Cardinal Roger Etchegaray
A Jubilee on Poverty

In late November 1996 a number of Catholic organisations in Australia convened a conference, called PEOPLE FIRST, whose aim was to assist the Australian Catholic Bishops' Conference develop a plan of action to address domestic and international poverty. This was a contribution to the UN International Year for the Eradication of Poverty.
One of the keynote addresses of the PEOPLE FIRST Conference was by Cardinal Etchegaray, President of the Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, and President of the Central Committee appointed by the Pope for the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000. Because of the Cardinal's absence on medical orders, his paper was read by Archbishop Van Thuan, Vice-President of the Pontifical Council.(Bill Neville, Australia)

One of the most significant elements of the preparation and celebration of the Great Jubilee of the Year 2000 is the special place given to its social aspects Compared with other recent Holy Years, the stress on the social dimension of the jubilee may be something new. It is, however, something which belongs to the very concept of 'jubilee' as we find it in the Old Testament. In Tertio Millennio Adveniente, the Holy Father recalls that "one of the most significant consequences of the jubilee year was the general 'emancipation' of all the dwellers of the land in need of being freed" (n.12). The jubilee year, the Pope stresses, "was meant to restore equality among all the children of Israel" (ibid., n. 13). "The jubilee year was a reminder to the rich that a time would come when their Israelite slaves would once again become their equals and would be able to reclaim their rights" (ibid, n. 13).
A jubilee year was a year of restoration, a restoration of the integrity of God's original plan for humankind and for creation. When God created every element of the world, giving each its unique value and place, he also established a harmony among them. The human person, created "male and female", was entrusted with the stewardship of this God-given harmony of creation. The sinfulness of human beings, however, destroyed this harmonious relationship among persons and between people and creation. Even if its prescriptions largely remained ideals (cf. n. 13), the jubilee represented, and still represents today, a hope for a different future which the coming of the Messiah would inaugurate: a new generation of time, in which the harmonious reign of God's kingdom would be restored and brought to realisation. Poverty constitutes one of the clearest symbols of the blatant lack of equality and harmony in relationships - the product of the sinfulness of human persons.
In addressing the recent World Food Summit at the Rome headquarters of the FAO, Pope John Paul II chose especially to speak of the significance of the inequalities in today's world. He appealed for solutions which would lead to a world "in which there are no longer, side-by-side, people living in hunger and others in opulence, people who are extremely poor and those who are extremely wealthy, people who lack the bare necessities and others who waste things without thinking twice. Humanity cannot tolerate such contrasts between poverty and wealth". The parable of Dives and Lazarus witnesses to the fact the existence, side-by-side, of persons who flaunt their wealth and those who can only dream of surviving from the crumbs of such opulence is not just a factor of our times. The scandal is that, in our times, the phenomenon still exists. The scandal is that today we can repeat and repeat, in analysis after analysis, that extreme poverty still exists when we have the means to eliminate it. The scandal is that we can enthuse about the progress of globalisation while this primeval form of the failure of true human cohabitation continues to exist, and in some, areas to grow!
Any political or economic system which produces great inequalities, any political or economic system which leaves huge sectors of society on its margins, cannot really be considered to be serving the overall good of humankind. Indeed, even without invoking ethical, moral or religious grounds, an economic system which creates great inequalities is not in the long term sustainable, even economically. The fight against poverty, however, does not mean a fight against economics or economists. If anything, it should lead to a form of constructive coalition-building between the world of economics and those who bear responsibility for social concerns. Coalition-building is not easy. It requires both challenge and respect on the part of all. And, of course, it requires putting "people first".
In this context, might I say a word about the question of the international debt, a theme clearly linked to a jubilee reflection on economic issues. The Pope, in fact, asks all "Christians to raise their voice on behalf of the poor of the world, proposing the Jubilee as an appropriate time to give thought, among other things, to reducing substantially, if not cancelling outright, the international debt which seriously threatens the future of many nations" (Tertio Millenio Adveniente, n.51).
