Journal of Moral Theology, Vol. 6, No. 1 (2017): 96-111 Populorum Progressio’s Vision in an Unequal World: A Theological Ethical Evaluation from the Global South Raymond Aina, MSP OPULORUM PROGRESSIO FULLY DEVELOPED the vision of the Catholic Church as a global church that has special attention for peoples and nations on the margins of globalization. The P encyclical shows the “certain progressive tendencies” Gio- vanni Battista Montini already exhibited during his episcopacy at Mi- lan.1 Even if the scathing criticisms Paul VI had for neo-liberal glob- alization and international economic structures caused some discom- fort within the Church and the international community, the holistic vision of human development in Populorum Progressio has inspired and deepened Catholic Social Thought since then. However, is the world any better fifty years after the prophetic words of Paul VI? Who is listening to Populorum Progressio today where the global economy serves just 1% of the world’s population and neglects much of the Global South?2 This essay investigates this question in four parts. First, this essay summarizes Populorum Pro- gressio’s statement of the economic problem facing the world and, second, Paul VI’s responsibility ethics as a response to this problem. Third, the essay traces how subsequent encyclicals shifted Populorum Progressio’s emphasis on solidarity as a principle of justice resulting in structural change to a virtue that guides personal change. The final section indicates how Populorum Progressio’s emphasis on solidarity as work of justice can help the Global South—using the example of Nigeria. POPULORUM PROGRESSIO’S STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM In Populorum Progressio, Paul VI spells out the multidimensional 1 Allan Figueroa Deck, “Commentary on Populorum progressio (On the Develop- ment of Peoples),” in Modern Catholic Social Teaching: Commentaries and Inter- pretations, ed. Kenneth R. Himes, O.F.M. (Washington, DC: Georgetown Univer- sity Press, 2005), 295. 2 Deborah Hardoon, Sophia Ayele, and Ricardo Fuentes-Nieva, An Economy for the 1%: How Privilege and Power in the Economy Drive Extreme Inequality and How This Can Be Stopped (Oxford: Oxfam International, 2016). Populorum Progressio’s Vision 97 problem of the unequal distribution of wealth. These include impov- erished nations, lack of progress by poorer nations, the need for inter- national social justice, and the necessity of socio-economic liberty of former colonies (nos. 4-6). Also, a mono-economy at the mercy of price fluctuation in international markets causes a post-colonial gloom (no. 7). Together, these factors widened the gap between the haves and have-nots, and the result is an obscene inequality with a small minority enjoying the wealth and products of the whole (no. 9). Against this backdrop, Paul VI articulates the Church’s responsi- bility: “The progressive development of peoples is an object of deep interest and concern to the Church.” The Church is most interested in the bottom billion that are “consciously striving for fuller growth” (no. 1). The Church has this responsibility because of her nature as a sac- rament of Christ’s universal salvation. Due to the universality of her status and mission, she is best primed to offer the international com- munity “a global perspective on man and human realities” (no. 13). Populorum Progressio’s vision of development is holistic. Authentic development must factor in the transcendental (nos. 14-16). Beyond offering maximal moral expectations,3 Populorum Progressio offers a baseline ethics about human existence: if indeed we are “morally se- rious persons,”4 there are human conditions that are morally unac- ceptable (no. 21). The encyclical offers two ethical principles from the Catholic So- cial Tradition to back its assertion. Anchored in Gen. 1:28, the goods of the earth belong to every human being; hence, whatever the earth produces is destined for all human beings. The rights conferred on the citizens of the modern state are subordinated to these principles (no. 22). Accordingly, Populorum Progressio advocates for the principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods to evaluate contemporary conditions and to ameliorate socio-economic anoma- lies. For instance, contrary to unbridled liberalism’s claim regarding the right to private property, Populorum Progressio indicates that this right is not absolute or unconditional. In fact, there are moral grounds for when certain properties can be expropriated (no. 24).5 Given wide- spread violations of the twin principles of the common good and the universal destination of goods, Populorum Progressio warns of grave dangers if the world does not make haste to reform and restructure 3 Paul VI calls on all to develop supererogatory and noble “values of love and friendship, of prayer and contemplation” (no. 20). 4 This term is appropriated from Ian Markham’s monograph on religious ethics, Do Morals Matter?: A Guide to Contemporary Religious Ethics (Massachusetts: Black- well, 2007), 181-191. 