in socioeco-
> nomic change. He has been working with the Science, Religion, and
> Development project since its inception in 1993.
> APPENDIX 2
> 
> Acronyms and
> Abbreviations
> 
> cswr       Center for the Study of World Religions
> dav        Dayanand Anglo Vedic
> fundaec    Fundación para la Aplicación y Enseñanza de las
> Ciencias (Foundation for the Application and Teaching
> of the Sciences) [Colombia]
> idrc       International Development Research Centre
> iiit       International Institute of Islamic Thought
> imf        International Monetary Fund
> mais       Malaysian Academy of Islamic Science
> minds      Malaysian Institute for Development Studies
> ngo        nongovernmental organization
> s&t        science and technology
> sap        structural-adjustment policy
> srd        science, religion, and development
> tnc        transnational corporation
> undp       United Nations Development Programme
> 
> 
>
> — *Solidarity with the Poor (Used by permission of the curator)*