What do I mean by a 'jubilee perspective' on the debt question? It is not simply a matter of the remission of debt. It is a question of removing harsh burdens because they prevent the poorest countries from taking their place on an equitable basis alongside other countries. Debt forgiveness must be part of a process of the restoration of justice, harmony and equity, so that the poorest nations, and the poorest populations of those nations, are enabled to make a fresh start, to turn a new and more hopeful page in their history.
This will only occur, however, if "people are put first" in the designing of solutions, if each and every concrete proposal in the economic sphere is measured according to its effect on people, especially on the poor.
Also in Tertio Millennio Adveniente, the Pope stresses that "the law of Israel consisted above all in the protection of the weak". And he immediately applies this principle to the function of 'a king', to someone who has responsibility for political leadership. "A king", the Pope recalls, "was supposed to be outstanding in this regard", that is, in the protection of the weak. The Holy Father uses Psalm 72 to emphasise the responsibility of the political leader: "He will free the poor man who calls to him, and those who need help; he will have pity on the poor and the feeble, and save the lives of those in need". Centesimus Annus is often cited as a text of the present Pope which stresses the importance and the potential of the market-economy system. Indeed, the Pope recalls in that Encyclical, written in the light of the changes in Central and Eastern Europe at the end of the 1980's, that "the free market is the most efficient instrument for utilising resources and effectively responding to needs" (n.34).
But the Pope then immediately notes that "there are many human needs which find no place on the market". Centesimus Annus is not just the "Encyclical of the market economy", but also a text which stresses, in the very same paragraph that "it is a strict duty of justice and truth not to allow fundamental human needs to remain unsatisfied".
Centesimus Annus, in fact, clearly brings out the central role of the State, and of society as a whole, in defending those collective goods which cannot be safeguarded by the market alone. The Pope states that "there are collective and qualitative needs which cannot be satisfied by market mechanisms. There are important human needs which escape its logic. There are goods which by their nature cannot and must not be bought or sold" (n. 40).
As in the Psalmist's view of 'the king', the political leader, political responsibility, responsibility in economic leadership, is always a service, a responsibility especially to the weakest in society. If political responsibility or the promotion of any economic system is not seen in this context of a service to humankind, it can easily turn into an ideology, even a form of idolatry. But a word of caution about comments by Church leaders on the market economy, especially critical comments. There is no way in which we can ignore the advantages and prosperity that the market economy has brought. And when we criticise its deficiencies, when we criticise some of its negative consequences, we have to be honest and to include in such criticism ... ourselves! How many of us can truly say that we are not the sons and daughters of the market system? Can any of us say that we are immune from that most infectious of all diseases 'consumerism'? Criticism of the negative effects of a market mentality must begin with the adoption by all of us of a different life style, one in which we reject, and lead others to reject, certain options which would only contribute to accentuating the most brutal aspects of a consumerist mentality.
The care of the weakest certainly is a special responsibility of 'the king', of those who assume responsibility for leadership in society. But none of us can abdicate our own areas of responsibility. Political decisions, yes, are taken by our political leaders. But the fundamental trends and orientations of political life are influenced by a political climate, by public opinion, by the views of citizens. If today we can identify, for example, political trends which tend towards a retreat from solidarity, are these trends just the results of the decisions of politicians? Or are they the results of a lack of commitment to solidarity by large numbers of citizens? Dare I say "large numbers of Christians"?
The darling sisters of the Church's social teaching, 'Solidarity' and 'Subsidiarity', are really siamese twins! Solidarity will be achieved only when every element of society is truly activated, each in its own way, according to the principle of subsidiarity. But it is only when these elements of society act in solidarity, that we re-find the image of harmony which is part of the 'image of God' in all of creation.
Also in paragraph 13 of Tertio Millennio Adveniente, Pope John Paul II says something which is central to both the jubilee and to the entire social teaching of the Church: "The riches of Creation were to be shared as a common good of the whole of humanity" (n. 13).