5 This papal exhortation appears to have partly inspired the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace’s Towards a Better Distribution of Land: The Challenge of Agrar- ian Reform, as well as certain positions in the Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. See Compendium, no. 180. 98 Raymond Aina both domestic and international economic systems based on Western- style capitalist economies (nos. 29-30). In responding to this situation, however, Paul VI asks for “reform, not revolution” (nos. 30-31). He reasons that reforms are not as mor- ally problematic as revolutions which tends to produce as much evils as the ones their promoters want to redress. As Paul VI indicates, we cannot do what is morally evil or what we foresee will bring dispro- portionate evil consequences: “The evil situation that exists, and it surely is evil, may not be dealt with in such a way that an even worse situation results” (no. 31). Hence, in confronting evil situations, peo- ple must not lose their moral sense and prudence.6 Nevertheless, one can argue that based on the virtue of prudence and our moral sense, Populorum Progressio gives a caveat for revolution. Reform is the first line of response. Revolution at times might be a last resort, if cer- tain conditions prevail. “Everyone knows, however, that revolutionary uprisings—except where there is manifest, longstanding tyranny which would do great damage to fundamental personal rights and dangerous harm to the common good of the country—engender new injustices, introduce new inequities and bring new disasters” (no. 31, italics added). It seems this statement recognizes the importance of prudence and moral sense in discerning appropriate action in the face of grave evil to both the personal and the common good. PAUL VI’S RESPONSIBILITY ETHIC In a 1961 Lenten pastoral, Montini, the future Paul VI, offers a glimpse of his responsibility ethic when considering the ambivalence of science and technology. He argues that, while science and technol- ogy increased belief in human liberty, they negatively impacted the moral order by enthroning moral relativism. By exalting human lib- erty, moral relativism divorced liberty from objective principles, “giv- ing it complete autonomy.”7 On the contrary, contends Montini, the human person is “made up of autonomy and heteronomy. Liberty as an end in itself means a liberty that is irrational and uncontrollable.”8 Reawakening the moral sense of heteronomy is necessary in “devel- oping a strong and healthy humanism, the worthy and sacred use of life or any virile and Christian virtues.”9 6 For Cardinal Giovanni Battista Montini, the future Paul VI, moral sense means “ra- tional enquiry, and which precedes the formulation of juridical norms by the legisla- ture. It is the sense of equity inherent in the human condition, which claims effective application first, before a formal legal system gives it expression in positive law.” Prudence is an intellectual faculty which evaluates human action regarding its good- ness or moral evil. See James Walsh, ed. The Mind of Paul VI: On the Church and the World (London: Geoffrey Chapman, 1964), 85 n. 2. 7 Walsch, The Mind of Paul VI, 91. 8 Walsch, The Mind of Paul VI, 91. 9 Walsch, The Mind of Paul VI, 93. Populorum Progressio’s Vision 99 This heteronomous dimension of the human person offers the ground for a responsibility ethic which Paul VI articulates in Popu- lorum Progressio. Paul VI understands responsibility as centering on human ability to be an active moral agent, one with the sense and ca- pacity to contribute to the growth of one’s self-worth (no. 9). Personal responsibility therefore is a sense of obligation within a person to bet- ter one’s worth and surrounding without waiting for an external com- pulsion. This sense means a movement away from a herd-mentality (no. 6). In no. 15, Paul VI offers his understanding of person-centered responsibility: “In God's plan, every man is born to seek self-fulfill- ment, for every human life is called to some task by God.” Populorum Progressio demonstrates even today that a “responsi- bility ethic” can be relational, inclusive and articulated in pluralist so- cieties in ways that make the ethic reasonable to many. This is possible if one locates the source of responsibility in heteronomy. Hence, the call of responsibility from heteronomy is an expression of devotion to God since responsibility calls us to be devoted to the Other-as-Neigh- bor (no. 42). This call of responsibility suddenly breaks the Cartesian illusion that the autonomous subject is the master and possessor of her/his world. This sense of responsibility implies that the provocation to action comes from another who “breathes the spirit for action,” an in-spira- tion into the self. Heteronomous responsibility therefore is a moral ob- ligation to action that issues from another (God, human persons) and not the self.