In today's extremely individualistic world, we have to rediscover the social dimension of Creation and, indeed, the social dimension of the redemption wrought by Christ, which above all we celebrate during the jubilee. Certainly, part of the cause of the flight from solidarity, which is characteristic of the political culture of certain parts of today's world, draws its roots from individualism.
We have to be careful not to think that the modern-day English usage of 'the individual' is identical with the traditional notion of Catholic social thought 'the human person', a notion which is never separated from 'the common good'. The human person is not an isolated atom. Communion and community are essentials along the path of the true realisation of every individual person.
We live in a world in which there is a recognition of the harm that comes from the loss of a sense of community and from an increasing fragmentation in our societies. Yet, at times, a strongly individualistic philosophy can almost block our possibilities of responding to such harm.
Each and every human person, created in God's image and likeness, has a unique and innate dignity which must be fully respected and fostered. This means that each person has inalienable rights, as an individual, rights which must be fully respected, in every cultural situation, in every community. Indeed, communities, beginning with the family, must be so structured as to maximise the potential of each individual to exercise his or her rights.
But no society can ever be built only on the affirmation of individual rights. Family and community are not the natural enemies of individual affirmation or individual rights!
Perhaps more than ever before, there are, today, greater signs of the interdependence of human beings and communities. The concern for the environment is a clear example. Persons of all world-views clearly see care for the environment as an unchallengeable qualitative dimension of any vision of development. Indeed, over a period of less than 25 years, this qualitative dimension has moved from being the concern of a few, to being centre-stage today. There is a clear conviction that this qualitative dimension must be defended in a quantifiable manner, that the costs of this common concern must be borne and shared by all.
Part of our challenge for the future will be to show that other common concerns, other 'quality questions' concerning society and development must also be taken up and the burdens quantified and shared out.
One clear example is labour. Being competitive can be the making or breaking of an enterprise or of an economy. But there are certain 'quality conditions' that must also be met. We all know that a strategy of competitive prices for poor quality products will not last for long. Competitiveness at the cost of long-term environmental damage has today become an anathema. Can we move to a situation in which competitiveness at the cost of long-term human damage would also be politically just as incorrect? Labour conditions which exploit children, which exploit women - indeed which exploit any human person - should be the concern of all.
The term 'globalisation' is on the lips of all. It is a process which is irreversible. It is a process which could be a great force for good, because it is linked with two fundamental truths: that the goods of creation are for all, and that the fundamental global reality is the human family.
Globalisation will be a force for good in the proportion in which it is able to make these two truths a reality. In the proportion in which the process of globalisation denies, damages, or undermines these two truths, then it will be a source of grave damage and distortion in our world.
When speaking of globalisation, all experts agree that some of the poorer countries are not yet in a position to benefit from full participation in the newly emerging global markets. This applies especially to most African countries.
There is, however, little interest in taking measures to overcome this disadvantage, which in many cases puts the poorest countries way behind the starting line in the globalisation race.
When we say that the riches of creation are a common good of the entire human family, we refer to all the riches of creation: not just raw materials, but also the fruits of human ingenuity; technology and know-how, information, scientific and medical progress, and the many other fruits of modern research.
I am not saying that those who invest in research do not have a right to their just share in the fruits and profits which are the results of their labour. But the Church's teaching on the 'social mortgage' on all private property also applies to intellectual property, which is a part of God's rich gift to humanity and is given for the good of all.
The emancipation which should take place in the jubilee celebration, the regaining by Israel of its ancestral land ("It shall be a jubilee for you, when each of you shall return to his property" Lv 25:10) is due to the fact that "the land belongs to God" (25:23). To the person of faith, the riches of creation are never fully our own, but are given to us in stewardship for the benefit of all.
Solidarity with the poor is the golden key that opens the door to universal solidarity. It is not enough to share with the poor; we must live like the poor! There is a personal or ecclesial lifestyle which leaves no doubt as to the authenticity of our evangelical life. Those who have never experienced the bite of poverty in their own flesh run the risk of becoming installed in their own solitary comfort, of no longer focusing their gaze in order to discover new horizons open to a solidarity that knows no limits.

Ref.: Convergence / 7-1997.